Heritage Fall Signature Auction 5 5

[jimbo_7071]

1 hour ago, adamstrange said:

If you repeatedly bring a book to market that has a limited customer base this is a very likely outcome.

I'm not saying that everything is legit about these sales.  I'm saying that an alternative explanation that does not involve chicanery is plausible.

Personally, I think that shill bidding is rampant within all collectibles markets, but I don't know whether it occurred in any auctions where this book sold for strong prices. I sort of doubt doubt a shill bidder would have bid this book all the way up to $20K or even $16K. I don't think many shill bidders would have pressed their luck that far.

I think shill bidding usually happens when a book is performing below expectations and the seller decides he wants to hang onto the book and try again later.

Edited December 2, 2018 by jimbo_7071

[Cat-Man_America]

9 minutes ago, jimbo_7071 said:

Personally, I think that shill bidding is rampant within all collectibles markets, but I don't know whether it occurred in this auction.

Shill bidding in an online auction is felony wire fraud, which is a federal offense, but there will always be people who try to get away with it. They usually succeed for a while.

This auctioneer tried it one time too many and got close to five years in club fed.

https://www.ecommercebytes.com/2016/02/09/auctioneer-gets-nearly-5-years-shill-bidding/

It would appear that the auctioneer's offenses were extensive, shill bidding perhaps being a lesser offense compared to manipulating auction sales via trimmed and outright fake collectibles.  That said, I agree that shill bidding is a danger to the hobby and should be prosecuted.  

There are solutions to this issue if auction houses are willing to incorporate a publicly visible bidder checking system as policy that would guarantee the integrity of the process.  I'm not suggesting the revelation of bidders identities in a public setting, ...but there are methods well short of that which would increase bidder confidence & allay suspicions of manipulation.  

For instance, one idea is to provide bidder numbers tied to verifiable accounts. Regardless of how fast moving an auction is, the results could then be analyzed post-auction to increase public confidence in the system.  This kind of analytical data would be extremely useful in assessing how many folks were actually bidding and where the underbidder(s) were positioned when the final hammer fell.  It's worth noting that some auctions do provide this kind of post-auction data in some manner, but not all.

One thing I've grown very weary of hearing is how auction data should be considered proprietary, ...as in the property of auction houses, grading analysis sites or bidding services like eBay.  This only serves to ratchet up suspicions ...which may be totally unfounded... that something shady appears to be going on.  As I see it, proprietary agreements and secrecy don't serve the hobby well. The risks associated with accusations of auction manipulation through fraudulent shill bidding outweigh any value received from maintaining a proprietary data base. 

As a community we should all be concerned about areas that impact collectible market stability.  If you agree that these issues are relevent to the future of our hobby, I'd encourage you to speak out.

BTW, before anyone accuses me of excessive verbosity, please note: I've had a lotta caffeine today. Let's call it a mea cuppa.  

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

35 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

It would appear that the auctioneer's offenses were extensive, shill bidding perhaps being a lesser offense compared to manipulating auction sales via trimmed and outright fake collectibles.  That said, I agree that shill bidding is a danger to the hobby and should be prosecuted.  

There are solutions to this issue if auction houses are willing to incorporate a publicly visible bidder checking system as policy that would guarantee the integrity of the process.  I'm not suggesting the revelation of bidders identities in a public setting, ...but there are methods well short of that which would increase bidder confidence & allay suspicions of manipulation.  

For instance, one idea is to provide bidder numbers tied to verifiable accounts. Regardless of how fast moving an auction is, the results could then be analyzed post-auction to increase public confidence in the system.  This kind of analytical data would be extremely useful in assessing how many folks were actually bidding and where the underbidder(s) were positioned when the final hammer fell.  It's worth noting that some auctions do provide this kind of post-auction data in some manner, but not all.

One thing I've grown very weary of hearing is how auction data should be considered proprietary, ...as in the property of auction houses, grading analysis sites or bidding services like eBay.  This only serves to ratchet up suspicions ...which may be totally unfounded... that something shady appears to be going on.  As I see it, proprietary agreements and secrecy don't serve the hobby well. The risks associated with accusations of auction manipulation through fraudulent shill bidding outweigh any value received from maintaining a proprietary data base. 

As a community we should all be concerned about areas that impact collectible market stability.  If you agree that these issues are relevent to the future of our hobby, I'd encourage you to speak out.

BTW, before anyone accuses me of excessive verbosity, please note: I've had a lotta caffeine today. Let's call it a mea cuppa.  

What reason does Clink give for not sharing their sales data with GPA?

anyone know?

[tth2]

8 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

On 11/1/2018 at 5:43 AM, sacentaur said:

One of the reasons I don’t participate in auctions is the lingering specter of shill bidding. Also, could there be non-disclosed reserves?

The Church CGC 9.6 Adventure 43 is not being auctioned by Verzyl’s estate, earlier this year it was listed for sale on a major dealer’s website (allegedly “sold” for $22,500) before then being auctioned and allegedly selling for under 17k.

If Heritage does delete a non-paying account that was indeed a shill, big deal because the same entity could simply return under another shill. Non-paying bidders negatively impact the hobby just as much as a shill, which is exacerbated if/when they are one in the same. Such   non-sales should be removed from any data source.

And if a hidden reserve isn’t met, and the book is re-auctioned, then likewise any non-sale should be removed.

Clearly something is amiss. 

For the record, though I love early Adventures I do own the Larson CGC 9.6 of this particular book so I have no interest in bidding on or acquiring the Church copy, and the above comments are my opinions only.

Seems as if something odd is going on with this book.  In addition to the sale (at a very high price) that you note from a dealer's site, here's the book's rather checkered history on Heritage:

October 2005:  $14,950

May 2010:  $6,871.25

May 2018:  $16,730

November 2018:  $9,000

Makes you wonder. 

The big drop between 2005 and 2010 can be explained in 2 words:  Gary Keller.  His purchase in 2005 was part of his crazy overspending, and the crash in price in 2010 was the result of his fire sale shortly after the Financial Crisis.  

The price paid when it came up again in May 2018 was just plain nuts.  I have no explanation for it and remember being stunned at the time.  Not surprisingly, when a book that achieved such a moonshot price is sold again only 6 months later, it's unlikely to sell for as much.

$9,000 seems like a relatively reasonable price.  Certainly I would say that the prices of $6,871.25 and $9,000 are more reflective of the actual value of the book, and a 30% increase between 2010 and 2018 is not unreasonable. 

The best way to avoid getting shilled is to avoid overbidding.  It sounds simplistic, but it's true.  If the $16,730 price was the result of a legitimate bidder getting shilled up, I would have to question why he/she thought it was worth bidding up that high in the first place.  Just don't put yourself in position to be victimized and you likely won't be.

If the $16,730 price was the result of the owner getting some shills to ladder the price up to help create the appearance of strong demand for the book, and it was the shill (ie, the owner) that ended up with the book, there's not too much one can do about that.  At least no one got victimized except for the owner, who suffered transaction costs the first time around and then had to pay more transaction costs the second time around, all for a 30% gain that was probably obtainable without all the shenanigans. 

[tth2]

2 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

What reason does Clink give for not sharing their sales data with GPA?

anyone know?

Myopia

[Mmehdy]

3 minutes ago, tth2 said:

The big drop between 2005 and 2010 can be explained in 2 words:  Gary Keller.  His purchase in 2005 was part of his crazy overspending, and the crash in price in 2010 was the result of his fire sale shortly after the Financial Crisis.  

The price paid when it came up again in May 2018 was just plain nuts.  I have no explanation for it and remember being stunned at the time.  Not surprisingly, when a book that achieved such a moonshot price is sold again only 6 months later, it's unlikely to sell for as much.

$9,000 seems like a relatively reasonable price.  Certainly I would say that the prices of $6,871.25 and $9,000 are more reflective of the actual value of the book, and a 30% increase between 2010 and 2018 is not unreasonable. 

The best way to avoid getting shilled is to avoid overbidding.  It sounds simplistic, but it's true.  If the $16,730 price was the result of a legitimate bidder getting shilled up, I would have to question why he/she thought it was worth bidding up that high in the first place.  Just don't put yourself in position to be victimized and you likely won't be.

If the $16,730 price was the result of the owner getting some shills to ladder the price up to help create the appearance of strong demand for the book, and it was the shill (ie, the owner) that ended up with the book, there's not too much one can do about that.  At least no one got victimized except for the owner, who suffered transaction costs the first time around and then had to pay more transaction costs the second time around, all for a 30% gain that was probably obtainable without all the shenanigans. 

the best way to avoid shilling is to avoid overbidding, 100% agree, there just seems something not right here on this book

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

21 minutes ago, tth2 said:

Myopia

 

[tth2]

Another word for "nearsighted" is "shortsighted".

[MrBedrock]

16 hours ago, tth2 said:

Another word for "nearsighted" is "shortsighted".

But "chicanery" is such a great word that it can't be replaced.

[tth2]

It's ironic that Heritage, which provide such great transparency on past sales, gets accused of chicanery so much more than the totally opaque Comiclink does.

[podboy66]

Got these in the mail today.  2 for less than i thought, 2 for around what I thought, 1 at my max and one was over my max!

[Mr. Lady Luck]

The Crippen copy of Hedy #27 sold for $1,314.50 back in January. Ten months later, the same book sold for only $456 in the Fall Signature auction.

Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to put the Church and Crippen copies in the same auction.

[Sqeggs]

21 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

But "chicanery" is such a great word that it can't be replaced.

Particularly tasty when sprinkled on eggnog.

[Sqeggs]

3 hours ago, Mr. Lady Luck said:

The Crippen copy of Hedy #27 sold for $1,314.50 back in January. Ten months later, the same book sold for only $456 in the Fall Signature auction.

Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to put the Church and Crippen copies in the same auction.

Definitely a sound conclusion!

Given that the January result seems awfully high for a Crippen that's only a 6.5, it's hard to believe the consignor actually expected to make a profit on the flip, although he probably didn't expect to take a loss that large. 

[Sqeggs]

13 hours ago, tth2 said:

It's ironic that Heritage, which provide such great transparency on past sales, gets accused of chicanery so much more than the totally opaque Comiclink does.

I'm not sure anyone has called shenanigans on Heritage about this.  They may just have been the means by which the shenaniganer tried his shenanigans -- if, in fact, everything wasn't aboveboard, which it may have been for all I know.

Just to review the bidding, this book has been reported as sold four times in the past 11 months in various venues and supposedly received these prices:

$14,500

$16,730

$22,000

$9,000

Seems like a whole lot of flipping for a pre-hero DC in such a short time period, even a Church copy.  The buyer who bought the book last month for $9K either got a bargain or was left holding the bag (or some of both?). But, who knows? Stranger things have happened than for a book to have four legit sales in less than a year.  

[143ksk]

1 hour ago, Sqeggs said:

Definitely a sound conclusion!

Given that the January result seems awfully high for a Crippen that's only a 6.5, it's hard to believe the consignor actually expected to make a profit on the flip, although he probably didn't expect to take a loss that large. 

I'm sure the presence of the Church copy didn't help, but the Hedy was not the only book with that sort of result. The Crippen Comedy 2 went from $1300 to $500 and the Crippen Junior Miss 31 went from $650 to $240.

[RareHighGrade]

1 hour ago, Sqeggs said:

I'm not sure anyone has called shenanigans on Heritage about this.  They may just have been the means by which the shenaniganer tried his shenanigans -- if, in fact, everything wasn't aboveboard, which it may have been for all I know.

Just to review the bidding, this book has been reported as sold four times in the past 11 months in various venues and supposedly received these prices:

$14,500

$16,730

$22,000

$9,000

Seems like a whole lot of flipping for a pre-hero DC in such a short time period, even a Church copy.  The buyer who bought the book last month for $9K either got a bargain or was left holding the bag (or some of both?). But, who knows? Stranger things have happened than for a book to have four legit sales in less than a year.  

It's actually a post-hero DC because, although he's not on the cover, the Sandman started the month before.

[Cat-Man_America]

2 hours ago, RareHighGrade said:

It's actually a post-hero DC because, although he's not on the cover, the Sandman started the month before.

Good point, Peter.  There are just too many factors that might've influenced outlier low-ball bids in this HA.  It's much easier to assess rationales for the big ticket winners.

[Sqeggs]

3 hours ago, 143ksk said:

4 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

Definitely a sound conclusion!

Given that the January result seems awfully high for a Crippen that's only a 6.5, it's hard to believe the consignor actually expected to make a profit on the flip, although he probably didn't expect to take a loss that large. 

I'm sure the presence of the Church copy didn't help, but the Hedy was not the only book with that sort of result. The Crippen Comedy 2 went from $1300 to $500 and the Crippen Junior Miss 31 went from $650 to $240.

Very interesting.  I wonder what the backstory is?  Looks like someone decided to raise some dough by dumping them as a group. 

[Sqeggs]

3 hours ago, RareHighGrade said:

It's actually a post-hero DC because, although he's not on the cover, the Sandman started the month before.

I was waiting for you to notice that!