Question for Heritage and comiclink reps wrt Burkey admission

2 2

Mmeely man how many deals have you done with Mike? If so what were they like. Have you ever run a business? 98% perfect business with 2% that challenges someone's ethical standards that don't even know the details of the actual charges they are making doesn't seem right. Are you claiming you have never done something in your life that could be seen as morally wrong? Let me tell ya something. By not knowing the details and not calling Mike personally to ask him and spending a week slandering him to the point of people sharing innuendo about Mike like Hitler and Bernie Madoff to me and a lot of people like me is morally wrong.

Hmmmm, I'll take this one on too.

There are two facets at play here with respect to the shilling.

First the number of pieces that were "bought back" and the implications for those false sales as price indicators for the market. Let's put that number at 100 pieces of unknown total value.

Second there are those pieces that were shilled where the buyer was not a "shill reserve" and where - and it should be evident that this is where there are HUGE implications for our HOBBY, people paid thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or more ..... for OA auction lots where they were not bidding against a legitimate bidder.

You bring Mike's reputation into this, I ask you to absolve yourself of any relationship to him, or anyone else. You see for me its not the fact that Mike did it. ITS THE FACT THAT IT WAS DONE AT ALL To consider the implications AND THERE ARE MANY for the two scenarios listed above on numerous people in our hobby.

You see I honestly think that, from a implications for our hobby moving forward, the fact that it was Mike is probably the worst case scenario, as others have illustrated. It allows his reputation to come into play as a counter argument for this type of shill bidding and therefore neuter the response. Personally the hobby and people that purchase OA in it will ultimately determine the severity and length of damage this has done. As others have said, it can be a forgiving hobby and I'm hopeful that this will ensue for Mike.

WHAT I AM NOT OK WITH is the aforementioned two facets continuing to occur on the scale that they are currently occurring.

I'm not OK with Heritage's response;

I'm not ok with Heritage calling up under bidders on Mike's consignments, to see if they want to purchase art at their maximum because the winning bidder made a faux pas;

I'm not ok with them NOT undertaking research to see patterns and ensure that this is not going on with other consignors.

See I'd like to take Mike out of the equation, but even when I do, 1+1 seems to = 3 right now.

Dear Heritage, a valid question has arisen which you might have missed amidst much japery:

 

Stewart Huckaby came on the boards and said unequivocally:

"Heritage absolutely does not allow consignors to bid on their own lots."

 

And yet your Terms and Conditions, Article 15, seems to say that consignor bids are perfectly fine:

"Regardless of the disclosure of his identity, any bid by a consignor or his agent on a lot consigned by him is deemed to be made in “Good Faith.”

 

I imagine all parties would like to have this clarified!

 

LINK This discussion is about books, but still seems relevant.

Watchlist? I don't need no stinkin' watchlist! I'm high bidder on $47K worth of stuff now, and will break the $200K barrier today.

 

if you are really serious, are you planning on spending that much? or hoping/expecting to get outbid and end up with just a few serious wants...?

 

Don't worry...when the Heritage "bump" happens, he will probably be high bidder of a few thousand $$s worth of books!

thats still pretty bold to bid that much! especially if not expecting to win. it inflates the prices for the rest of us too...

 

More often than not the "Heritage Bump" will inflate prices.

what do you mean by the Heritage bunp? you mean the Heritage employee bump-up of low bid items?

Roughly 2-3 days before the auction ends, the bids are bumped up to just below the reserve levels. And keep in mind that the consignors can bid on their own items!

great! what a racket!

Actually, Heritage does NOT knowingly permit consignors to bid on their own lots, and in fact such permission has never been our policy. Consignors may place reserve bids in advance of the auction (as is the case with virtually all auctioneers), but may not place reserve bids on their own lots during the live session. Our terms have recently been rewritten for clarity. A lot of people seem to have the same misunderstanding, so the confusion is almost certainly our fault, and we apologize for that.

 

Here is the new language:

 

Notice of the consignor's liberty to place reserve bids on his lots in the auction is hereby made in accordance with Article 2 of the Texas Uniform Commercial Code. A reserve is an amount below which the lot will not sell. THE CONSIGNOR OF PROPERTY MAY PLACE WRITTEN RESERVE BIDS ON HIS LOTS IN ADVANCE OF THE AUCTION. ON LOTS SUBJECT TO A RESERVE, IF THE LOT DOES NOT MEET THE RESERVE THE CONSIGNOR MAY PAY A REDUCED COMMISSION ON THOSE LOTS. Reserves are generally posted online about 72 hours prior to the auction closing. IF THERE IS AN UNMET RESERVE BID POSTED ON A LOT, THE CURRENT BID DISPLAYED ONLINE WILL GENERALLY BE ONE INCREMENT BELOW THE RESERVE BID. The Auctioneer will not knowingly accept (and reserves the right to reject) live telephone or floor bids from consignors. Any successful bid placed by a consignor on his consigned lot on the auction floor or by telephone during the live session will be considered an unqualified bid, and in such instances the consignor agrees to pay full Buyer's Premium and Seller's Commissions on the lot(s).

 

James L. Halperin

Co-Chairman

Heritage Galleries

World's Largest Collectibles Auctioneer

100 Highland Park Village, Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75205

Phone 214-528-3500/800-USCOINS(872-6467)

Direct fax 214-520-7108

mailto:Jim@HeritageCoin.com

Hi, That response was from 2003 about comic books, if I read correctly. The current language copied and pasted from February Signature 2016 comic art online terms and conditions are below.....

Either it is different for comic books, or a change has occurred over time,

but it appears that consignor bidding on comic art is allowed and predicted for under the current terms. I suppose it could be a typographical error, leaving out the word "not" in #15 referencing good faith bidding. If that is the case, it certainly needs to be remedied. My opinion, David

You are right, my link is from that revised 2014 version which is the current applicable online version for the Feb. 2016 Signature comics auction. A printed catalog I have for 2015 shows a 3-30-2015 revision, not sure what the revision was. Maybe if someone has a print 2016 catalog, they can let us know. Thanks, David

On 1/22/2016 at 3:23 PM, artdealer said:

Do you think the dealers that consign will stop shilling? They'll need to continue to shill to keep the value of their originals up, otherwise all they have is a lot of self-perceived value.

 

MI

Excellent pull-quote Mitch; I've always appreciated your direct honesty.

On 1/24/2016 at 5:55 PM, vodou said:

Sort of like this Kirby FF page.

 

1. 2009 HA sold $6500 http://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jack-kirby-and-vince-colletta-fantastic-four-41-page-11-original-art-marvel-1965-/a/7002-92148.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515

 

2. 200x-2015 Romitaman.com unsold $14000. (I think Mike was the buyer at HA, but unprovable.)

 

3. 2015 HA "sold" $13100 (note: Under Mike's "list" $14000, assume shill outbid everyone else, there was no organic bidder willing to go higher).

 

4. 2016 Romitaman.com unsold (so far) $14000 (again).

 

Form your own judgement. Mike, the shill (if any, I could be wrong!), and HA are the only parties with some/all of the real facts of consignment, bidding, winning.

 

 

On 1/24/2016 at 6:26 PM, Mmehdy said:

.

 

 

Shocking... Unfair...unwise

By the way, free advertising for Mike here. He may need it for this dead wood inventory.

Kirby Fantastic Four #41 page 11 is still available for $14,000, but after his having it available for least ten years...you might be able to negotiate a better price? Maybe "trade" him another or three Joe Jusko SSOC paintings at value = 6-7k each?

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=18739&ArtistId=921

But maybe somebody can tell me, gee whiz isn't Kirby LA FF the hottest material there is, why it just isn't selling? What is true FMV for this?

That thread was so interesting, not so much about Mike, but about the fine print in the auction house declarations.

It turns out he was not doing anything against the rules of the house, though I think he agreed to withdraw some

lots to quiet down the internet discussion.

For me, it was an eye-opener about the shenanigans at this level.  I was familiar with bidding pools since I 

was a teenager going to local auctions with my mother.  Dealers would get together and decide who would hold off

on bidding up certain lots that fellow dealers wanted, for a consideration, of course.

The thread woke me up to, of course, such activity exists at a more sophisticated level in the international

auction marketplace for original comic art.

Sometimes, it seems it is you against the house for any particular item.

But there is so much out there in different venues that a knowledgeable collector can find nice satisfying

art with a little diligence.

And when it comes time to sell, the house might have your back.

David

3 minutes ago, aokartman said:

I was familiar with bidding pools since I 

was a teenager going to local auctions with my mother.  Dealers would get together and decide who would hold off

on bidding up certain lots that fellow dealers wanted, for a consideration, of course.

The most common term for what you describe is bidding ring, which goes back to the time when Estates were mostly what was liquidated by Christie's and Sotheby's and dealers were generally the only bidders; either the public wasn't allowed at all or wasn't invited to participate. The goal then was to reduce the cost of new inventory, robbing the Estate (and the auctioneer of their %) of what an unrigged auction would realize. That has changed, now the public actively participates, and so some of the old games have been modified or turned on their head but the point is always the same: to fleece the outsider(s) to the benefit of the insider(s).

Wider than auctions for antiques/collectibles there is bid rigging. Same game though. You won't really find many that stand up for the wider practice as some folks did for Mike and his actions. I question how it could be okay anywhere if it's not okay everywhere?

1 hour ago, vodou said:

The most common term for what you describe is bidding ring, which goes back to the time when Estates were mostly what was liquidated by Christie's and Sotheby's and dealers were generally the only bidders; either the public wasn't allowed at all or wasn't invited to participate. The goal then was to reduce the cost of new inventory, robbing the Estate (and the auctioneer of their %) of what an unrigged auction would realize. That has changed, now the public actively participates, and so some of the old games have been modified or turned on their head but the point is always the same: to fleece the outsider(s) to the benefit of the insider(s).

Wider than auctions for antiques/collectibles there is bid rigging. Same game though. You won't really find many that stand up for the wider practice as some folks did for Mike and his actions. I question how it could be okay anywhere if it's not okay everywhere?

Reading about all this is almost enough to sour a newbie like me on the whole market, which of course is not good for the market if that attitude is widespread. Auction houses can't prevent every form of shenanigans, but I'm surprised they endorse certain forms, trading long term benefits for the short term. Also, as comic book art ascends in value, I would think that at some point it becomes worth the scrutiny of the FTC, FBI, CCA (kidding), or whoever deals with interstate fraud.

5 hours ago, vodou said:

Excellent pull-quote Mitch; I've always appreciated your direct honesty.

Truth.

3 minutes ago, RBerman said:

Reading about all this is almost enough to sour a newbie like me on the whole market, which of course is not good for the market if that attitude is widespread. Auction houses can't prevent every form of shenanigans, but I'm surprised they endorse certain forms, trading long term benefits for the short term. Also, as comic book art ascends in value, I would think that at some point it becomes worth the scrutiny of the FTC, FBI, CCA (kidding), or whoever deals with interstate fraud.

I think you can read between the lines here and in other threads, who you can trust, who you can ask opinions of, both with answers stripped of conflict of interest. You'll just have to decide what value that is to you. I'm not hardly discouraged but then, I'm very comfortable with what I know and what I can find out (and where too). Sure, many of us lament the damage done to the hobby, and that's why it's important to talk about it.

This bill is pending, but if passed would eliminate the "Texas Advantage" that HA enjoys when they do physical auctions there but accept internet bids from other states/jurisdictions. Of course the bill may never get passed, but it's something to consider and keep an eye on.

1 hour ago, vodou said:

The most common term for what you describe is bidding ring, which goes back to the time when Estates were mostly what was liquidated by Christie's and Sotheby's and dealers were generally the only bidders; either the public wasn't allowed at all or wasn't invited to participate. The goal then was to reduce the cost of new inventory, robbing the Estate (and the auctioneer of their %) of what an unrigged auction would realize. That has changed, now the public actively participates, and so some of the old games have been modified or turned on their head but the point is always the same: to fleece the outsider(s) to the benefit of the insider(s).

Wider than auctions for antiques/collectibles there is bid rigging. Same game though. You won't really find many that stand up for the wider practice as some folks did for Mike and his actions. I question how it could be okay anywhere if it's not okay everywhere?

When I see the term “bid rigging”, it is usually the exact opposite of shilling. For example, on public works, potential competitors agree not to offer a lower price to win the award of a public works contract, thereby driving up the amount the public has to pay for the same work. It can also be used with conspiracies to defraud the public involving an auction of public land or property, so that the winner pays less than the fair market value. Groups then allow different members to win different auctions while the others stay away. Yes, it is criminal.

3 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

When I see the term “bid rigging”, it is usually the exact opposite of shilling.

When I was posting that, I though it might get your attention as I know what your day job is

8 minutes ago, vodou said:

When I was posting that, I though it might get your attention as I know what your day job is

What is even more interesting is the ways to secretly and legally “fix” a bidding round. Makes me wonder if there are any significant analogies. What a public body can do is include specifications that no product but one can meet, and even better, if someone is an approved installer in a jurisdiction with a limited number (like 1) of them. That way, only one bidder will qualify. Likely losers then have to decide if going to court to mount a challenge is worth it because winning does not guarantee them the contract.  All sorts of regulations and laws try to prevent this sort of specifying, but It can still happen in fairly subtle ways. 

"...aren't we, Bruce?" - Bane, The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

On 1/24/2016 at 5:55 PM, vodou said:

Sort of like this Kirby FF page.

1. 2009 HA sold $6500 http://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jack-kirby-and-vince-colletta-fantastic-four-41-page-11-original-art-marvel-1965-/a/7002-92148.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515

2. 200x-2015 Romitaman.com unsold $14000. (I think Mike was the buyer at HA, but unprovable.)

3. 2015 HA "sold" $13100 (note: Under Mike's "list" $14000, assume shill outbid everyone else, there was no organic bidder willing to go higher).

4. 2016 Romitaman.com unsold (so far) $14000 (again).

Form your own judgement. Mike, the shill (if any, I could be wrong!), and HA are the only parties with some/all of the real facts of consignment, bidding, winning.

This is not showing in the HA archives as having sold in 2016 (or even unsold). Could it be reserve not met?

But one thing that is still true, you can not online bid on items you have placed at HA for auction. The software won't allow it. Now, having a friend place a bid for you is another story entirely.

3 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

This is not showing in the HA archives as having sold in 2016 (or even unsold). Could it be reserve not met?

But one thing that is still true, you can not online bid on items you have placed at HA for auction. The software won't allow it. Now, having a friend place a bid for you is another story entirely.

Honestly, I think that the prices listed on generic Kirby pieces are “organically” high, and this sort of analysis supports my thinking. Don’t forget that he could churn out as many as 3 pages per day at Marvel, when 1 is considered good. That means there is an awful lot of material, and some of it can’t be too good.

7 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

This is not showing in the HA archives as having sold in 2016 (or even unsold).

Fake news

2009 sale:

2015 "sale":

7 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

But one thing that is still true, you can not online bid on items you have placed at HA for auction. The software won't allow it. Now, having a friend place a bid for you is another story entirely.

And here for, in Mike Burkey's own words, how it was accomplished.

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Honestly, I think that the prices listed on generic Kirby pieces are “organically” high, and this sort of analysis supports my thinking. Don’t forget that he could churn out as many as 3 pages per day at Marvel, when 1 is considered good. That means there is an awful lot of material, and some of it can’t be too good.

"Organically" high? I dunno.

When in doubt, I always go back to the huckster's Bible: Perception is reality. And what we have, in my example above, is textbook perception management:

1. Public Result #1 (HA hammer, 2009)
2. Public re-offer by prominent dealer at expected "pir" dealer mark-up of round double (2009-2015 @romitaman.com)
3. Public Result #2, sadly a "fail" to find an "organic" buyer over the protection level (HA hammer, 2015)
4. Round-trip back to #2 above: Public re-offer by prominent dealer but only at previously offered level (showing weakness), just barely "above" last Public Result (2015-present @romitaman.com)

On the one hand this was a set-up to accomplish at least one of two things:

• Clear stale (dead?) inventory (Kirby FF #41 page 11) at/abvoe $14,000, or as 'heads Mike wins, tails Mike wins' fallback:
• Create a fresh public "comp" that would be supportive of the recycled back to Romitaman.com website price of $14,000.

On the other hand, in either case (sale to non-ring or ring) a nice solid five figure "comp" is created to support the rest of that Jack Kirby segment, the rest of Marvel twice-up superhero segment, even the rest of DC/other companies Silver Age/twice-up superhero/market segment. Twice-Up Jack Kirby Fantastic Four is sort of the "gold standard" of the entire post-Golden Age/EC hobby, except for UG and other non-mainstream "stuff" which moves to a different beat (and is so offbeat any of that material rarely is discussed/shared on this Board). Arguably the only Jack Kirby (and maybe all superhero art?!) held in higher esteem would be: Sinnott inked FF! "Gold Standard" rises = the market is bullish. The opposite, well then maybe a pause in the bull? (but not, never, a bear indication!)

Anyway, this sad POS FF #41 page 11 (ruined not due to artist or artistry but by "the market" ) can't even generate a double in over ten years time, wow, not even for 'never loses' Mike Burkey? Did the 2009 winner overpay or should we question how "organic" even that hammer was too?

What is "organic" about any of the above Rick? Shouldn't we question how "organic" the overall Jack Kirby market is then?

What I can tell you is in twenty years I've seen "weak" Jack (roughly all post-4th world material) climb from low 3 figures to mid four figures and higher in a rather stair-step fashion. This would be understandable if the demand grew in roughly the same fashion. I'm not sure it has though. There are a number of us that just scratch our heads at this, that any old "Jack" is now four figures, even oddball material like Losers, 80s "stuff" etc - art that is not attractive in it's own right and is not going to be (very) nostalgic either. So why? A rising tide lifts all boats? Maybe...that would be an oft-made statement supporting perception management and begs the question, which came first the chicken (rising prices "organically") or the egg (rising tide lifts all boats)?

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Fake news

2009 sale:

2015 "sale":

And here for, in Mike Burkey's own words, how it was accomplished.

wonder why it's not showing when I do a search for Fantastic Four #41? Now I'm thinking there is a conspiracy in my display results.