http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3779736#Post3779736

It seems to be the time to raise questions about the conduct of auction houses/dealers. Well, I have one to add to the mix.

In Heritage's last Signature Auction held November 18, 2009, I bid and won on this rare gem: Radio Funnies #nn Ashcan comic (DC, 1939) Condition: GD/VG., Lot: 91265, Bidding became somewhat aggressive during the live session and it went higher than I hoped but it finally ended at $4,481.25 w/BP.

The published description was as follows:

Radio Funnies #nn Ashcan comic (DC, 1939) Condition: GD/VG. DC's Golden Age ashcan editions were hand-assembled comics using a specially created cover (featuring a new-title logo art and often unrelated artwork), and were used to establish a trademark for a particular title. Usually, only two to ten copies were produced, most of which were tossed in the trash after they served their purpose, hence the name "ashcan". They are the rarest of the rare for comic book collectors. Here's an example of an ashcan that goes even beyond that -- it's a previously unknown variant on a known ashcan-only title. The known comic was cover dated March, 1939, as a #1, and featured cover art taken from Adventure Comics #39, with interiors from Detective Comics #19. This version was just recently unearthed from a private collection. It has no cover date or issue number, and features cover art from Detective Comics #26, with contents taken from Detective #17. The black and white cover has "156B" penciled in the upper right corner, and in the lower right is typewritten "M. Charles Gaines," indicating this was publisher Max Gaines' personal copy.

Although we have assigned it a GD/VG grade, this hand-made treasure is tough to gauge on a modern grading scale. The interior pages have an overhang, and are a bit brittle, but overall, the comic displays well. It's definitely one for the history books. Overstreet does not list it; they do list the "Adventure" version, although with the incorrect date of 1931, with "no known sales". We believe this "Detective" version is earlier, and even more scarce than the previously known version.

Noted ashcan expert Gary Colabuono confirmed that neither he nor DC owns a copy of the "Detective" version of the Radio Funnies ashcan. Colabuono owns the only know copy of the "Adventure" version.

You tell me, does this description give you the impression this is the only known copy?

And even if there is the slightest bit of wordsmithing within the description to leave open the possibility that more than this previously unknown unearthed from a private collection ashcan might exist, would it anger you if you bought it only to then discover Heritage presumably KNEW another copy existed? Not just apparently KNEW, but is now offering it for sale in the very next Signature Auction three months later!!!!!

Look what I was surprised to see up for sale on February 25, 2010, as Lot: 92074: Radio Funnies #nn Ashcan Comic (DC, 1939) Condition: GD/VG....

The published description is as follows:

Radio Funnies #nn Ashcan Comic (DC, 1939) Condition: GD/VG. In our last Signature Comics Auction, we unearthed a previously unknown DC "ashcan", a hand-assembled comic with a new cover and guts taken from another book, used to establish a trademark for the title. This version of Radio Funnies differed from a known version, with cover art originally used for Adventure Comics #39, and interior pages taken from Detective Comics #19. Here is a different copy of that same rare item. Both copies have the typewritten name "M. Charles Gaines" in the lower right corner and "156B" written in pencil in the upper right corner. Obviously there's no Overstreet listing yet for this new discovery, but the aforementioned copy sold for $4,481.

I don't think there is any question this book was obtained from the same collection, which would mean those at Heritage knew (and I suppose there is the oft chance they didn't, but I like to gamble and I believe it is safe to say that was not the case) that at least two copies existed when they sold the first one.

Do more exist? What if there are three? Five? Ten? Should Heritage reveal if it knows?

Would you feel angered by this? A little bit manipulated? I know how I feel, and I feel completely manipulated. Obviously I am very familiar with the existing ashcans. I know the relative scarcity and value of each, at least to me of course. And I also know what prices they have commanded in the past, which may be different from the value I assign but is still a point of information. It should be no surprise that, as a general rule, those ashcans that have multiple copies in existence (6-10) do not command as high a price than those that only have 1-3. Was I more aggressive in bidding for this particular ashcan thinking it was the only known copy? You bet I was.

Frankly, I have not said anything yet to the powers that be at Heritage so this is the first time they are hearing anything about my position. I'm curious if my perception of this situation is shared by others. I am candidly trying to decide how to react, if at all. What would I necessarily say? I don't honestly want to return the book for a refund. I suppose I could ask for a refund of the difference of the price of the two books. I've given Heritage a tremendous amount of business in the last five years and I don't appreciate this type of conduct. Do you?

I know I will certainly ask whether there are more than two copies in existence!

Your thoughts?

Hi Mark,

I read most of the thread on the CGC boards, with most of the responses - and I think you can definitely take issue with the way the auction wording was framed. But technically, they didn't lie. They clearly misled - in my opinion. And that's the difference.

I would be irked as much as you are. But unfortunately it's the nature of the beast and to expect a place like Heritage to take the high road and be totally transparent is ... well, wishful thinking. If you're going to deal with them, that's the risk you take. I choose to put my money elsewhere and won't even look at Green Rivers that come up for auction there.

Glad you brought it out into the open though.

Brad

It's certainly a well-crafted piece of salesmanship.

Here is what gave me the impression it was a one-of-a-kind version:

We believe this "Detective" version is earlier, and even more scarce than the previously known version. I presume this is referring to the Adventure version which is then mentioned in the next paragraph.

Colabuono owns the only know copy of the "Adventure" version. So, how could the Detective be more scarce than a version with only one known copy? Unless the first highlighted section is referring to something other than the Adventure version.

In any case, the narrative is undoubtedly designed to lead you down the path and leave one with the "impression" that this may be a one-of-a-kind item.

Does Heritage have a duty to disclose it has other copies? No, in my opinion.

That said, sales text that indicates it may be the only existing copy, when they know the opposite to be true, is wrong. Part of the issue is that the text is not clear. Whether this is intentional or just poor copywriter is anyone's guess.

No disagreement from me gents.

Do I think Heritage had a legal obligation to disclose? I would think not.

Do they have an ethical obligation to do so? Well that answer depends on your own principles.

Was the text misleading? Absolutely.

Was that intentional? Well that answer depends on your view of Heritage I suspect. In the worst light it was, and I think that is wrong and disappointing to see, and in the best light it was just poor wordsmanship.

Many of the CGC forumites who posted against my perception did so b/c of who wrote the post, i.e., me. I can predict with odds I wish I had in Vegas over who will follow anything I post with some negative assessment or criticism. Most of the time I'll just ignore it as they not worth the effort and I'll never persuade them otherwise anyway.

Clearly. Unfortunately some folk's assessment of a scenario is more based on who is asking the question than evaluation of the evidence.

Well, I think the people in question are not so much Heritage Kool-Aid drinkers as the oppose anything Mark Zaid says or supports crowd.

Yeah, learn how to post a live link.

Whoops, it was supposed to be! Anyway, I posted the text of my post!

Yep. There will always be detractors. It's annoying, frustrating, difficult to understand, and even slightly hurtful at times, but such is life! It really doesn't impact me past about 2 minutes. So to them I say And I ain't going away so they might as well get used to it!

I think that when you say "it's a previously unknown variant" it implies that it is the only known copy, not that they have two or more.

Mike

Great attitude to have Mark!

This was Steve Borock's post on the CGC boards in response for Heritage:

Well, I looked at this thread and sent an email off to Heritage.

David Tosh at Heritage took the time to write back for the boards. He does many of our catalog discriptions and knows a huge amount about comics. Met him a few times, very nice guy. Anyway, here is what he wrote:

"I was the cataloger of the two Radio Funnies ashcan comics at Heritage (links below for your convenience), so please let me respond with the facts as I see them, and the members of the CGC boards can draw their own conclusions.

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.p ... t_No=92074
http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.p ... t_No=91265

The two copies are quite similar as far as condition, with the first copy offered being slightly better than the piece being offered now (in my opinion). Both have slightly brittle interior pages taken from incomplete copies of Detective Comics #19, but the second copy has slightly more surface wear to the all-important cover, most noticeably along the “Radio Funnies” masthead.

I certainly did not intend to mislead bidders into thinking the copy initially offered was “one-of-a-kind.” Every statement in the description was, to the best of my knowledge and expertise, correct – that the book was heretofore unknown to exist, that DC Comics did not own a copy, and that the other known version of Radio Funnies (the “Adventure” version) is mentioned in Overstreet with no known sales. Perhaps my speculation that this “Detective” version was probably “earlier, and even more scarce than the previously known version” was a bad choice of wording, but my belief was based on the fact that one “Adventure” copy had been known for some time and presumably others exist somewhere, while the two “Detective” copies had been kept off the collectors’ market, and radar, entirely until now. In fact even DC was unaware of their existence.

There are no more copies waiting to be offered by us, and no more that we have any knowledge of. In my opinion chances seem extremely slim that a third copy even exists. Of course in the comics field, you can never know for sure what might come out of the woodwork tomorrow.

For the record, I have worked in the Comics department at Heritage for over six years and while we are not perfect I have never witnessed unethical behavior of any kind here at Heritage (and believe me, many of us would notice if there was any intentional puffery, shill bidding or just about any other type of dishonesty going on). Nobody from Management has ever asked me or, as far as I know, any of my coworkers, to do anything unethical, nor would I ever do anything I thought was unfair or dishonest. That said, some decisions, like this one, are basically judgment calls. We make hundreds of similar calls in every auction. We certainly make our share of mistakes, of course, but I think we always try to, and usually do, get it right. It’s not easy to keep both our customers and our consignors equally happy at all times, but one thing you can count on from Heritage is that we will never intentionally deceive anyone in order to make a sale."

I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, my view is that we are looking at an overly aggressive piece of sales copy that gave the wrong impression. Was there an intentional plan to deceive? I don't think so.

Interesting to see the tide seems to have turned towards my perception/side in the CGC thread.

Just an update to everyone, following the sale of the second ashcan copy Jim Halperin, Heritage's co-owner, and I personally spoke about this situation. Both of us were waiting to see the results of the second sale. While no details are necessary, Jim handled our discussion professionally and extremely promptly, as he always does, and there is absolutely no issue that remains pertaining to this matter as far as I am concerned.

I look forward to engaging in future business with Heritage.

Send me some please! Lawyer black.

Coffee for lawyers runs about $150 per cup.