Collusion in the OA Market - Right or Wrong?

[Terry Doyle]

In an auction situation you never quite know who all the bidders are. You might want to stand aside for a friend, which is very commendable by the way, but who's to say that he might be outbid and the art goes to a third party at a price the guy choosing to stand aside might have surpassed (and both friends then lose out)?

 

No, I don't go with the idea that being asked to stand aside by a 'casual acquaintance' is irrelevant. It's the same scenario - only the level of closeness to the other guy can vary (be it casual acquaintance, friend, very good friend, busom-buddy, etc). It's the same principle, imho (the same request is being made of you).

 

No, as I've said earlier, I don't think this type of thing is in the same league as shill-bidding, but it's still not an idea I feel comfortable endorsing. Not evil, or despicable, just not for me (why should it be?).

 

Bottom line is simply that I would never in a million years impose upon 'true friends' with such a request (which is one helluva favour to be asking, putting the idea of friendship on the line). Especially if I had the funds on hand to pay 200% FMV (why make that kind of request if you have that kind of buying power on hand, other than to save a few bucks?). And by the same token, I don't want anyone making the same request of me.

 

Not a biggie to me, but the thoughts of others was requested by the OP. I see this thread as an opportunity to compare notes. No need to get distraught when others don't quite share your views (I'm not). At the end of the day, it's only comic-art (more trophy pieces to hang on the wall). There are other more pressing tragedies unfolding on the world stage to get upset about. Count yourself lucky to have a roof over your head, food on the table and a steady income. Luxury items (e.g. a collection of OA) are just an added bonus . . . not too important, really, in the grand scheme of what life throws at you.

 

 

[vodou]

So the tragic possible loss of a higher sales price for one seller just means a higher price realized for another seller, and likely a more rational distribution of values. I mean, its not like we're not going to spend every dollar we can scrape together on this stuff.

Most people go into an upcoming sale (or are scouring CAF and dealer sites) with a chunk of money they are willing* to spend. The nature of lust** means that money will soon be gone, one way or another. What does not enrich one seller will another

 

 

*And backup money too that they are less willing to spend, but probably will anyway!

**Go into a bar tonight strike out with the preferred brunettes, who's going to turn away a nearly 9 redhead at last call? Hmmm??

[Terry Doyle]

So the tragic possible loss of a higher sales price for one seller just means a higher price realized for another seller, and likely a more rational distribution of values. I mean, its not like we're not going to spend every dollar we can scrape together on this stuff.

 

**Go into a bar tonight strike out with the preferred brunettes, who's going to turn away a nearly 9 redhead at last call? Hmmm??

 

[Terry Doyle]

So the tragic possible loss of a higher sales price for one seller just means a higher price realized for another seller, and likely a more rational distribution of values. I mean, its not like we're not going to spend every dollar we can scrape together on this stuff.

 

**Go into a bar tonight strike out with the preferred brunettes, who's going to turn away a nearly 9 redhead at last call? Hmmm??

 

 

the art, I'm going out drinking tonight!

[vodou]

No, I don't go with the idea that being asked to stand aside by a 'casual acquaintance' is irrelevant. It's the same scenario - only the level of closeness to the other guy can vary (be it casual acquaintance, friend, very good friend, busom-buddy, etc). It's the same principle, imho (the same request is being made of you).

I wonder what ya'll will think of what I believe is a similar but maybe not the same situation.

 

A few weeks ago a boardie and myself were discussing mutual appreciation for a particular artist on a particular book during a particular period. Neither of us had an example. Yet. There were probably thirty relevant issues that either of us would like interior art from. Maybe less, as it was a penciler/inker combo in particular we both liked, and there were some fill-ins and pinch hitters during the run. We also had some division as to which specific issues/storylines were preferential. (So already, we weren't necessarily competing at the same level -in the abstract- for any piece that met the penciler/inker/book combo!) With that as the common ground, we both ended up in essentially the same place...we each really just wanted one rather nice but not bank-busting example. Neither of us wanted to go new deep hoard, make a market in the artist/book, nothing like that. Just one really nice piece, each, to hang on the wall. I suggested we talk first when the next one came out, no specificity as to auction or fixed price on a site. Just that we not cut each other's throats. I should add neither of us was going to be that 200% FMV buyer either, more like 110% of FMV...tops. The conversation hasn't progressed past that, but for my end (can't speak for the other guy) the definition of "talk" is let one guy have the next one that goes 110% FMVish and then the other has free reign after that (who's first being mostly determined by who has the extra money to burn at that particular time...both of us being ebb 'n flow liquidity types on any given day).

 

Is this the same as two or more people (behind closed doors) eyeballing a specific piece, working up a bidding/non-bidding strategy, and then following through?

 

I don't think either scenario is wrong, but I think they are different.

[vodou]

So the tragic possible loss of a higher sales price for one seller just means a higher price realized for another seller, and likely a more rational distribution of values. I mean, its not like we're not going to spend every dollar we can scrape together on this stuff.

 

**Go into a bar tonight strike out with the preferred brunettes, who's going to turn away a nearly 9 redhead at last call? Hmmm??

 

 

the art, I'm going out drinking tonight!

You forgot which Board we're on....I don't believe you'll have any competition at the bar

[Terry Doyle]

So the tragic possible loss of a higher sales price for one seller just means a higher price realized for another seller, and likely a more rational distribution of values. I mean, its not like we're not going to spend every dollar we can scrape together on this stuff.

 

**Go into a bar tonight strike out with the preferred brunettes, who's going to turn away a nearly 9 redhead at last call? Hmmm??

 

 

the art, I'm going out drinking tonight!

You forgot which Board we're on....I don't believe you'll have any competition at the bar

 

Yeah, but it's a refreshing option to all the squabbling going on here.

[Jamie.Merwin]

I'll take a pint of Guinness

[delekkerste]

In an auction situation you never quite know who all the bidders are. You might want to stand aside for a friend, which is very commendable by the way, but who's to say that he might be outbid and the art goes to a third party at a price the guy choosing to stand aside might have surpassed (and both friends then lose out)?

 

And if it happens, so what? At least you weren't the one who pulled the trigger on him. And, of course, you can always check with him in advance to make sure he's going to bid to at least a certain level. Or, even bid on his behalf and then offer the piece back to him if you win. I'm happy to do what I can to help my friends get a Grail or other piece that's more meaningful to them than to me if they have a realistic shot of winning it.

 

 

No, as I've said earlier, I don't think this type of thing is in the same league as shill-bidding, but it's still not an idea I feel comfortable endorsing. Not evil, or despicable, just not for me (why should it be?).

 

Bottom line is simply that I would never in a million years impose upon 'true friends' with such a request (which is one helluva favour to be asking, putting the idea of friendship on the line). Especially if I had the funds on hand to pay 200% FMV (why make that kind of request if you have that kind of buying power on hand, other than to save a few bucks?). And by the same token, I don't want anyone making the same request of me.

 

Among "true friends", asking someone to stand down on a Grail piece, or complying with such a request (assuming the piece isn't also exceptionally meaningful to you), is not an imposition at all. Again, that's not to say that there aren't situations whereby both parties both want a piece very badly and where you just let the chips fall where they may (i.e., 99%+ of situations). But, for a case where the piece in question is exceptionally important to the other person (e.g., a Grail or near-Grail; a piece that says "To Ron" on it; a piece that they had been searching a decade for; a piece they narrowly missed out on ages ago; a special piece they were forced to sell when they fell on hard times but now want back because times are better, etc.), and where it is meaningfully less so for me, not only is it not an imposition for a true friend to be asked to not run the price up on them, but it should be their great pleasure to stand aside and hope their friend wins the piece.

 

That's what people can expect from my friendship; YMMV with others, though, apparently.

 

 

Not a biggie to me, but the thoughts of others was requested by the OP. I see this thread as an opportunity to compare notes. No need to get distraught when others don't quite share your views (I'm not). At the end of the day, it's only comic-art (more trophy pieces to hang on the wall). There are other more pressing tragedies unfolding on the world stage to get upset about. Count yourself lucky to have a roof over your head, food on the table and a steady income. Luxury items (e.g. a collection of OA) are just an added bonus . . . not too important, really, in the grand scheme of what life throws at you.

 

No one's distraught here; we're all just making conversation.

[delekkerste]

Suspense39 made a passing comment to the effect that, having passed on a piece that his friend was pursuing, he then went and bought some other piece. So the tragic possible loss of a higher sales price for one seller just means a higher price realized for another seller, and likely a more rational distribution of values. I mean, its not like we're not going to spend every dollar we can scrape together on this stuff.

 

Sure, and, the proof is in the pudding - the overall OA market has never been stronger based on the results of the past few auction cycles. People have been coordinating bidding on a small % of items at auction from day 1. All the market prices/data points you see out there already reflect such activity. There's nothing new to worry about; only something new for certain people to get on their high horse to complain about, even though there's actually nothing sinister going on in this case.

[Terry Doyle]

I'll take a pint of Guinness

 

Ah, Guinness . . . now we're talking true grails!

[Terry Doyle]

 

. . . No one's distraught here; we're all just making conversation.

 

Sure, you make a lot of valid points, and a lot of the time I do actually value your opinions (which is something I suspect that you're unlikely to afford me). It's just that you often seem overly-tenacious, with (it would seem) an unwillingness to concede on anything that doesn't correspond with your own rigid dogma.

 

I saw that type of thing happen on the Green Lantern vs Amazing Spider-man covers (that recently came up for auction) debate . Page after page of the same diatribe being thrown at us (at which point your buddy in Hong Kong told you to give it a rest and get over it).

 

If you want opinions, try treating them with mutual respect.

[Bird]

Suspense39 made a passing comment to the effect that, having passed on a piece that his friend was pursuing, he then went and bought some other piece. So the tragic possible loss of a higher sales price for one seller just means a higher price realized for another seller, and likely a more rational distribution of values. I mean, its not like we're not going to spend every dollar we can scrape together on this stuff.

 

Sure, and, the proof is in the pudding - the overall OA market has never been stronger based on the results of the past few auction cycles. People have been coordinating bidding on a small % of items at auction from day 1. All the market prices/data points you see out there already reflect such activity. There's nothing new to worry about; only something new for certain people to get on their high horse to complain about, even though there's actually nothing sinister going on in this case.

 

When you start a thread with Let the outrage begin, or not...it is a little disingenuous to accuse people of getting on their high horses.

 

 

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

No, I don't go with the idea that being asked to stand aside by a 'casual acquaintance' is irrelevant. It's the same scenario - only the level of closeness to the other guy can vary (be it casual acquaintance, friend, very good friend, busom-buddy, etc). It's the same principle, imho (the same request is being made of you).

I wonder what ya'll will think of what I believe is a similar but maybe not the same situation.

 

A few weeks ago a boardie and myself were discussing mutual appreciation for a particular artist on a particular book during a particular period. Neither of us had an example. Yet. There were probably thirty relevant issues that either of us would like interior art from. Maybe less, as it was a penciler/inker combo in particular we both liked, and there were some fill-ins and pinch hitters during the run. We also had some division as to which specific issues/storylines were preferential. (So already, we weren't necessarily competing at the same level -in the abstract- for any piece that met the penciler/inker/book combo!) With that as the common ground, we both ended up in essentially the same place...we each really just wanted one rather nice but not bank-busting example. Neither of us wanted to go new deep hoard, make a market in the artist/book, nothing like that. Just one really nice piece, each, to hang on the wall. I suggested we talk first when the next one came out, no specificity as to auction or fixed price on a site. Just that we not cut each other's throats. I should add neither of us was going to be that 200% FMV buyer either, more like 110% of FMV...tops. The conversation hasn't progressed past that, but for my end (can't speak for the other guy) the definition of "talk" is let one guy have the next one that goes 110% FMVish and then the other has free reign after that (who's first being mostly determined by who has the extra money to burn at that particular time...both of us being ebb 'n flow liquidity types on any given day).

 

Is this the same as two or more people (behind closed doors) eyeballing a specific piece, working up a bidding/non-bidding strategy, and then following through?

 

I don't think either scenario is wrong, but I think they are different.

 

Going off on a tangent, this reminds me of my younger days when a buddy and me (yeah, he was a close friend, not a casual acquaintance) would frequent the nightclubs in search of female companionship. The two of us would be strategically perched near the dance floor eyeballing who we were going to dance with.

 

We would take it in turns at who got to approach the hottie (usually, one hottie with a not-so-hottie friend). We would alternate who got fist pick on a dance-by-dance basis (until at which point we scored).

 

What has this got to do with this thread?

 

Nothing, really . . .

[comix4fun]

Suspense39 made a passing comment to the effect that, having passed on a piece that his friend was pursuing, he then went and bought some other piece. So the tragic possible loss of a higher sales price for one seller just means a higher price realized for another seller, and likely a more rational distribution of values. I mean, its not like we're not going to spend every dollar we can scrape together on this stuff.

 

Sure, and, the proof is in the pudding - the overall OA market has never been stronger based on the results of the past few auction cycles. People have been coordinating bidding on a small % of items at auction from day 1. All the market prices/data points you see out there already reflect such activity. There's nothing new to worry about; only something new for certain people to get on their high horse to complain about, even though there's actually nothing sinister going on in this case.

 

When you start a thread with Let the outrage begin, or not...it is a little disingenuous to accuse people of getting on their high horses.

 

 

 

 

 

I read that as sarcasm.....which should only lead to sarcastic horses of a medium height...max.

[Nexus]

Just getting caught up in this thread, but this pretty much sums it up for me, too.

 

In terms of my own auction bidding, I never ask anyone to back off. I'd rather everyone place their bids and let the chips fall where they may. Highest bid wins. Which is why I don't talk about my planned bidding before the auction. It's not a conversation I want to have, because I don't want to know what other people are going to be bidding on, either! I've had people tell me after the fact "hey, if you told me you wanted the piece that badly, I wouldn't have bid you up." Well, I'm OK with that, even if I potentially paid more because I didn't ask. It can go both ways, IMO...if I make my interest known, yes, some friends will step aside. But there are other who might place "punishment" bids. So likely a wash in the end. I'd rather go into the bidding without a lot of extraneous noise in the background.

 

However, I have been asked to refrain from bidding by friends for whom a piece has a special meaning. In those cases, and if I can tell that it means more to them than it does to me, I'll step aside. However, it does drive me nuts when they place a lowball bid and/or even forget to bid! Then I don't pay attention when they come back again down the road. My caveat now is that I'll step aside...but you have to bid to win. Not that I expect you to win, but you have to make a legitimate effort. Otherwise, don't bother me again.

 

I can understand if people just want to let the chips fall where they may and never ask anyone to back off of anything. It's clean and there's never a conflict that way. It's not fun when a friend asks if you would stand down on a piece and you have to tell them no, as happened to me not long ago. That said, I don't understand the moral outrage by some that a friend might ask that another friend stand down on a piece. Let me use another example to explain my point (and, speaking of examples, I'd like some feedback on my Stupid-Man example earlier - please someone explain to me how Bidders A & B are taking food out of the mouths of consignors and are horrible people).

 

I bought a cover at auction not that long ago for about $6K, which let's say is FMV. But, my max bid on the piece was more than double that. It wasn't a "must-have" for me, but I did really want it, and, well, it's my money to spend as I please. But, let's say for a moment that this was the first comic that my good friend ever read, and that it was his Grail and he was planning to go hard for it. But, let's say we had this discussion on the Boards a year ago, so that, when his Grail cover came to auction, he felt uncomfortable asking any of his friends to stand down, or even mentioning it to anyone. So, I either end up outbidding him, or else he ends up paying more than double FMV to win it. And, either way, I find out after the fact that it's his Grail and feel terrible afterwards that I either won the piece (unless the misguided moralists here expect him to suffer in silence) or caused him to pay an extra $7-8K for a piece that "should" only be worth $6K. Like Chris C. said - wouldn't I have liked to have known in advance? And, if I did, what kind of a-hole would I be to tell him, "naw man, you're my friend and all, but we gotta let the bidding take its natural progression - you feel me, brah?"

 

There is NEVER a legitimate reason to shill an auction. But, I think we can all conceive of very legitimate scenarios (like the above) whereby it would be nice to know that a friend wants something more than I do and to change/coordinate our bidding strategies accordingly. And so, the two are absolutely NOT two sides of the same coin and any attempt to equivocate the two is just flat-out wrong and misguided.

 

Again, if people would rather be left alone, that's their prerogative. In none of these scenarios is anyone holding a gun to anyone's head. And, no one is talking about doing any favors for casual acquaintances, which is totally irrelevant.

 

I admit that this thread has mostly been a skim, because for me, there's no argument here. So just to be clear, I see NOTHING wrong with bidders steeping aside for each other. As has been said over and over again, NO ONE IS OBLIGATED TO BID. People change their minds about their bidding for any number of reasons. Bidding is strictly a voluntary action.

 

I don't get the comparison to shill bidding at all. To me, it's more akin to two sellers deciding before an auction not to consign like items. If seller A and seller B both have STUPID-MAN covers, they may decide to take turns consigning so they don't cannibalize each other's sales. Wrong? Not to me. Has the market been subverted? No.

 

I think people are getting confused because friends stepping aside for each other and shilling, as it's been presented most recently, are both coordinated efforts. In the latter, we were told that a consignor had friends bid on lots that he wanted to win back. Maybe it's the inclusion of "friends" that's throwing people. Because otherwise, I don't see how anyone could say one is the same as the other.

 

[Nexus]

No, I don't go with the idea that being asked to stand aside by a 'casual acquaintance' is irrelevant. It's the same scenario - only the level of closeness to the other guy can vary (be it casual acquaintance, friend, very good friend, busom-buddy, etc). It's the same principle, imho (the same request is being made of you).

I wonder what ya'll will think of what I believe is a similar but maybe not the same situation.

 

A few weeks ago a boardie and myself were discussing mutual appreciation for a particular artist on a particular book during a particular period. Neither of us had an example. Yet. There were probably thirty relevant issues that either of us would like interior art from. Maybe less, as it was a penciler/inker combo in particular we both liked, and there were some fill-ins and pinch hitters during the run. We also had some division as to which specific issues/storylines were preferential. (So already, we weren't necessarily competing at the same level -in the abstract- for any piece that met the penciler/inker/book combo!) With that as the common ground, we both ended up in essentially the same place...we each really just wanted one rather nice but not bank-busting example. Neither of us wanted to go new deep hoard, make a market in the artist/book, nothing like that. Just one really nice piece, each, to hang on the wall. I suggested we talk first when the next one came out, no specificity as to auction or fixed price on a site. Just that we not cut each other's throats. I should add neither of us was going to be that 200% FMV buyer either, more like 110% of FMV...tops. The conversation hasn't progressed past that, but for my end (can't speak for the other guy) the definition of "talk" is let one guy have the next one that goes 110% FMVish and then the other has free reign after that (who's first being mostly determined by who has the extra money to burn at that particular time...both of us being ebb 'n flow liquidity types on any given day).

 

Is this the same as two or more people (behind closed doors) eyeballing a specific piece, working up a bidding/non-bidding strategy, and then following through?

 

I don't think either scenario is wrong, but I think they are different.

 

Going off on a tangent, this reminds me of my younger days when a buddy and me (yeah, he was a close friend, not a casual acquaintance) would frequent the nightclubs in search of female companionship. The two of us would be strategically perched near the dance floor eyeballing who we were going to dance with.

 

We would take it in turns at who got to approach the hottie (usually, one hottie with a not-so-hottie friend). We would alternate who got fist pick on a dance-by-dance basis (until at which point we scored).

 

What has this got to do with this thread?

 

Nothing, really . . .

 

Butterface collusion!!!

 

[Terry Doyle]

No, I don't go with the idea that being asked to stand aside by a 'casual acquaintance' is irrelevant. It's the same scenario - only the level of closeness to the other guy can vary (be it casual acquaintance, friend, very good friend, busom-buddy, etc). It's the same principle, imho (the same request is being made of you).

I wonder what ya'll will think of what I believe is a similar but maybe not the same situation.

 

A few weeks ago a boardie and myself were discussing mutual appreciation for a particular artist on a particular book during a particular period. Neither of us had an example. Yet. There were probably thirty relevant issues that either of us would like interior art from. Maybe less, as it was a penciler/inker combo in particular we both liked, and there were some fill-ins and pinch hitters during the run. We also had some division as to which specific issues/storylines were preferential. (So already, we weren't necessarily competing at the same level -in the abstract- for any piece that met the penciler/inker/book combo!) With that as the common ground, we both ended up in essentially the same place...we each really just wanted one rather nice but not bank-busting example. Neither of us wanted to go new deep hoard, make a market in the artist/book, nothing like that. Just one really nice piece, each, to hang on the wall. I suggested we talk first when the next one came out, no specificity as to auction or fixed price on a site. Just that we not cut each other's throats. I should add neither of us was going to be that 200% FMV buyer either, more like 110% of FMV...tops. The conversation hasn't progressed past that, but for my end (can't speak for the other guy) the definition of "talk" is let one guy have the next one that goes 110% FMVish and then the other has free reign after that (who's first being mostly determined by who has the extra money to burn at that particular time...both of us being ebb 'n flow liquidity types on any given day).

 

Is this the same as two or more people (behind closed doors) eyeballing a specific piece, working up a bidding/non-bidding strategy, and then following through?

 

I don't think either scenario is wrong, but I think they are different.

 

Going off on a tangent, this reminds me of my younger days when a buddy and me (yeah, he was a close friend, not a casual acquaintance) would frequent the nightclubs in search of female companionship. The two of us would be strategically perched near the dance floor eyeballing who we were going to dance with.

 

We would take it in turns at who got to approach the hottie (usually, one hottie with a not-so-hottie friend). We would alternate who got fist pick on a dance-by-dance basis (until at which point we scored).

 

What has this got to do with this thread?

 

Nothing, really . . .

 

Butterface collusion!!!

 

 

[JadeGiant]

Interesting topic

 

I know the OP included the term collusion but the examples being discussed aren't collusion in my (un-lawyered) perspective. Can we agree that collusion is BAD, and that this is NOT collusion? I know it can't be that simple but that's how I see it.

 

Easier to say this is a moral/ethical discussion? I don't see anything immoral or unethical about asking if a person would consider stepping away from an auction. If they feel the request is not ethical, they can simply refuse. I may be missing something here as I have not read each post - more of a skim.

 

As to the notion of such a request being unfair, I can't see the logic there as well. It sounds like the definition of fair equates to a utopian auction environment for a seller. The perfect storm where all factors in their favor play out. I would suppose if I were planning to bid the highest amount but didn't because I got into a car accident, an unexpected bill came up, my internet connection goes bad, etc., those would all be unfair circumstances as well but none (including the request) point to any immoral or unethical activity.

 

I agree with the point made about such a request being just one possible piece of information that I would use to weigh into my bidding decision. It is just one additional bit of info that I would use to decide if I want to buy - along with nostalgia, price, how badly I want the piece, timing, etc. The fact is, if such a request persuaded me not to bid, it was not likely a piece at the top of the food chain on my want list and is likely just one example of information that would move me away from buying the piece. The friends that I would consider such a request would likely know if it was an all-in piece for me and might not ask. If they did, we would discuss and I would make the call. I would not put a piece of paper above a friend (this would be reciprocated with those I consider good friends).

 

I have not asked or been asked to consider stepping away from an auction but I can see where either scenario could play out. I am very highly unlikely to do either but can't say there could not be an instance where I would consider the request of a very good friend.

 

Since shill bidding has been brought up and compared. I see no correlation. I detest shill bidding and find it unethical. I have been asked to shill and LOUDLY refused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Koa]

After reading this and a few other threads I'm really glad I refrained from putting any real money into this hobby.