Official November 2017 heritage auction thread 3 3

[SquareChaos]

11 hours ago, Bronty said:

I’ve been in the situation and frankly you have to pull a Chuck and just leave it be.    It’s naive to think that you’re going to tell someone they left say 100k on the table (and here’s 10 for your trouble) and to imagine that the seller will be happy about it.    Human nature is such that the seller won’t be happy about the 10 you gave them (that you didn’t have to), they will be torqued about the 90 you didn’t.     Nothing good will come of informing the seller.

That is the direction I lean - based on the same logic, and also based on the fact that you don't know anything about this person, or how crazy they may be 

[Bronty]

3 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

how crazy they may be 

That is very much part of it.    If someone feels like you "stole" 90k, even if it was perfectly legal and probably moral (they set the price not you), you're still opening up risk that they do something crazy.

You just take the deal and shut up.   And the bigger of a bargain it is, the more this applies, not less, because the potential for stuff to go off the rails only gets bigger with the quantum involved.

[buyatari]

8 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I think $33K is about where the cover *should* be valued ($30-$35K), but, given the scarcity factor, I was thinking it could get $40-45K.  

Couldn't imagine that it would get any less. Just about any cover that generates a buzz and raises the interest of the masses seems to get 30k these days. Not the cover that I'd pick from the series but I'm shocked it didn't sell for more as well. Perhaps potential bidders have reason to think that others from the set might follow and they are holding off? 

[Khazano]

On 11/19/2017 at 9:56 AM, suspense39 said:

Who knows why the seller did it this way, which is what made me, and probably others hesitant. To me it seems like he knew,or thought, that they were worth st least 25k, so why not start the auction at 25k and see if it increases, instead of a BIN......but he didn’t

 

See. This is where I loose sympathy and think it's best to just to be quiet about the matter. He knew enough that he had a 25k piece of artwork on his hands. He was internet savy enough to list it on eBay.   So it was within his means to do some research on his $25,000 dollar piece of paper to see what it was worth at present day.  I literally just typed "1950s peanuts comic strip original art value" into google, and five links down there was a link to heritage with a list of comparable record prices you did not need to be signed into see.  This isnt some esoteric golden age artwork where determining a value is a chore.  It's a Schultz original. If he wanted to know the value he couldve found out within five minutes of googling.  

Now, that said,  I have no doubt he got a ton messages after that auction ended and is already well aware it's worth more than 25k. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Khazano

[romitaman]

On 11/18/2017 at 12:35 PM, aokartman said:

It's very interesting how the terminology within the description is interpreted.  On this HA lot, they used "recreation" for this British cover art.  But, it didn't scare the buyer ($16K).

link to Super-Spiderman cover art

David

I bought this cover because it WAS NOT a recreation and because it was drawn 2.5-3 years or so after asm 121 -122... and drawn to PERFECTION by Dave Hunt and PUBLISHED!  I got the asm 121 british cover as well as the asm 122 British SPLASH Sunday night..  I feel these are all INCREDIBLY HISTORIC and much more valuable than what I paid.......Needless to say i was quite ecstatic to get all 3. I bought a few nice items this weekend that i thought were undervalued.

Edited November 21, 2017 by romitaman

[romitaman]

On 11/18/2017 at 7:28 AM, Sideshow Bob said:

Thoughts on Kraven/Zeck cover? Thought there was a high likelihood of two people going toe-to-toe on it, final price was $33k, which was a bit over what I thought the final would be. Does this price nudge the rest of the covers to auction, or reinforce that they should stay where there are?

Also, that the Wrightson HOM #225 splash that went for $15k....didn't that go through Comiclink not too long ago? Anyone recall the price?

I bid on the Zeck Spiderman cover and i thought i won it at 17k gavel....... and just before it closed at 17k  it got a bid and another and i was bidding against someone else and I finally dropped out. (usually that's what happens for anyone who becomes underbidder...LOL)

Edited November 21, 2017 by romitaman

[comicwiz]

On 20/11/2017 at 2:25 AM, Bronty said:

I’ve been in the situation and frankly you have to pull a Chuck and just leave it be.

I'm cautious about seeing the words "pull a Chuck" as reasoned words of wisdom, or advice to live by, especially since I see really harsh/negative comments directed at him at least a couple of times a week, and it's been 40 years since he bought the Church collection.

Edited November 21, 2017 by comicwiz

[Bronty]

15 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

I'm cautious about seeing the words "pull a Chuck" as reasoned words of wisdom, or advice to live by, especially since I see really harsh/negative comments directed at him at least a couple of times a week, and it's been 40 years since he bought the Church collection.

90% of those people, if not more, are just jealous it wasn't them.      They figure Chuck is a horrible person because he didn't give the family more; they imagine themselves in that position and tell themselves they would have done right by the family and given them another 10, 20, 30% of the proceeds, or whatever.      Of course they don't stop to think about what I discussed in my post - that doing so would just have caused him trouble.    That they aren't any better than he is.

Now there may be a small percentage with a genuine moral problem (as opposed to what they tell themselves is a moral problem) with buying something well under FMV.      However, for that to not be BS - for that to be internally consistent behaviour - that would need to be the type of person who would see a $100 comic in a dollar box and refuse to pay a dollar for it.... insist on paying the $100 FMV.     Those types of people are few and far between.     When is the last time you saw someone do that?     Never?     Most people accept that it not the buyer's job to educate the seller - they buy the comic for $1.     The quantum being so much larger with Chuck doesn't change the analysis except to make it more dangerous for Chuck to say boo about the deal he got (until much later).     

People think "tipping" the family makes them great people somehow.... cleanses their guilt... absolves them of any moral issues.     It doesn't.    You're still just like Chuck if you keep "only" 90%, or 70%, or whatever.    And giving someone 10%, or 30% will just enrage them about the 90% or 70% they didn't get.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Bronty

[comix4fun]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

90% of those people, if not more, are just jealous it wasn't them.      They figure Chuck is a horrible person because he didn't give the family more; they imagine themselves in that position and tell themselves they would have done right by the family and given them another 10, 20, 30% of the proceeds, or whatever.      Of course they don't stop to think about what I discussed in my post - that doing so would just have caused him trouble.    That they aren't any better than he is.

Now there may be a small percentage with a genuine moral problem (as opposed to what they tell themselves is a moral problem) with buying something well under FMV.      However, for that to not be BS - for that to be internally consistent behaviour - that would need to be the type of person who would see a $100 comic in a dollar box and refuse to pay a dollar for it.... insist on paying the $100 FMV.     Those types of people are few and far between.     Most people accept that it not the buyer's job to educate the seller - they buy the comic for $1.     The quantum being so much larger with Chuck doesn't change the analysis except to make it more dangerous for Chuck to say boo about the deal he got (until much later).

Well, to make the analogy more accurate they would have to go to someone's home, find a comic in the barn that's worth $100, ask the guy (not a comic dealer, not a market sophisticate) what he wants for it...hear that he says "cover price"....and the buyer hands him cover price. 

There's not having the responsibility to educate an otherwise knowledgeable and savvy seller and then there's something else entirely. 

[Bronty]

4 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Well, to make the analogy more accurate they would have to go to someone's home, find a comic in the barn that's worth $100, ask the guy (not a comic dealer, not a market sophisticate) what he wants for it...hear that he says "cover price"....and the buyer hands him cover price. 

There's not having the responsibility to educate an otherwise knowledgeable and savvy seller and then there's something else entirely. 

what does any of that change?

A collector goes to a garage sale.

He sees a Michael Jordan rookie (being that you're in chicago) with an FMV of I dunno, let's say $2000 in the condition it is in.    It has a price tag of $10 on it.  

You expect him to refuse to buy it for $10 and instead insist on paying $2000 cash on the spot?

There are people who would do that, but they are few and far between.   

[bisquitodoom]

11 hours ago, romitaman said:

I bought this cover because it WAS NOT a recreation and because it was drawn 2.5-3 years or so after asm 121 -122... and drawn to PERFECTION by Dave Hunt and PUBLISHED!  I got the asm 121 british cover as well as the asm 122 British SPLASH Sunday night..  I feel these are all INCREDIBLY HISTORIC and much more valuable than what I paid.......Needless to say i was quite ecstatic to get all 3. I bought a few nice items this weekend that i thought were undervalued.

I agree completely.  Those are all really nice, especially since they were published so soon after the originals. Congrats on the great score!

[comicwiz]

47 minutes ago, Bronty said:

However, for that to not be BS - for that to be internally consistent behaviour - that would need to be the type of person who would see a $100 comic in a dollar box and refuse to pay a dollar for it.... insist on paying the $100 FMV.     Those types of people are few and far between.     When is the last time you saw someone do that?     Never?     Most people accept that it not the buyer's job to educate the seller - they buy the comic for $1. 

If you're point is that people generally don't feel the impulse to correct a price, on an item someone has already priced, then I would agree, it's probably never going to happen.

If you're called in to provide an assessment/valuation, and you try this stunt, you're bringing on a world of trepidation without carefully understanding the consequences. This isn't even a subject where I listen to the willy nilly noise. I've been called to testify in cases where someone used a position as "expert" or "appraiser" in a self-serving manner, and it never ends well for them.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is never a wise decision for anyone, whether you're a shop owner, or some dude who got their foot in the door of the deal and think you're going to be the next Wolf of Wall Street - NEVER.

Years ago, I got a call from an older man who sounded extremely distressed on the phone. The panic in his voice, and the concern something bad was going to happen on his property, I thought he was going to have a heart attack. He had apparently contacted an estate contents liquidator, and seemingly that company sent two pickers to his house. By the time I got there, a fight had erupted between three people, each one felt they were more entitled than the other to walk away with some paintings that were discovered in this mans barn. When he walked out, he told me "you made it just in time, I was just about to call the police." Apparently the three guys began getting hostile towards each other, and had spent the whole time I was making my way there jostling for position with the older man on why they should walk away with the paintings. A few times a fist fight had broken out. Two guys looked pretty roughed up when I arrived, one with a shiner you could spot from the end of the driveway and this guys driveway was looong.

One of the things I can tell you is that he contacted the estate/contents liquidator ONLY because they used the words "we appraise" on their website. What these hacks that were sent were doing was nothing even remotely close to appraising. They offered less than 15% of the FMV on the paintings. When I advised this older gentlemen what the paintings were truly worth, I thought I would have to call the police to keep him away from the three hacks that were trying to screw him. It might not matter to you, or anyone here reading this who thinks they have every right to make that kind of offer, however this was life changing money for this man. I turned for a second and the rifle that I'd previously seen hanging on the wall was gone, Iknew trouble was brewing, so my knee-jerk reaction was the holler out his name as I'd lost sight of him and I told him to stay put and I would take care of the three "delinquents," as he described them. He was really upset, but I managed to calm him down enough to listen.

When I walked outside, I told them they had 10 seconds to get in their vehicles and get the hell off the old man's property, and never to show their faces. And to tell whoever sent them to never make any attempt to call this man. No veiled threats, but they saw my expression and knew I wasn't in any mood to take lip from any of them. One guy was swearing at me on his way to the car, and while I went beyond what I had been called to do, the more important battle to win here was making sure the guy didn't get screwed.

I share this story with you because I see a few dealers out there right now who need to be more mindful of the wording they use on their website.  I know they are using it to gain an advantage in a deal. I also don't like to use Chuck's example for the reasons I stated, and also because comics were an emerging market back then. He assumed all the risk, and if we go by his version of the story, he really sounds more like a person who was involved in an historically important salvaging effort. 

Comparing what happened with Chuck then, and people "pulling a Chuck" in today's markets, which have an incredible depth of comparables and pricing data, isn't something I accept as justification for ripping people off.  It's one thing to use any knowledge you have attained for your own benefit, however it's a completely different situation when you are using that position of knowledge to deliberately withhold information from others for your own financial gain.

Edited November 21, 2017 by comicwiz

[comix4fun]

22 minutes ago, Bronty said:

what does any of that change?

A collector goes to a garage sale.

He sees a Michael Jordan rookie (being that you're in chicago) with an FMV of I dunno, let's say $2000 in the condition it is in.    It has a price tag of $10 on it.  

You expect him to refuse to buy it for $10 and instead insist on paying $2000 cash on the spot?

There are people who would do that, but they are few and far between.   

Your analogy was a comic dealer putting a $100 comic out for sale for $1

That's, materially, different than an unsophisticated seller, outside the field and area of the items being sold. 

Just saying your analogy puts Chuck's sellers in the role of knowledgeable, savvy and informed comic book dealer, which they were obviously not. 

[Bronty]

7 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Your analogy was a comic dealer putting a $100 comic out for sale for $1

That's, materially, different than an unsophisticated seller, outside the field and area of the items being sold. 

Just saying your analogy puts Chuck's sellers in the role of knowledgeable, savvy and informed comic book dealer, which they were obviously not. 

and that's why I replied with the garage sale (unsophisticated seller) example instead of a sportscard dealer example.  

Is the buyer at the garage sale paying $10 or $2000?    I know what I'd bet on..

Look, I used the words "pull a chuck" in a throwaway manner.    There are specifics such as whether one is a dealer that do change the situation, or did in the past.    Nowadays its a more complicated argument to make as everyone has google on their iphone and arguably anyone can look up the value of anything.    In the words of Bob Storms there are no longer dealers and collectors, just sellers and buyers.     But in the 1970s, yeah, it was different and depending on exactly what happened with Chuck (I don't recall the exact specifics) it could be argued either way.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Bronty

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

and that's why I replied with the garage sale example instead of a sportscard dealer example.  

Is the buyer at the garage sale paying $10 or $2000?    I know what I'd bet on..

Look, I used the words "pull a chuck" in a throwaway manner.    There are specifics such as whether one is a dealer that do change the situation, or did in the past.    Nowadays its a more complicated argument as everyone has google on their iphone.    In the words of Bob Storms there are no longer dealers and collectors, just sellers and buyers.     But in the 1970s, yeah, it was different.

Well, before you changed the analogy you asked me what the difference did it make, so I just made sure to explain. 

 

[jjonahjameson11]

20 hours ago, buyatari said:

Couldn't imagine that it would get any less. Just about any cover that generates a buzz and raises the interest of the masses seems to get 30k these days. Not the cover that I'd pick from the series but I'm shocked it didn't sell for more as well. Perhaps potential bidders have reason to think that others from the set might follow and they are holding off? 

If this were ASM instead of Spec Spidey, it would have easily crossed $40K, and most likely into $50K.

Time and again, we've seen the Flagship ASM command a hefty premium over Spec, Marvel Tales, Web of, Marvel Tales, and adjectiveless Spidey.

[vodou]

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

..., however it's a completely different situation when you are using that position of knowledge to deliberately withhold information from others for your own financial gain.

In the securities industry what you're describing is the difference between being a broker and a dealer. One person (or firm) can wear both hats at various times but they cannot (legally) wear both hats at the same time during a single transaction. You can't broker for a commission by dealing out of your own inventory; essentially getting paid twice. I don't know the law on this (UCC?, varies state to state?) but that roughly correlates to appraising (for a fee) to buy (at wholesale or lower), in the same self-dealing manner.

Every book out there that talks about estate planning, selling off a collection, etc always emphasizes that whoever is pricing out your collection value cannot (and must be told this in advance) be allowed to bid/buy directly the items being appraised. They have to recuse themselves, for that moment, from being a wholesale buying shark machine. And because most of us get that and agree with it, it's probably why some of us aren't thrilled that some auction houses do allow their principals and staff to bid/buy out of their auctions. Not the same thing, exactly, but it sort of feels similarly slimy.

[comicwiz]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

In the securities industry what you're describing is the difference between being a broker and a dealer. One person (or firm) can wear both hats at various times but they cannot (legally) wear both hats at the same time during a single transaction. You can't broker for a commission by dealing out of your own inventory; essentially getting paid twice. I don't know the law on this (UCC?, varies state to state?) but that roughly correlates to appraising (for a fee) to buy (at wholesale or lower), in the same self-dealing manner.

Every book out there that talks about estate planning, selling off a collection, etc always emphasizes that whoever is pricing out your collection value cannot (and must be told this in advance) be allowed to bid/buy directly the items being appraised. They have to recuse themselves, for that moment, from being a wholesale buying shark machine. And because most of us get that and agree with it, it's probably why some of us aren't thrilled that some auction houses do allow their principals and staff to bid/buy out of their auctions. Not the same thing, exactly, but it sort of feels similarly slimy.

In the appraisal industry, this is covered under USPAP, particularly the ethics rule. There is a disclosure requirement before accepting the assignment, and a pathway the appraiser can take to avoid COI. How this ties into your final point, there is a standard code of practice that must be followed even for an auctioneer, as they can wear both hats and often do.

They cover their bases by abiding to a responsibility to the consignor to get as much for an item. I know the trust factor is strained by an auctioneer whose terms of service state their employees or affiliates can bid, however it seems there are states which don't allow for this (perhaps for good reason) and for those states that do, there are specific restrictions (i.e. cannot bid on their own consignments). I recently discovered for instance that Hakes does not disclose this in any of their terms of service which are posted online, however they do disclose this within the first 6 pages of their published catalog.

Again. That decision to include it in their catalog but not online would lead me to think they are meeting their obligation to disclose their employees/affiliates can bid on auctions. The sidebar to this is if you Google employees bidding on auctions, you'd see a lot of the usual suspects named in multiple instances, but not a single mention of Hakes.

Edited November 21, 2017 by comicwiz

[buyatari]

4 hours ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

If this were ASM instead of Spec Spidey, it would have easily crossed $40K, and most likely into $50K.

Time and again, we've seen the Flagship ASM command a hefty premium over Spec, Marvel Tales, Web of, Marvel Tales, and adjectiveless Spidey.

As a general rule of thumb Amazing trumps other Spidy titles but I don't see t in this case. If you can place a premium here at all on the title alone it will be small.  This was a popular cross over series read by almost all Amazing readers. 

[comix4fun]

20 minutes ago, buyatari said:

As a general rule of thumb Amazing trumps other Spidy titles but I don't see t in this case. If you can place a premium here at all on the title alone it will be small.  This was a popular cross over series read by almost all Amazing readers. 

That's true, in this case the story really crosses over completely....it's just not the best of the covers. 
I think the others from this same storyline are so much better in terms of content (not that any are bad) that you're looking at double or more for almost any of the remaining Kraven covers.