Avoid These Auctioneers

[Leigh Youdale]

Most people here are more concerned with the 'Bay and equipment auctions, but there are bigger auction houses that are noteworthy for the wrong reasons.
Read about one man's experiences with Guernseys Auctions in NYC on Mike Johnston's "The Online Photographer" today. He doesn't quite call them crooks, but then he's a polite man.

[bolohead]

Here's the post.

[srtiwari]

Originally Posted by Leigh Youdale

He doesn't quite call them crooks, but then he's a polite man.

You can say that again. I have to admire his maturity in being able to let it end here. I'm not sure I would have been able to do that...

[oftheherd]

I will never have anything they would be interested in handling. But if I did, certainly I wouldn't want to deal with them.

[Paddy C]

I read TOP almost daily.

I have to question this article by Ctein, however. Granted, my thinking may be off here, but it strikes me as not quite right.

He is talking about a personal incident that would genuinely be of concern to very few people on a very public platform. And it is only his side of the story (though I'm at a loss to see another). It was only one incident, though an ugly one, and there is no evidence put forward to indicate that this is how Guernseys Auctions typically handles art work or problems arising from its handling of art work.

I can help but feel that this is an abuse of his platform.

[Freakscene]

Originally Posted by Paddy C

He is talking about a personal incident that would genuinely be of concern to very few people on a very public platform.

This is of interest to anyone who sells their work. I've had a similarly negative experience with Guernsey's and think letting people know about this kind of thing is very important. If you have significant work, you want to know who you can trust it with and who is going to ruin it and then rip you off.

Marty

[srtiwari]

What stands out for me in the story, is the attitude of the Auction house, given that they were responsible for the damage. Yes, I do know that it is a business, and that Insurance claims have to follow a certain procedure. But is it necessary for them to be adversarial ? Perhaps it is old fashioned to expect better 'handling' of the client in this day and age.

[Paddy C]

Originally Posted by Freakscene

This is of interest to anyone who sells their work.

Actually, as written, it is only of interest to anyone who sells his work and deals with (or was thinking of dealing) with Guernsey's. That makes for a very small percentage of the people who read Ctein's weekly column.

Originally Posted by Freakscene

I've had a similarly negative experience with Guernsey's and think letting people know about this kind of thing is very important. If you have significant work, you want to know who you can trust it with and who is going to ruin it and then rip you off.

Marty

I think there are other ways to do this.

My problem with his column is that there is no real lesson to be gleaned from it for the average TOP reader. Is it that all auction houses are bad? No. Is it that Guernsey's is bad. No, because he doesn't have more than his one incident to report. And again, it is only one side of the story. His.

So it is hard for me to see it as anything but a personal vendetta. And that, I feel, is an abuse of his platform.

[gerikson]

A person feels wronged by another party. He tries to deal with this in a normal polite manner, by contacting them and discussing a resolution. However, he does not feel he gets a resolution he's happy with.

He then writes a post detailing the affair from his point of view.

How is that wrong, or how is that "abusing his platform"?

The auction house is free to publish their side of the story.

Personally I found the post interesting, both as a view into the mechanics of fine art auctions and insurance coverage. Granted I'm not in the US nor have I anything worth offering for auction, but I still feel I've been informed about an area I knew very little of before.

[Freakscene]

Originally Posted by Paddy C

Actually, as written, it is only of interest to anyone who sells his work and deals with (or was thinking of dealing) with Guernsey's. That makes for a very small percentage of the people who read Ctein's weekly column.

I see it as of interest to anyone who sells photos or art and deals with the art in a way that it needs to be insured, shipped and handled by someone else outside the owner's supervision.

There are different ways to do anything you do.

Originally Posted by Paddy C

My problem with his column is that there is no real lesson to be gleaned from it for the average TOP reader. Is it that all auction houses are bad? No. Is it that Guernsey's is bad. No, because he doesn't have more than his one incident to report. And again, it is only one side of the story. His.

I think there are a number of procedural and legal lessons for anyone who ships their art, but I don't mind if you don't see it that way.

it's also a blog; there is no 'platform' except that which people assign to it. by its very nature it an individual or group of individuals saying what they think. If Mike Johnston, who runs the blog, says it's okay, and if Ctein wants to write it, there it goes.

I won't labour this any further.

Marty


So it is hard for me to see it as anything but a personal vendetta. And that, I feel, is an abuse of his platform.[/quote]

[Arjay]

Interesting story, and an interesting glance on the US legal system (from the POV of a German reader). You know what might happen if a German vendor would write something like this about a German auction house?

Her could be sued for libel. Seriously.

[B.J.Scharp]

Originally Posted by Arjay

Her could be sued for libel. Seriously.

Actually, no. Truth is an acceptable defence against libel.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by photomoof

I guess the post was about the deductible?

That clearly is not the main thing Ctein was upset about. He was upset that (1) irreplaceable work that *he* had done was ruined; (2) Guernsey's, which had previously been communicative, pretty much put up a wall of silence as soon as it was apparent that they had done something wrong.

Sleazy.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by srtiwari

What stands out for me in the story, is the attitude of the Auction house, given that they were responsible for the damage. Yes, I do know that it is a business, and that Insurance claims have to follow a certain procedure. But is it necessary for them to be adversarial ? Perhaps it is old fashioned to expect better 'handling' of the client in this day and age.

In an age where a reputation can be broken in 24 hours, it's even more important. They are going to lose a lot more than $5k in business from this. And so they should.

[Arjay]

Originally Posted by B.J.Scharp

Actually, no. Truth is an acceptable defence against libel.

Sorry - wrong argument. I recall, that there was a dedicated website in Germany that specialized on disclosing customer complaints. They had to close down exactly because of this.

The reason to do so was that these reports could cause so much damage in the value of the reported companies that the site had to close since they were unable to find an insurance that was willing to cover them.

The truth doesn't always count - unfortunately.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Arjay

Sorry - wrong argument. I recall, that there was a dedicated website in Germany that specialized on disclosing customer complaints. They had to close down exactly because of this.

The reason to do so was that these reports could cause so much damage in the value of the reported companies that the site had to close since they were unable to find an insurance that was willing to cover them.

The truth doesn't always count - unfortunately.

so the German definition of libel is: publishing a lie, or the truth ... how odd

[Arjay]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

so the German definition of libel is: publishing a lie, or the truth ... how odd

Well, that's one possible interpretation.

I prefer to look at this in another way:

If you're being sued for libel regardless of whether it is justified or not, you'll have to go to court. So you need a lawyer and you have to foward fees for the proceedings. That's why you need an insurance - you'll have to shell out money before the matter has actually been tried.

It's a simple business deecision: You have to ask yourself if it's really worth the hassle to publish your experience with such a business opponent.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by photomoof

1) Unless I read it wrong "Ctein is selling off a portion of his collection of signed Jim Marshall photographs" means the photos were collectibles not personal work, the photos were taken by Marshall?

It's like saying that the loss of master tapes of a performance by a master musician is meaningless, since the scores [negatives] still exist.

They were exhibition-grade prints that Ctein had made for (and in fact, in collaboration with) Marshall, that Marshall had signed and given to him.

In the case of the dye transfers, the majority of the prints in question, Ctein is one of only a few — perhaps half a dozen or less — people in the world who still make such prints, or who could possibly make such prints. Key materials for making dye tranfers are no longer available at any price, and Ctein has one of the last remaining caches of these materials.

IIRC, Kodak at one point called him the greatest living printer color photographs.

So yeah, these represented Ctein's personal work, and they were literally irreplaceable.

[semilog]

I have two of his dye transfer prints framed on my wall, and they make me grin every time I walk past them. Dude has chops.

[B.J.Scharp]

Originally Posted by Arjay

Sorry - wrong argument. I recall, that there was a dedicated website in Germany that specialized on disclosing customer complaints. They had to close down exactly because of this.

The reason to do so was that these reports could cause so much damage in the value of the reported companies that the site had to close since they were unable to find an insurance that was willing to cover them.

The truth doesn't always count - unfortunately.

In that case German law differs from the rest of the world, in that you're guilty until proven innocent?

In most laws, sueing for libel means you have to prove the other party is WRONG in what they're saying about you.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by B.J.Scharp

In that case German law differs from the rest of the world, in that you're guilty until proven innocent?

I don't know the precise circumstances actual case Arjay is talking about, but this does not seem like a question of guilty until proven innocent at all. From what I understand from Arjay's description, the website in question did not go down because they were ordered to close, but because they couldn't afford their ongoing legal costs and couldn't get insurance - presumably because they were being sued all the time and not all of those lawsuits were wrongful.

If you run a disclosure website you can be sure that not all of the "disclosures" posted on your website are truthful. So you can be sure that some of those libel suits will actually hold water.

I don't think that phenomenon is entirely unheard of in whatever jurisdiction you live.

[Arjay]

rxmd, precisely. Your explanation is perfectly to the point.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by rxmd

I don't know the precise circumstances actual case Arjay is talking about, but this does not seem like a question of guilty until proven innocent at all. From what I understand from Arjay's description, the website in question did not go down because they were ordered to close, but because they couldn't afford their ongoing legal costs and couldn't get insurance - presumably because they were being sued all the time and not all of those lawsuits were wrongful.

If you run a disclosure website you can be sure that not all of the "disclosures" posted on your website are truthful. So you can be sure that some of those libel suits will actually hold water.

I don't think that phenomenon is entirely unheard of in whatever jurisdiction you live.

Originally Posted by Arjay

rxmd, precisely. Your explanation is perfectly to the point.

... so that has no relevance to this?

[Andy Kibber]

Provided Ctein's post is factually accurate it's not defamation (libel).

Good on him for putting his story out there. If no one complains about shabby treatment by a company, the company will have very little reason to change its ways.

[Soothsayerman]

Im an insurance claims investigator. Guernseys followed the same procedures a lot of companies do. Some are pretty cold and impersonal about it, some are not. Everyone handles claims differently but if he signed an insurance agreement and in hindsight, realized the terms and conditions were not to his liking...

The best thing to do is have your work insured by a company you choose ahead of time and that way you know very well the terms and conditions if something bad happens along the way. It is your property and ultimately your responsibility if things go south.

Accidents happen, that is what insurance is for.