I don't have such a list, not have I ever claimed to have such knowledge in my email newsletters. You have claimed to have this knowledge and I guess you are holding it out so that maybe more people get burned?
My only direct knowledge is from the fake I bought at PIH, which was quickly refunded. But to play your game, let's say this is a list of auction houses that sold fakes - which ones aren't refunding people? Bonham's/Butterfield's Christie's Heritage Profiles in History Sotheby's ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Hershenson" <[email protected]> To: "Sean Linkenback" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:14:16 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response Just provide me with the list of dealers and auction houses that sold the fakes and I will gladly tell you which ones I know of that gave refunds and which ones didn't. Unless of course there were no dealers and auction houses that sold the fakes (other than PIH), and then there would be no list. Why do you want me to answer your questions but you won't answer mine? Seems mighty one-sided. On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Sean Linkenback < [email protected] > wrote: Hi Bruce, Glad to see you are feeling better. I don't blame a company that is interested in purchasing material for resale wanting to buy it for less than the low estimate. But if something is going on, maybe they will learn from when you were suspended from eBay for having employees bid on your auctions and stop the practice like you did. Also, I was wondering - do you have actual knowledge of any auction houses that are denying refunds/liability for the fakes purchased through them as you claimed in your newsletter, or is that something you made up? I know I would certainly want to avoid dealing with those sort of auction houses in the future, and as someone who actually bids with auction houses it would be very useful information before possibly being burned by them. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Hershenson" < [email protected] > To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:00:06 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response Not that you seem to need any help, J.R.,, but here is the latest from the blog generated by that news story from a couple of days ago, and it sure paints a completely different picture: "As a former employee of Heritage, nothing in the Hendershott suit surprises me. Based upon the practices I witnessed and at the time unwittingly participated in - I believe his allegations to be an accurate reflection of Heritage's overall predetory business model.As for Mr.Rohan's comments about some ex-employee not having spilled the beans over 35 years - terminated employees who were "in the loop" were/are regularly given large-ish severance and told to "keep quiet". It was practice, at least on the non-coin side of the business, for Heritage to instruct department heads to bid on "anything we (Heritage) would want to own". Prior to each auction, department heads would review a document called "Cost Copy" and were encouraged to typically bid a minimum of 75% of the low auction estimate. Shill bidding can exist in many forms. From "juicing the internet bids" to executing proxy bids well above what would be the next bid increment, to "mysterious cell phone bidders" in the back of the auction room. It is my belief that airing this in a public forum is Heritage's worst nightmare. For a company that wants us to believe that openness and transparency are fundamental to it - me thinks thou doth protest too much." On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:26 PM, James Richard < [email protected] > wrote: Sean, While I have no obligation to vet myself with you, just for the heck of it I will say this: I've collected movie posters since the 1960's. I've given up counting them, but I have hundreds from all times and genres. I have bought at auctions and from retail dealers. I obviously don't buy as much these days because I already have much of what I want. Just as obviously, since I've been collecting for over 40 years now, I'm one of those who thinks way too many posters are absurdly over-priced these days, but I recognize that there must be significant price appreciation over 40 years. As for auction operations, since I was the one who originally created www.MoviePosterBid.com from scratch over 4 years ago as an "ebay alternative" when everyone else was still pretty satisfied with Ebay as a venue, I have intimate knowledge of the mechanics of auctions. Regarding Heritage operations specifically: Since bidders in Heritage auctions almost always pay significantly more for *any* poster than you can get the same poster for elsewhere, I have not bid on Heritage auctions for many years now. I don't like to spend more than I have to for something. But since Heritage is the Big Gun and the operation that sets the "high end price" for any poster, I have always kept an eye on their auctions and I have watched some of their live auction closings on the internet. Regarding Heritage and hidden reserves: In fact, they do still use them on signature auctions when the items are first put up on the internet, but apparently now they make those reserves public a few days before the live auction starts. I missed that bit since I do not actually bid at Heritage any more. In clarifying that aspect, John Petty of Heritage also said " items in the Weekly auctions are typically offered without reserve" -- which I find a confusing statement. Either they have reserves on weekly auctions or they don't. As for shill bidding, as I just replied to John, there seems to be a glaring contradiction in the comforting statements Heritage employees are making on this list compared to what both the President and the CEO of Heritage have been quoted as saying in the press regards the N.P. Gresham identity. And I, for one, can't help but think that if they set up one false identity that was used *by the house*, not by individual employees purchasing for themselves, then they probably didn't stop at one false identity. But we do, of course, have to wait for the results of the lawsuit before we know. If we ever do. If the lawsuit is settled with non-disclosure agreements signed all around, we will never know the truth. What I have been saying so far is simply my reaction to what I have seen both the President and the CEO of Heritage being quoted as saying in the press and what they are on record as having said about that identity in court. For me, those statements have been very disturbing. While it may be technically legal for "the house" to win their own auction in competitive bidding with everyone else, it is not a fair situation for reasons I have already spoken of -- and the fact that it is good for business and good for the people who have consigned items to Heritage is immaterial to the fairness issue as far as I'm concerned. No bidder should have an unfair advantage during competitive bidding. Even if somehow "the house" does not abuse its insider knowledge of the identities, previous purchasing habits and maximum bids which the other bidders have on file, "the house" still has a built in advantage in the form of a 19% discount compared to all other bidders because it will use house money to pay the buyer's premium back to the house, effectively winning the item for 19% less than any other bidder would have to pay for it. I notice that no one has disputed this or even commented on it much. Obviously I am not talking about someone who is simply an employee of Heritage who bids on one of the live auctions for his own collection and has to pay for any wins out of his own pocket, including the full buyer's premium. Unless, of course, that person by the very fact that he is an employee of Heritage has some other insider advantage, which is something I have no way of knowing. In general it is bad company policy to let employees bid on company auctions, but I can certainly understand why some Heritage employees would want to and why they are allowed to. I would have a very hard time working there and not being allowed to play myself. It is "house bidding" that I have a problem with. They should just start the auction from day one with whatever the client has set as the "reserve" being the minimum starting bid and let the chips fall where they may. Everyone says this is what happens once the live auction starts anyway, so why not just do it that way from day one and eliminate the need for "the house" to do anything but run the auction and keep it out of the bidding process completely? -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: JR, Do you have any interest in posters at all or just in the workings of Heritage? If you've ever seen their auctions you will know that when they go live they will either say "no reserve" or "reserve not yet posted/met", so you know immediately if there is a reserve or not. Then as Grey and John explained, with a week to go if the reserve is not met, the price is raised to the bid immediately below the reserve so that if anyone bids they can win the item. This is the same price John will open the item up for at the live auction (instead of wasting time asking for bids that could not possibly win the item). Heritage does not place any bids during the live auction. If in fact they bid on item (either by an employee collector, or by a buyer acting to purchase for their inventory), it is done prior to the auction going live. Many times during the break at the auction John has told me that his bids on two or three items had been outbid and he wished he had either focused on a single item or had placed a higher bid. Example: John wished to buy item #4 and item #5, he has a total of $500 he can spend in the auction, so he bids $250 on each one before the live session starts. During the session, Item #4 sells for $100 and item #5 sells for $275. Now John is sad that he could not bid again on Item #5 as he still had room below his budget, but Heritage does not allow this. This policy is fair to all, is it allows people like John to still be collectors and yet places bidders like us (or I should say like me as it it obvious you have never bid at Heritage) at an advantage over Heritage during the auction process. Heritage does not push the price above the reserve when there is no action on an item to make a single interested buyer pay more for the item than the opening or reserve, but that does not mean they (again either collector employees or purchasing employees) do not place proxy bids. It would be silly if collector A has a poster/coin/comic/whatever "worth" $5K and Heritage would be a willing buyer for that item at say $3K, but it sells for $185 at the auction because they would not be allowed to bid (or there is a reserve of $2500 on the item, but it again is unsold because Heritage can't buy it for themselves). While possibly an extreme example, you can't remove one of the largest buyers from the playing field. Consignments would dry up and it would not be a good situation for anyone. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Richard" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:12:55 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response John, Apparently I was under a misapprehension as well because I thought Heritage still used hidden reserves. If not and, as you say, no one at Heritage ever pushes the price above the reserve, then what was N.P. Gresham doing? I realize you probably can't comment on that because of the lawsuit, but now I'm just confused. Both the President and the CEO have admitted to using a fictitious bidder who was not a real person to bid on and even win auctions. -- JR Petty, John - PG wrote: Hi Jeff: I think you’re laboring under some misapprehensions concerning the way the Heritage bidding system works. As the auctioneer of record for most of Grey’s auctions, let me address a couple of your concerns. You’ve mentioned reserves in this post and several others, and seem to be suggesting that auction houses should disclose reserves to their bidders prior to bidding. You’re absolutely right on this, which is why Heritage fully discloses all reserves at least one week prior to the actual auction date for Signature Auctions (items in the Weekly auctions are typically offered without reserve). Remember, reserves are set by the consignor, so if there’s a reserve price you feel is too high, that’s a consignor issue. IMO, it’s not in anyone’s best interest to set a reserve that’s unreasonably high. That’s why Grey takes so much time and care in working with consignors to set reserves that both protect their interests while at the same time offering a reasonable chance to sell. To address another of your points, when an item fails to meet the reserve prior to bidding, Heritage will increase the bid to one bidding increment below the reserve, and start the live bidding there. For example, if the reserve on an item is $1,000, Heritage will typically open the bidding at about $950 if the reserve has not been met during online and remote bidding. The next actual bid will take the item. Heritage’s reason for doing this is simple: they feel that their bidder’s time is valuable, and don’t want people wasting their time bidding against a reserve. In the case above, if the reserve is $1,000, and the highest maximum bid prior to live bidding is $200, whose interest is served by forcing the auctioneer – and the audience – to go through bids of $220, $240, $260, $280, etc? Even if live bidding tops out at, say, $750, the piece won’t sell and everyone’s time has been wasted. Surely you’re not suggesting that that would be a better system? With Heritage’s method, everyone knows the reserve, and they know that, if they bid, they’re in the running to win the piece. If, as you suggest, the market doesn’t want to pay the price set by the consignor, than the item doesn’t sell It’s as simple as that (items not sold are clearly marked in the Heritage Permanent Auction Archives). As for other dealers using Heritage prices as benchmarks for their own material, that is certainly their prerogative, as it is yours to refuse to buy a poster at a price you feel is unfair. I hope this addresses your concerns regarding these issues. It’s really very simple once you see it in action, and in that spirit I’d invite you to personally attend one of Heritage’s auctions and see the process in action for yourself. Once you actually see an auction in person, I’m confident that you’ll have a much greater understanding of the way Heritage does business. Best, John Petty From: MoPo List [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Jeff Potokar On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Walton, Jeffrey wrote: Yeah, I’ve seen this as well…but what ticks me off – the new price for that poster across the board is this over inflated cost thanks not to the bidders who drove up the price but to the news of it’s sale….so now everyone who has this $5000 poster in stock and if sold for 5k would probably make some sort of profit, now raises the price…they can even raise it double and state – “this just sold for $25,000” a real bargin. And don’t tell me it does happen….because I’ve seen this too….the power of perception is great -----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: 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.
