I've actually seen this happen and not at the big auction houses you mentioned. Two bidders on the floor got into a pissing match and each attempting to top the other, sometimes upping the bidding price by as much as $5K in one bid for a poster(s) that was clearly not worth the astonishing levels it had suddenly risen to. I did question people at the auction who knew the two bidders and was told that they were bidding for clients who really wanted the poster(s) in question. I also interpreted that to mean that they each may be working on a commission based on the selling price and hence didn't care about how high they bid, especially since they weren't working with their own dollars. FRANC
-----Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Hershenson Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response Incidentally, I am not saying that only one auction house likely does this. I have seen many many results at Christie's and Sotheby's that fit this profile. When I left Christie's in 1997, and was looking for another auction house, I made it very clear to Howard Lowery (who I then did three auctions with) that I wanted NO tricks played with the bidders, and we did not have ANY of those crazy results. And in my own auctions since 2000 I have almost never had crazy high results (out of 400,000+ auctions). It may not be proof in a court of law, but it sure seems astoundingly coincidental that these crazy bidders (who love to show up in twos!) ONLY patronize certain exact auction houses. Bruce On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> wrote: I think a concern a lot of people are expressing is that we have all seen how a poster that used to always be around say $5,000 suddenly sells for $25,000, and we have all wondered how it is that TWO totally separate people suddenly took it into their head to bid five times what previous people had bid. I mean, one person can decide to do that because they feel they HAVE to have that poster, but TWO of them seems to defy the odds. And now some of us, in the light of these revelations, are wondering if there really WERE two different bidders. And if a "house account" were used to get someone to pay five times the former "going rate" is THAT alright (and is it excused because the person chose to enter a very high bid)? Is that the punishment proscribed for placing a high bid, and even if it were legal in the past, should this practice not be stopped in the future? Bruce On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Richard Halegua Comic Art <[email protected]> wrote: At 02:57 AM 9/16/2009, Neil Jaworski wrote: I agree with all James Richard's comments on this issue. Those who feel that Heritage have an obligation to get the "fair market price" for their consignors (and, by a happy coincidence, for themselves) should reflect upon how these practices might have pumped up these "fair market prices" in the first place. Indeed, if this N.P Gresham device has been used as widely as some people are suggesting, what extra padding is in the hobby as a whole? Those MOPOers who claim that this is all just a playful bit of showmanship (wedded to a fiduciary duty to poor sellers who are too nervous to set a realistic and honest reserve) should enrol in their nearest high school ethics class. Neil I said this: This is how it's supposed to work: the reserve is $400, but the item starts at $200. It is Heritage's fiduciary duty to the seller to bid up to something just under the reserve. So Heritage might bid $390 to get the $400 bid from a buyer. When the $390 bid is the top bid, Heritage does state "still available at HA.com" indicating that the $390 bid did not win the item, that it fell below reserve. as long as that's what's going on, it doesn't seem that anything nefarious is happening. Here is where it would step in negative territory: If Heritage were to continue bidding in order to drive up a price past the reserve, without the intention of buying it themselves, that would be a bad thing. I haven't seen or read anything that indicates this is so. Though to be fair, I have had friends tell me anecdotally that they feel this is the case, but they have not given me any examples to prove that claim. Also, Heritage does indeed sell material they own in all fields from posters to coins to comics and this may be a sticking point to some, however as long as they treat Heritage-owned merchandise just as any other consignor, they do not drive up prices beyond a reserve and they do not raise the reserve after introduction of the auction, well, they would not be doing anything wrong so please don't mis-characterize what I said If N.P. Gresham is acting improperly, that is a bad thing, but I might need more information before I can come to that conclusion and determine that Heritage was or was not acting improperly concerning whether or not a consignor has a realistic perception is immaterial to the debate because it has nothing to do with any of the allegations against Heritage. Rich Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
