Auction houses that can see absentee bids, and the huge conflict of interest

[Bruce]

When I first started preparing auctions for Christie's in 1990, I told them I did not want to know what any absentee bidder had bid on ANY item, and then told me that this information was HIGHLY confidential, and never given out in any way. Over the years I came to find that this was pretty much an "in name only" policy at every auction house I would come in contact with (for example, when I became friendly with the owners of several other auctions, they would freely volunteer to me what items had high absentee bids, and how much, when I would show up in person at the preview on the day of the auction).

Obviously, this is a huge conflict of interest! If the auction owner tells me in passing that someone placed a $9,000 absentee bid on a $1,000 item the morning of the auction, I can later go to that auction and, with an absolute certainty, bid up to $8,500, KNOWING I will be outbid. Of course, that may well mean the absentee bidder pays $9,000 instead of maybe $5,000 (or $3,000, or $1,000), but the auction house makes a lot of extra commissions, and they get the prestige of selling an item for a sky-high price, and it is a "perfect" crime, for there is no way for them to get caught, and there is no paper trail whatsoever (they can say a "floor bidder" was the underbidder, and they don't even have to have a record of who that bidder was).

I detested this, and never took any part in it in any way (either as an auctioneer or as a consignor), but saw it happen with regularity in auction after auction, and it made me sick. When I switched my major auctions from Christie's to Howard Lowery, one of the biggest draws for me in doing so was that Howard assured me that this practice never occurred in his auctions, and I believe that was 100% true.

This is why I was so drawn to switching over my entire business to eBay in 2000. The greatest benefit to auctioning through them was that WE could not in any way see the high bidder's secret high bids, and what was even better, it seems certain that, unlike every other auction house, eBay protected those bids from ANYONE accessing them (other than people in their tech department, and I never, ever heard of anyone breeching that security in any way).

When I left eBay, I found Auction Anything, a wonderful auction host, that offered everything I wanted in running my own auctions. But once I had the auctions set up, I discovered to my dismay that there was a "secret" view I could go to that would show me bidders' "secret" high bids. I immediately called the owners of Auction Anything, and asked them to get rid of this view, and not surprisingly, their people told me that NONE of their other auction clients had ever asked them to do this, and that they did not have that capability!

I asked them what it would take to remove this from my auctions only (because they said they were sure many other clients did NOT want to remove it!), and they said that not only would it cost a lot, but that also it would take a lot of their time, and that they had more urgent things to do at that time in adding features that would benefit all their clients, so they could not then spare that time.

So I made certain that I never accessed that "secret" view, and I told my employees to never access it either. But a couple of months ago, I started thinking about how I had 23 employees, and that I could not really guarantee their actions, and so I again called Auction Anything, and told them that this was a "deal breaker" and that they would have to find the time to get this changed. They agreed to do so for a considerable fee, and a couple of weeks later they told me that the "secret" view had been removed, and I checked and it appeared to be.

But over the next few days, I found a "back door" to access that same information that they had not closed, and once I found that I then searched their entire site, and discovered two more "back door", and I called them and they apologized and closed those, and now I can say with a certainty that neither I, nor anyone at eMoviePoster.com, can access any high bids placed by any of our bidders in any way.

Not only can we no longer view the hidden high bids, but we can also no longer "look up" bidders' passwords, so ALL we see is what any user of our system sees (except we don't see what they themselves bid on). This does mean that when a user forgets their password they will have to go on the site and click on the link there to have it e-mailed to them (rather than calling or e-mailing us), but this is a small price to pay for knowing that your bidding information is 100% protected.

We know of no other auction house (other than eBay and now us) where those who run the auctions do not even have the ability to access their bidders' proxy bids. We urge all other auctions to implement the same software, and we urge all bidders to inquire of auction houses they are considering bidding with to find out if their employees are blocked from viewing high bids and passwords as ours are.

I first announced the above in my e-mail club message #472, sent December 13th. A few days later, one of my longtime buyers called me and told me the following story:

     "I have been a buyer in major poster auctions for over 20 years. I have bought some in your online auctions, but not that much, because I am not that comfortable with computers. I have been learning how to do so, and have been bidding with you, and I recently noticed that one of your competitiors has online auctions as well, and I looked at them.
     I found 11 items to bid on, and I gave my secretary 11 bids to place on those items for me. A couple were between the estimates, but most were over the estimates, and I had bid odd amounts (like $235, etc).
     A few days later I got notification that I had won all 11 items, and I told my secretary to pay for them, and she asked me why EVERY item was EXACTLY the price I bid! I looked at the list, and just as she had said, I was the high bidder on every item at EXACTLY my limit.
    Now I could see that happening on a few of the items, or even five or six, BUT ALL ELEVEN? I mean, that is astronomical that it could be caused by chance. It would be like picking the winners of 11 straight horse races! It makes me very sad and angry, but it is easy to figure out what happened."

I told him that many other people had told me very similar stories over the years, and that the best way to deal with this is to either not bid in such auctions, or, if they have items you would like to have at some price, then go ahead and bid, but assume that they will "make" you pay your maximum, so only a bid a price you will be happy to pay.
     Of course, it is very sad that they have to have this charade of an auction, and that there are surely many, many, people who don't "catch on" for years, if ever, but until the government ever steps in and regulates this completely unregulated industry, it is likely to not change one bit.
     Incidentally, I have heard auction owners defend their actions by saying that no one is really hurt by this, because after all, the buyers are getting to buy items for the price they themselves set as the price they were willing to pay, but I don't buy this for one second, because there is gross misrepresentation in "how the game is played" (even if the auctions put in the fine print that they can bid on their own items, that consignors can bid on their own items, that reserves can be over the estimates, etc).

A couple of weeks later, that same longtime buyer called me back and said that once he got over being so mad, he took my advice and simply bid prices he was willing to pay. He said he had just placed three bids, and he bid three VERY odd numbers (like $171.50), and in all three cases, he "won" the items for EXACTLY his limit! But at least now he knows "how the game is played", so he is not as mad, although he said he will likely bid less and less high in the future in those auctions (but he mentioned how he had bid $400 in an eMoviePoster.com auction recently and won the item for $160!).

Does anyone know of any place that auction movie paper where the auctioneers CAN'T see the hidden high bids, other than eMoviePoster.com and eBay? And what do YOU think of this? Have you had experiences where you felt an auction house took advantage of their knowlege of your "hidden" high bid?

Bruce

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

As a lawyer myself, I find this subject very interesting.  

(Full disclosure: I regularly use and very much like all four auction sites (Ebay, EmoviePoster, Heritage, and Movieposterbid) and have no connection to any of them.)

Everybody should know there are two sides to this story.  

First, I want to re-post Grey Smith's response to this subject that he posted on MoPo in September:  

(Grey Smith is the Director of Heritage's Movie Poster Auctions)

Dear Forum Members,

These accusations come from the attorney for an individual engaged in a lawsuit
with us in the form of a homemade, paid-for press release. More to the point,
the claims are absurd.

Heritage's bidding policies are fully disclosed and comply with all laws.
Hendershott, a dealer and former Heritage contractor in our Civil War
memorabilia category, who owes us over $1 million, has manufactured nonexistent
"wrongs" to try to gain leverage and renegotiate his debt, along with his
friend Kortlander, who also owes us money, and whom we had never even heard of
until Hendershott brought us his consignment in 2007. Unfortunately, these days
anyone can make up accusations that under other circumstances would clearly be
libelous, put them in a lawsuit, and disseminate them to the press as
"newsworthy".

We understand why you would be concerned over an accusation like this, no
matter how preposterous.  And naturally, we will be taking steps against these
people, albeit in a more civilized and distinguished manner.  We've been in
business over 30 years, trusted by over 100,000 satisfied clients in 181
countries. We would hope and trust that our hard-earned reputation and your own
personal bidding experiences at Heritage provide the confidence that we provide
the fairest and highest integrity auction platform in the world.

Just to make things crystal clear, I can personally attest that Heritage NEVER
shill bids.

Shill bidding is illegal. When we bid, whether in our own auctions or other
firms' auctions, we do so only when we are ready and willing to purchase and
pay for the item. Moreover, our policy is that Heritage buyers must place their
proxy bids on-line PRIOR to the auction and they may not raise their bids once
the auction has started.

Keep in mind that we have a responsibility to the consignors to get them fair
value for their goods and to the buyers that the auction be conducted in a fair
in reputable manner. If our affiliated companies and buyers refrained from
bidding in our own sales that contained items we routinely buy from other
auction companies at below wholesale value, such inaction could even be
construed by some as being unfair to our consignors, i.e. How could we, a
significant market participant, penalize our own consignors by not bidding the
same price we would gladly pay another dealer or auctioneer to stock that same
item?  As a corollary, it's always been of the utmost importance to us that our
bidders are dealt with honestly. Our viability depends on our clients trust. We
would never be foolish enough to place shill bids as collectors and dealers
would quickly figure that out, and word would spread like wildfire, which would
destroy our business.

As to the matter involving the Kennedy letter, the real title of the article
that appeared over the weekend is FBI investigates Jackie Kennedy letter at
Dallas auction company.  Heritage is NOT under investigation for anything.  
We've been simply safekeeping an item that was consigned to us by an individual
a few years ago that members of the Kennedy family believes was stolen.  
Naturally, we declined to offer the item in a sale or return it to the
consignor (or the Kennedy) without a warrant until such time as the dispute is
legally resolved.

We appreciate this opportunity to refute these stories and remain grateful for
your continued business.

Respectfully,

Grey Smith

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Second, here is an objective article on the subject:

Lawsuit Claims Heritage Auction Galleries Uses Fake Bidder to Manipulate Auctions
By Sam Merten in News You Can Actually Use, Actually
Thu., Sep. 10 2009 @ 2:54PM

A former senior Civil War consultant for Heritage Auction Galleries alleges the Dallas-based company uses a fake bidder to defraud customers. A lawsuit filed May 22 by Gary Hendershott against Heritage and six others also claims the world's third largest auction house has violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Texas Administrative Code and Texas Pawnshop Act.

"Heritage and its owners use N.P. Gresham -- a non-existent, fictitious entity -- to act as a shill/sham bidder at their auctions," says Mark Senter, Hendershott's attorney.

Heritage has denied the accusations in court, and while company president Greg Rohan acknowledges that his company has been using the pseudonym N.P. Gresham for approximately 25 years to place bids in its own auctions as well as others, he stresses that there's nothing "sinister" about Heritage's bidding practices.

"The claims made by Hendershott are a complete distortion of the facts and the law," Rohan says.

Rohan says an accounting clerk developed the fake name when Heritage needed a mechanism for invoicing between its two companies -- the auction house and its direct purchase and sale company -- and it uses two account numbers for Gresham to keep some transactions separate "for internal reporting reasons." He claims the N.P. stands for "new purchase" but doesn't know the significance of Gresham.

"The characterization fake bidder is entirely Hendershott's and his attorneys'," he says, "and is utterly false and misleading."

Although Rohan argues that while it's "perfectly legal" for an auction house or its affiliates to bid in its own auctions without disclosure, Heritage discloses its interest at the back of auction catalogs and online in its listed terms and conditions. The terms read: "The Auctioneer or its affiliates may consign items to be sold in the Auction, and may bid on those lots or any other lots."

"There's nothing illegal or unethical about us placing a bid prior to the auction starting," Rohan says, adding that Heritage doesn't compete or bid during auctions.

Steve Bruno, the government relations officer at the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, says Heritage is allowed to bid in its own auctions -- even if it uses a false name -- provided that it's announced. "As long as they've said that their people will be bidding, then they're allowed to do that."

However, Hendershott's lawsuit claims the pseudonym's use is illegal because it's being used to manipulate auction prices, engaging in what's known as shill bidding -- an illegal activity that involves bidding without the intent of buying. Placing bids in an attempt to drive up the prices of items, which Hendershott alleges Heritage has done, and withdrawing bids because someone else failed to bid higher are considered shill bidding. In theory, an auction house bidding in its own auctions could bid with the intent of driving up the price and then withdraw the bid if someone doesn't outbid them before the auction ends so it doesn't win.

Rohan says Heritage only affects the price of items when it's the immediate underbidder or top bidder, and it only wins between one and two percent of the auctions it bids on. He also stresses that Heritage doesn't engage in shill bidding.

"It's like Bernie Madoff. You think he put all 13,000 of those statements in envelopes every month? No. Somebody else is guilty there," Rohan says. "If we were running bids up, if we were putting in bids and withdrawing them, there has to be somebody in the data processing department that knows about it; there has to be a clerical person in the bidding department that knows about it. Somebody would see it in the last 35 years and feel like they were wrongfully terminated and scream bloody murder. We don't do that."

The TDLR regulates auctioneers, not auction houses. So while Heritage is required to hire licensed auctioneers to conduct its auctions, the company's practices as an auction house are not regulated. A statement from Tom Kelley, a spokesman for the Texas Attorney General's Office, says "nothing in the law addresses the licensing of auction houses."

Christie's and Sotheby's, the world's two largest auction houses, are regulated by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. Toby Usnik, head of communications for Christie's, says a "third-party guarantee" is utilized on occasions when his company bids in its own auctions. This practice involves Christie's guaranteeing a seller that an item will reach a minimum price at auction, selecting a third-party buyer to place bids on its behalf. If the third party doesn't win the item, they share in some of Christie's proceeds from the sale as compensation.

"It's very rare that we would have any interest in any kind of bidding in our
saleroom, but in those instances when we do, it's indicated in our catalogs next to the lot that's being auctioned off, and it's very transparent to anyone in the saleroom, online or by telephone," Usnik says.

Christie's wouldn't bid as often as Heritage does -- Rohan claims it bids on "a lot of things" -- and wouldn't use a pseudonym because "that would be illegal," according to the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, says Usnik. "You would be bidding up the price of something artificially, and others in the auction room who are competing for it would not know that it's you who is bidding or that you have a special interest in it."

The lawsuit regarding Heritage's use of N.P. Gresham as a fake bidder is the latest in what Rohan refers to as "litigation terrorism" launched by Hendershott, who began working for the company in April 2007. Hendershott says he first learned about the Gresham pseudonym in late summer or early fall of 2007 when internal documents were left on his desk, and he noticed Gresham was bidding in their own auctions.

He starting asking around the office about the identity of Gresham, Hendershott says, but no one wanted to answer the question until someone moving paintings solved the mystery. "That's the owners of Heritage," he claims the man told him.

"At that point, I kinda just let it roll by me ... I didn't know it was a fake name," Hendershott says. "I figured there really was an N.P. Gresham running around [Heritage] somewhere."

Hendershott claims his relationship with Heritage soured because he hadn't received any commission checks from the company for the millions in sales he generated from his referrals. "From things I saw going on there, I decided I better get out," he says.

Hendershott, 55, left the company in April 2008 and subsequently filed his first lawsuit against Heritage on April 3, claiming he wasn't paid any commissions on the more than $33 million in auction sales he generated -- of which he says he's owed $1.6 million. He followed with another suit as trustee of the Chanrem Family Trust in December 2008, claiming Heritage failed to hand over two paintings purchased by the trust.

Heritage filed a counterclaim in January against the trust for fraud and breach of contract, alleging the trust never paid for the paintings, and also sued Hendershott for violating a non-compete agreement. During a January 16 temporary injunction hearing aimed at stopping Heritage from reselling the paintings, Hendershott says he grasped the significance of N.P. Gresham as Heritage co-founder Jim Halperin revealed that it was a pseudonym and had two separate account numbers.

"I've been involved in this [business] all my life, and I've never seen anything like it anywhere," he says.

Yet Rohan says the identity of Gresham isn't hidden, and "everybody down to the beginning clerk knows that it's us." In fact, Rohan claims that Hendershott not only knew about N.P. Gresham, he was Gresham when he was buying Civil War items for Heritage. "He knew all about it from the very beginning. He knew that we placed bids on stuff because he was one of the ones that bid."

"That's totally insane," Hendershott says in response. "I kept thinking N.P. Gresham had two legs." Hendershott claims he never bid on Heritage lots under a name other than his or the Chanrem Family Trust. "That's just him grabbing something out of the air," he says.

On January 22, Associate Judge Teresa Guerra Snelson ordered Heritage not to sell the two paintings until the matter could be resolved by an arbitrator. Hendershott then filed a counterclaim in April, alleging Heritage impermissibly charged him interest and fees, and Snelson ordered the matter to arbitration as well. Hendershott says he hopes his latest lawsuit, which alleges he and others "have been forced to pay higher than necessary prices for auctioned items," doesn't meet the same fate. "Give me a public courtroom. This has to come out in a public hearing."

Rohan says Hendershott's attorney rewrote the lawsuit with "salacious headlines" in order to attract media attention and put pressure on Heritage to settle. When WFAA-Channel 8 became interested in the case, Rohan admits he met with two executives from the station in an attempt to quash a potential story about it.

"If a media outlet was irresponsible and defamed us, there's no amount of money that we wouldn't spend to clean their clock because our business is all based on trust," he says. "If somebody ran something that was untrue, if it costs us $10 million, we'd have to spend it because we'd go out of business if people don't trust us. But, I hate spending money on lawyers. I try to use them as a last resort. I try to handle most these things myself."

Senter says the lawsuit has the potential to become a class action suit because so many others were potentially hurt by Heritage, which he calls "the 800-pound gorilla."

"They've kind of put their middle finger up and said, 'Hey, eff you. Come after me. See what you can do,'" he says, and that's exactly what his client intends to do.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Third, this site has posted the actual legal complaints and Heritage's answers (if you want to wade into the legalese).

[Bruce]

Mel, the bigger issue I am addressing is NOT addressed by any of what you kindly added. While many auctions admit to bidding on their own material, letting consignors bid on their own material, setting reserves above the estimate, etc" NO auction anywhere admits they improperly access the supposedly "hidden" high absentee bids, and then in any way cause someone (either connected with them or not) to enter bids that they know for certain are beaten, in order to make the auction house more money.

This is the practice I am addressing. I am saying that my 40+ years of experience as a buying, consignor, consultant, and runner of auctions has caused me to know that this is common practice in many, many auctions, and that the only two auctions I know of with safeguards against this are my own, eMoviePoster.com, and eBay.

I also am NOT saying people should not bid in auctions where this does (or may) go on, merely that they should only bid an amount they are absolutely willing to pay, and know that the price they pay may well NOT be the result of two parties bidding, but the result of them "bidding against themselves".

And I am also saying that this is a dishonest practice, and that auctions would be greatly improved if this was eliminated, whether by the auction owners themselves, or by government regulation.

Bruce

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

"they improperly access the supposedly "hidden" high absentee bids, and then in any way cause someone (either connected with them or not) to enter bids that they know for certain are beaten, in order to make the auction house more money... this is common practice in many, many auctions...."

If Heritage (or any other auction house) is secretly passing on information to third parties about bids that have been placed, that's 15+ kinds of wrong - fraud, breach of contract (including implied covenant of fair dealing), etc.  There are a couple of thousand hungry plaintiffs attorneys in Texas who would be happy to start a class action if that's actually going on.

For what it's worth, I don't believe Heritage is doing that.  I am far more concerned about Ebay sellers bidding on their own items (through their own other Ebay accounts or through their pals) to max out the price.  On Ebay, of course, they can't see the max bid. But if their shill bid is higher than the maximum legitimate bid, they can just pretend the sale went through (of course they will have to pay the Ebay fees).

In my experience - and from other reports - Ebay is pretty much a lawless jungle.  Your only remedy is to start a Paypal dispute and get your money back.  Ebay has ZERO INTEREST in actually tracking down and punishing the fraudsters.

[kovacs01]

usually what they do when the shill leaves them as the winner is they send you a second chance offer for your max.  it has happened to me twice, and i responded that i had changed my mind and would pay what my initial bid was.  one guy got chippy and i told him straight up that i wouldnt pay that bid because he was shill bidding.  never heard back from him.

[Bruce]

You are exactly right kovacs! eBay's second chance offers should be called the "you were outbid by a shill" offers. It results in the unknowing buyer being shill bid to their max, and there was no real second bidder.

And Mel, the only way such a class action suit could be filed would be if an "insider" came forward and testified, AND also had corroboration in the form of printed documents that verified what they said. Meanwhile, one has to wonder about the guy who paid his max 11 out of 11 times (as I reported above) or any of the many other similar stories I have heard over the years.

And you are incorrect about shill bidders on eBay paying the fees when they get stuck with the item. if they have a friend or fake account be the winning bidder, they simply report to eBay that the buyer never paid, and they don't pay the final value fees at all (and virtually all shill bidders surely know of this loophole).

Bruce

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Only thing I can add is that IF this is occurring, it is probably occurring for the more expensive items.

If I were the winning bidder on a high-level auction (and I'm talking $2,000+), I would INSIST that the auction house produce and identify the high bidders and specifically identify its own bids, consignors' bids, and the bids of all other parties related to the auction house and consignor.  

If the list showed mysterious/suspect bidders and/or or if the auction house didn't produce the list or was uncooperative in investigating the mystery bidders, I wouldn't pay.

[Bruce]

That's a great idea, Mel, but I don't think any auction does provide that service, so your only choice is to not bid at all.

Bruce

[easyenders]

so your only choice is to not bid at all.

Bruce

happy collecting everyone

[Carson]

One way to make the issue more tangible, Mel, would be to take a cross section of the same poster titles (with respect to condition and date of sale) from both Heritage and eMoviePoster and do direct comparisons of prices realized. You'll see a clear pattern emerge.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

(1) If the auction house refused to provide information about the bidders, you could refuse to pay.  If the auction house tried to sue you, you would be entitled to the bidder information through discovery. See the attached as an example.

(2) It's impossible to 100% detect and stop bidding shenanigans.  Even Emovieposter specifically states in its "site policies" that "eMoviePoster.com cannot and does not guarantee that inappropriate use of the system will be prevented or noticed."

(3) The lawsuit does not specifically allege that Heritage bid AFTER the bidding period opened.  It appears that Heritage has been bidding as "N.P. Gresham" BEFORE the bidding began, thereby setting an undisclosed minimum.  I'm not happy about that.  However, Paragraphs 13,15 & 21 of Heritage's "terms and conditions" clearly state that consignors and Heritage itself may bid for items.  (See attached.)

[supraman079]

This is a great thread. As much as I hate all the BS that CAN go on in an auction, I'm glad to see others trying to do all they can to make it better. And I'm glad we got a lawyer on board too.

Chad

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

And I'm glad we got a lawyer on board too.

Thanks - not the usual sentiment about lawyers 

Actually, we have at least one other on this board - not sure if he's ever identified his profession.

[supraman079]

Well, when they are on your side and you're not paying out the ass for it, I don't mind lawyers.   

Yeah, I'm not sure if the other member stated his profession on MPF or not. I can't remember. But, I'd say between our two lawyers on this forum we got some good guys.

Chad

[guest8]

Yes but Mel, sometimes we just want to vent and not have the proof that the scum bags out there have loop holes to get away with what they are doing

[Dr Hackenbush]

Did anyone else catch the part in the article where Grey Smith says Heritage is obligated to its consignors to make sure their items reach FMV by bidding them up through a third party:

"Keep in mind that we have a responsibility to the consignors to get them fair
value for their goods and to the buyers that the auction be conducted in a fair
in reputable manner. If our affiliated companies and buyers refrained from
bidding in our own sales that contained items we routinely buy from other
auction companies at below wholesale value, such inaction could even be
construed by some as being unfair to our consignors, i.e. How could we, a
significant market participant, penalize our own consignors by not bidding the
same price we would gladly pay another dealer or auctioneer to stock that same
item?"

 So, Heritage has access to bidders' max bids, they get their "affiliated companies and buyers" to bid said items to "FMV" in the best interest of the consignor(s), and they circumvent direct shill bidding by getting a third party to do it for them.  Sweet  

[guest8]

I dont take that statement as that way .. Its like if I was an auctioneer and collector .. And Every time I seen a Twilight poster I bid $50 on it in hopes of getting that beloved piece in my collection .. If I sold a Twilight poster on consignment for someone else and didnt put my regular bid of $50 on there then I am doing a disservice to my client. Because I would have bid if it had been for sale by anyone else ..

I think in that case they are arguing that they are buyers as well and if they see a chance to pick up a piece at a good price and add it to their stock then they will bid on it .. Just like they would bid if they saw it on Rich or Bruces sites .

[Bruce]

That sounds good in theory, but they actually DON'T bid on my site at all. It seems that all sites are equal, but some sites are more equal than others (when it comes to bidding).

As to the 'affiliates" buying, look at http://shop.ebay.com/lewiswaynegallery/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=25.

I am told that this seller only sells items that either sold or passed at Heritage (including million dollar ones!) and that if you look at their About Me page on eBay you see that they are in Dallas, and it lists Robert Dennis, Director, James Halperin, Co-Founder, Lewis Wayne Gallery, and of course Halperin is one of the owners of Heritage.

And of course Heritage is also a partial owner of most of the grading companies that guarantee the condition and lack of restoration of many of the items they sell.

Can one wear "too many hats"? A very tangled web, to say the least!

Bruce

[Bruce]

Mel wrote "It's impossible to 100% detect and stop bidding shenanigans.  Even Emovieposter specifically states in its 'site policies' that 'eMoviePoster.com cannot and does not guarantee that inappropriate use of the system will be prevented or noticed.'"

Where exactly is this? I think this is "boilerplate" from my host Auction Anything, but I would like to get it off there, unless it is something Auction Anything insists on.

Thanks for letting me know about this. I have been selling for 20 years with no fine print to buyers or consignors, and I have NEVER been involved in any lawsuit or court action. Heck, I have never even served on jury duty, and the closest I ever came to a courtroom is watching Perry Mason or Matlock. There are some auctioneers that are in and out of courtrooms so much they likely have lawyers on staff.

Bruce

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Where exactly is this? I think this is "boilerplate" from my host Auction Anything, but I would like to get it off there, unless it is something Auction Anything insists on.

In your Site Policies/Legal Disclaimer.

[Bruce]

Thanks Mel. I will look at it at work on Monday and try to get it off.

I'll report back on what I find.

Bruce

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Bruce.. it is true that I am an administrator at MoviePosterBid (seeing as I also own the site). However I think it would be pretty foolish and incredibly time consuming for me to see people's bidding as I would have to log in as that bidder to see the information. With as many people who are bidding weekly, that makes it a tiresome enterprise.

Of course, I can't think of any reason why someone would suspect I do that seeing as the best bargains on the net come from my site. My programmer has easier access to the logs if he has such a desire, but he doesn't sell posters on my site and so he has no purpose for it.

Everyone who has the ability does not have a use for it. Like myself.
When I auction an item, I'm happy to sell it no matter what the final bid is..
If I sell it the first time, I don't have to worry about relisting & doubling my work, which by itself negates any value to shilling in my case.

I'll never know what goes on behind the scenes at Heritage, Sotheby's, Christies or Butterfields, nor do I have an interest in such endeavours as I keep myself pretty busy already.. If any of them are doing something wrong.. shame on them & my feeling is that it's bad business.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

concerning lawyers.

what is the difference between  attorney and a catfish??
one is garbage eating bottom dweller.... the other one is a fish

What does an attorney and a sperm cell have in common??
they both have a one-in-a-million-chance of becoming human beings

Now I'll go slink off into a corner

:-)