This has to be read to be believed OA dealer practices

[GerryT]

Springing up in the CGC boards http://boards.collectors-society.com...74#Post9106274

This is frankly just unbelievable and to my mind shoddy practice from a dealer

It's well worth reading through this

[galactus]

This doesn't surprise me in the least, it's probably a matter of shill bidding to make sure they don't lose their shirts on pieces they've grossly over valued.

The buyers premium they need to pay (the sellers fee is gone either way) may be less than what they're going to lose on the sales price vs what they paid for it.

EDIT: Just read more of that thread, can't believe Mike admitted to doing that...

[GerryT]

Sure that's going to have repercussions . . .

[MONSTER]

I figure this stuff goes on but for Mike to admit to it and think its okay? Its shill bidding. No matter what way you slice it.

[carlito1978]

Somewhat not surprised. These auctions go for way too high and I struggle in accepting that there is soo much money pouring into this hobby. This somewhat explains why every piece goes for so damn high at each auction.

[MMBORNAGAIN]

very shocked his defense is basically shill bidding is good? damn!

[risingstar]

Just read all 16 pages... Wow.

"...NOW......What everyone is speculating about and giving their non facts about......If I give them a piece of art that I feel is worth "X" dollars (ALL at no reserve..... ) and I see that my art I gave them coming up at auction at way less than the "X" dollars I feel its worth..... I will ask any collector I know to buy it and I will work out whatever trade or cash / trade deal I have to do for them to get that piece back if it sells for well below what "I FEEL" is market value, , and I'm happy to put it back on my website and pay the 19.5% heritage premium on top of the deal I do with the collector.... that is not bad business..... its called Being smart and knowing your art market enough to know what YOU feel something truly is worth when others do not."

While I understand the seller's desire to protect his potential investment, it makes me not want to bid on any of his auctions as any auction starting at $1 is subject to the above rationale and business practice. In essence, the $1 auctions are a sham as the seller has already pre-decided what he will allow the piece to sell for, which means these are not "no reserve" auctions. In my mind, when a buyer sees an auction starting at $1, the belief is that there's an actual chance he/she might get the item for a $1. Not the case here at all as the seller is admitting that he will intentionally manipulate the auction playing field to his favor every time by asking people to bid on the item for him so that it won't sell below his "in his mind" reserve price. Yeesh. Legal or not, I'm uncomfortable with this arrangement. It may seem "smart" to him, but it comes off awfully shady and entitled to me. My time would have been wasted following his auctions as I would now suspect there's someone bidding alongside me for him. I would feel grossly manipulated discovering that my bid kept on being raised by someone the seller asked to bid for him.

Am I understanding this correctly? I'm thinking I might have misunderstood something because that above quote seems quite upfront.

[punisher129]

I wonder what HA response will be to all of this..

[joefixit2]

wow, that was an interesting read. ALmost makes me want to avoid HA for trying to get artwork.

[J-M-T]

Is it still considered a shill bidding if other people who Mike knows personally bid on the art and then win it and later Mike buys the art back?