Heritage Auctions Thread

[AdamW | 713]

43 minutes ago, ExplodedHamster said:

Mark Haspel did not know the first thing about sealed games when WATA started up. I can assure you he was not capable of overseeing WATA even if he wanted to lol. He was brought on as a liaison to the collectibles community. 

As for a “nondenial,” he’s been public about this for years and has never hidden it. There was never going to be a denial, and in fact he literally states right there he’s been buying, submitting, and selling. I’m not saying if it’s wrong or not, but clearly HE has been under the impression it is not because he’s been 100% open. WATA should have been more clear about his role. 

Ultimately, I think this all boils down to whether it is or is not ethical for investors in a grading company to use the service. 

 

Um, except his statement goes to great lengths to minimize his association with WATA, which is a tough look to pull off when there's that screenshot lying around.

Let's be clear about what the accusation is here. It's not that he hid something, so "he didn't hide anything" is not a defence. The accusation is that he had games graded by WATA and traded in games graded by WATA, as a significant shareholder, promoter, and - as you point out - "chief advisor" of WATA, after WATA's CEO told the New York Times that employees could not have games graded or trade in graded games. And he did not deny any of those things.

In a court of law you could pick nits about whether he was an "employee", but I would say that any reasonable person reading what the NYT reported Deniz as saying would expect it to cover a guy with his name in lights on the WATA website. Would you disagree?

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

26 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

 

Clearly it is not! Like... why pose the question? How in any world could that be ethical? It's NOT ETHICAL!!! lol jesus

Just curious where you put the threshold?  Dollar one? Or some percentage?

 

With regulated markets, there is the concept of being a major stakeholder (>10% ownership with publicly traded companies, >25% with small/private companies) vs simply being an investor.

[Gloves | 11,779]

54 minutes ago, ExplodedHamster said:

Mark Haspel did not know the first thing about sealed games when WATA started up. I can assure you he was not capable of overseeing WATA even if he wanted to lol. He was brought on as a liaison to the collectibles community. 

As for a “nondenial,” he’s been public about this for years and has never hidden it. There was never going to be a denial, and in fact he literally states right there he’s been buying, submitting, and selling. I’m not saying if it’s wrong or not, but clearly HE has been under the impression it is not because he’s been 100% open. WATA should have been more clear about his role. 

Ultimately, I think this all boils down to whether it is or is not ethical for investors in a grading company to use the service. 

 

Doesn't matter if he didn't know video games even existed prior to joining Wata. He joined Wata. He's claiming to basically not be a part of it at all, when he's right there on their website literally in a lineup with Deniz (President), Kenneth (Chief Grader), their CMO, and (interim) CEO (and Board Chairman).

He's RIGHT THERE! STARING AT YOU! You can't stand up in a row of the heads of a company, call yourself an Executive Team Member, and then say "I am not a part of this team".

Come on.

[spacepup | 2,404]

Either (a) he is lying or stretching about his involvement, or (b) it is extremely disingenuous if not deceitful on WATA's part to be blasting all of these notable individuals all over their website, about how they are part of the team, if they really aren't.

I get that as a new company, you need to get people to believe in the legitimacy of your product / service.  And I think that's what they did.  However, it feels disingenuous to me if you are saying "Hey, use WATA because we have all of these expert individuals as a part of the team!" if they really aren't doing much of anything at all.

In either scenario, it's not a particularly good look.

To Gloves point, this isn't someone who was just listed on an SEC filing that someone dug deep to find out about, or some secret investor that is basically hidden.  He's listed quite prominently on the page as a member of the "Executive Team" [whatever that means apparently?], with pictures, bio, etc. 

[doner24 | 1,196]

1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Why not?

Clearly it is not! Like... why pose the question? How in any world could that be ethical? It's NOT ETHICAL!!! lol jesus

Why not? I invest in many companies as a share holder and use their services, or purchase their goods. 

[GPX | 1,369]

38 minutes ago, spacepup said:

Either (a) he is lying or stretching about his involvement, or (b) it is extremely disingenuous if not deceitful on WATA's part to be blasting all of these notable individuals all over their website, about how they are part of the team, if they really aren't.

I get that as a new company, you need to get people to believe in the legitimacy of your product / service.  And I think that's what they did.  However, it feels disingenuous to me if you are saying "Hey, use WATA because we have all of these expert individuals as a part of the team!" if they really aren't doing much of anything at all.

In either scenario, it's not a particularly good look.

To Gloves point, this isn't someone who was just listed on an SEC filing that someone dug deep to find out about, or some secret investor that is basically hidden.  He's listed quite prominently on the page as a member of the "Executive Team" [whatever that means apparently?], with pictures, bio, etc. 

To me, it seems both WATA and Mark Haspel and a few other “board advisors”, are trying to get the best of both worlds:

- involving all the prominent figures, in an attempt to build trust among the community and would-be speculators. More money being pumped in, means more profit for these select group of people.

- their roles are murky as F.., so if allegations of unethical practices come at them, they can deny any significant involvement between WATA and the relevant individuals.

[Tanooki | 4,934]

Wow the most amazing thing, that on page 149 of every page of this so far and who knows how much deeper is that some mentally ill crack job moron finally found yet another way to BLAME TRUMP for something.  And not just another way, potentially the most ridiculous yet.  Imagine that, an evil cabal of trump and his cronies hell bent on the utter destruction, monetization, and corruption of the video game market both vintage and modern through a grading pyramid scheme.  Such depths of sheer madness and evil to make Bernie and Enron look like Levar and the reading rainbow on the evil scale.

 

HAH

[ExplodedHamster | 404]

2 hours ago, AdamW said:

Um, except his statement goes to great lengths to minimize his association with WATA, which is a tough look to pull off when there's that screenshot lying around.

Let's be clear about what the accusation is here. It's not that he hid something, so "he didn't hide anything" is not a defence. The accusation is that he had games graded by WATA and traded in games graded by WATA, as a significant shareholder, promoter, and - as you point out - "chief advisor" of WATA, after WATA's CEO told the New York Times that employees could not have games graded or trade in graded games. And he did not deny any of those things.

In a court of law you could pick nits about whether he was an "employee", but I would say that any reasonable person reading what the NYT reported Deniz as saying would expect it to cover a guy with his name in lights on the WATA website. Would you disagree?

I’ll be honest, I would absolutely distinguish between employee/on the ground worker and  shareholder/advisor. One is down on the ground overseeing everything and could easily have direct influence in their daily activities, [i]most notably grading[/i], while the other is not. So, literally, he denied exactly that. 

What this really boils down to is whether Mark received preferential treatment or grading. I personally do not care if the investors/advisors use the service, provided they are treated as any other customer. Would you agree or disagree that investors should be able to use the service? I can see both arguments. I think that is what is really of issue in the ethics debate.
 

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by ExplodedHamster

[ExplodedHamster | 404]

3 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Why not?

Clearly it is not! Like... why pose the question? How in any world could that be ethical? It's NOT ETHICAL!!! lol jesus

I do not see why it’s unethical for investors to use WATA. It would be highly unethical (and quite possibly more) for WATA to treat them differently than other customers, however. Or, of course, for graders to grade their own games.  

If the government ever came in and regulated collectibles, I highly doubt they’d precent minority share investors from using the services.

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by ExplodedHamster

[AdamW | 713]

2 minutes ago, ExplodedHamster said:

I’ll be honest, I would absolutely distinguish between employee/on the ground worker and  shareholder/advisor. One is down on the ground overseeing everything and could easily have direct influence in their daily activities, [i]most notably grading[/i], while the other is not. So, literally, he denied exactly that. 

What this really boils down to is whether Mark received preferential treatment or grading. I personally do not care if the investors/advisors use the service, provided they are treated as any other customer. Would you agree or disagree that investors should be able to use the service? I can see both arguments. I think that is what is really of issue in the ethics debate.
 

 

I would disagree, given Deniz's statement and the purpose and scale of the company. I also disagree with your characterization of what it "comes down to". In this instance I think Seth happens to be right on the money: policies like this are about avoiding not only actual conflicts of interest but the appearance of them. Credibility should be a pretty vital thing for a company like WATA. It doesn't wash for them to state a policy like that, then try to backpedal against what's clearly a violation of the spirit of it (if not the letter) by saying "oh but we totes graded the games fairly so it's fine". For a start, nobody can realistically trust such an assurance (again a point Seth made), which is exactly why you have the policy in the first place, to avoid the issue coming up.

On the topic of being a shareholder - remember, WATA was initially a tiny garage band operation. It didn't have minor shareholders like IBM or Microsoft has minor shareholders. They weren't offering 0.00001% stakes on some public exchange. To be a shareholder you clearly had to be fairly involved in the actual work of getting the company off the ground. He didn't just see the symbol come up in Robinhood and think it looked interesting or something.

A shareholder of Microsoft owning a copy of Windows has significant differences in both nature and scale from a shareholder of WATA selling WATA-graded games. WATA sells an allegedly 'objective' and 'impartial' grading service. That's not the same thing as software products or boxes of cornflakes or something.

[Gloves | 11,779]

10 minutes ago, ExplodedHamster said:

I’ll be honest, I would absolutely distinguish between employee/on the ground worker and  shareholder/advisor. One is down on the ground overseeing everything and could easily have direct influence in their daily activities, [i]most notably grading[/i], while the other is not. So, literally, he denied exactly that. 

What this really boils down to is whether Mark received preferential treatment or grading. I personally do not care if the investors/advisors use the service, provided they are treated as any other customer. Would you agree or disagree that investors should be able to use the service? I can see both arguments. I think that is what is really of issue in the ethics debate.
 

 

Ethics aside, the company *claims* that employees can't use the service. This is SURELY to dissuade preferential treatment allegations. 

Mark having his photo right alongside and described as being within the same group as the rest of the executives in the company flies in the face of that whole idea. 

Can Deniz get Wata to grade his games? Can Kenneth? I'd argue that there's an implication by the promise they make to not do so, that anyone in that group should be considered equally responsible in not using the service for their own gain. 

Mark getting his games graded by Wata for the purpose of selling them on ebay or wherever else to me contradicts the promise they made as a company. 

BECAUSE they put him in that lineup. I don't have their ledgers. I don't know their HR person. I have no clue what constitutes an "employee" with these people; seemingly they are vague on this with potentially some purpose. Who IS an employee at Wata? 

[16BitBricks | 59]

This whole ordeal is gonna make a sick movie! Wolf of Wall Street meets The Big Short meets Narcos. It just needs more hookers and blow!

[ExplodedHamster | 404]

26 minutes ago, AdamW said:

I would disagree, given Deniz's statement and the purpose and scale of the company. I also disagree with your characterization of what it "comes down to". In this instance I think Seth happens to be right on the money: policies like this are about avoiding not only actual conflicts of interest but the appearance of them. Credibility should be a pretty vital thing for a company like WATA. It doesn't wash for them to state a policy like that, then try to backpedal against what's clearly a violation of the spirit of it (if not the letter) by saying "oh but we totes graded the games fairly so it's fine". For a start, nobody can realistically trust such an assurance (again a point Seth made), which is exactly why you have the policy in the first place, to avoid the issue coming up.

On the topic of being a shareholder - remember, WATA was initially a tiny garage band operation. It didn't have minor shareholders like IBM or Microsoft has minor shareholders. They weren't offering 0.00001% stakes on some public exchange. To be a shareholder you clearly had to be fairly involved in the actual work of getting the company off the ground. He didn't just see the symbol come up in Robinhood and think it looked interesting or something.

A shareholder of Microsoft owning a copy of Windows has significant differences in both nature and scale from a shareholder of WATA selling WATA-graded games. WATA sells an allegedly 'objective' and 'impartial' grading service. That's not the same thing as software products or boxes of cornflakes or something.

Appearances of potential conflict, I agree it’s an issue. But that’s where grading companies are generally in a tough spot. As we sit here today, [i]the same company owns PSA, WATA, and Goldin[/i]. Doesn’t that potentially create the appearance of a million conflicts? Not only do people gloss over that, but some have suggested now that WATA has sold, CU will save them. It’s just a massive contradiction to me. Where are we drawing a line in collectibles and subjective grading companies? 

Seems the video game community views a lot of this differently than, for example, sports cards collectors. I think it’s because there’s always been a schism between “real collectors” and “investors,” and this has set the microscope times 10,000.

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by ExplodedHamster

[ExplodedHamster | 404]

11 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Ethics aside, the company *claims* that employees can't use the service. This is SURELY to dissuade preferential treatment allegations. 

Mark having his photo right alongside and described as being within the same group as the rest of the executives in the company flies in the face of that whole idea. 

Can Deniz get Wata to grade his games? Can Kenneth? I'd argue that there's an implication by the promise they make to not do so, that anyone in that group should be considered equally responsible in not using the service for their own gain. 

Mark getting his games graded by Wata for the purpose of selling them on ebay or wherever else to me contradicts the promise they made as a company. 

BECAUSE they put him in that lineup. I don't have their ledgers. I don't know their HR person. I have no clue what constitutes an "employee" with these people; seemingly they are vague on this with potentially some purpose. Who IS an employee at Wata? 

Pretty sure it’s simply defined as anyone paid a salary, which I think is basically anyone working in the office. But I 100% agree with you that WATA left far too much to the imagination here. That, in and of itself, is probably the biggest reason they got caught in this mess. People are saying a million things that are untrue at this point, but that’s because stuff was presented and not clearly defined. If I read Mayer was a director and the things about Haspel, and I didn’t personally know better because I was around from early on, I’d have assumed the same.

Personally, however, as someone participating in the market, my bigger concern would be whether preferential treatment was actually given. I’m certainly not going to argue with or begrudge anyone who sees what’s on the website and raises an eyebrow.

Edited September 5, 2021 by ExplodedHamster

[Jeevan | 8,911]

13 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Who IS an employee at Wata? 

Plot Twist:

Spoiler

No one works at WATA!!!!  

 

[zoiks66 | 72]

150 pages, and we can’t yet agree that everyone associated with WATA are assholes?

[ExplodedHamster | 404]

25 minutes ago, 16BitBricks said:

This whole ordeal is gonna make a sick movie! Wolf of Wall Street meets The Big Short meets Narcos. It just needs more hookers and blow!

Deniz - Antonio Banderas
Kenneth- Brad Pitt
Mark Haspel - Steve Carrell
Jim Halperin - John Lithgow
Karl Jobst - Aaron Carter
Seth Abramson - Himself

Wait, Jobst is Australian. Let’s go with Iggy Azaelia.

Edited September 6, 2021 by ExplodedHamster

[Gloves | 11,779]

18 minutes ago, ExplodedHamster said:

Pretty sure it’s simply defined as anyone paid a salary, which I think is basically anyone working in the office. But I 100% agree with you that WATA left far too much to the imagination here. That, in and of itself, is probably the biggest reason they got caught in this mess. People are saying a million things that are untrue at this point, but that’s because stuff was presented and not clearly defined. If I read Mayer was a director and the things about Haspel, and I didn’t personally know better because I was around from early on, I’d have assumed the same.

Personally, however, as someone participating in the market, my bigger concern would be whether preferential treatment was actually given. I’m certainly not going to argue with or begrudge anyone who sees what’s on the website and raises an eyebrow.

Agreed re: definition of an employee. As we've also agreed upon - its vague. 

Simply put:

• They made a promise - employees can't use our service
• They then plastered some faces on a "who we are" page

That's all the info the public has. We shouldn't NEED the people on that page to come out and "clarify their role" (or lack of one). 

It's no wonder AT ALL why people would be up in arms. When you say "we won't do X!" and then say "this is we!" and then people see a "we" doing "X"... 

This is basic communication! 

[ExplodedHamster | 404]

12 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Agreed re: definition of an employee. As we've also agreed upon - its vague. 

Simply put:

• They made a promise - employees can't use our service
• They then plastered some faces on a "who we are" page

That's all the info the public has. We shouldn't NEED the people on that page to come out and "clarify their role" (or lack of one). 

It's no wonder AT ALL why people would be up in arms. When you say "we won't do X!" and then say "this is we!" and then people see a "we" doing "X"... 

This is basic communication! 

See, I disagree. 99.99% of the people pissed off never read that NYT article. So, to me, it’s more about the issue itself and not what Deniz did or didn’t say. Personally, I would not consider an advisor or investor an employee, for reasons stated above (namely, ability to influence at ground level on a daily basis). If I was a member of the general public, I would probably think Mark was an employee, however. Put another way, the large majority of stuff I see from Joe Public is “Mark Haspel was grading his own games.” I think that sentiment is both fair to believe (based on what’s out there), but also inaccurate, if that makes sense. I 100% agree WATA employees should not grade their own games. So while some may see arguing what is an “employee” as semantics, I think it’s key.

There’s a second divide, though, which is whether it’s appropriate for investors to participate in grading companies at all. I think that’s far more interesting and important for future in collectibles. How much separation is needed to participate? Lots of gray lines in the space. 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by ExplodedHamster

[BriGuy82 | 768]

29 minutes ago, ExplodedHamster said:

There’s a second divide, though, which is whether it’s appropriate for investors to participate in grading companies at all. I think that’s far more interesting and important for future in collectibles. How much separation is needed to participate? Lots of gray lines in the space. 

 

When your entire business is based on your ability to be objective and impartial, my opinion is that no employee/advisor should be partaking in the service. The optics are terrible. The fact that the people at the top of the company haven't recused themselves from getting games graded tells me they care more about making a quick buck then being taken seriously by those in the hobby that aren't just speculators or investors.

[YOURTURN | 1,256]

Personally speaking, I am going to say something that mostly backs up what @BriGuy82 is saying.

What Wata is accused of doing is similar to insider trading. Their employees are not only the ones getting insider tips, they also have the ability to act on these without notice. Just like how those tied to AFA and VGA managed to do something similar without being called out for it. (I have previously posted a link when it comes to that topic.)

However, CGA (AFA and VGA) back then also did not bask in the limelight whenever a rare game or toy went for more than it was originally valued at. Then again... Nobody has questioned the estimated value because Heritage Auction does not list those numbers in their auctions. Others like Sotheby's and Hake's does, but HA chooses not to for some reason.

Then again I am also that CAS joke guy. Which is fine because my means of collecting has me look for companies that refuse to grade softly. I mean even AFA has stated that their 9.25 does not mean the item is a 90+. Just like the last item I had submitted to CAS got an 80+ (84.1) when I thought it was going to get an 85. (See image below.)

In the end I'd rather retire because I constantly fail to be understood, and/or have my promotion of anything be treated as a joke, than act like any person working for a company has the right to take advantage of a situation like this one. 

As for that grade... Expect an update when I finally get the item back.

[inasuma | 1,203]

10 hours ago, Zach said:

That group is a comedy gold mine. 

 

We've reached levels of cope never thought possible:

seriously. dont get me wrong, i'm sad i missed out on a few specific games, but to think one would cling to allegations entirely because of one's own personal regret, and then to claim it's how "haters" think, is just an insane ego trip i never thought i'd see.

10 hours ago, Generic said:

Lol all of a sudden no one works for WATA

classic PR

11 hours ago, WarMech said:

I was told it will be in the lineup. In my latest back and forth with an HA rep I asked and he said there was going to be a 9.6 in it, I'm using it to decide if I get mine graded or not for Feb.

oh fantastic! glad i can still look forward to it. 

[GPX | 1,369]

3 hours ago, ExplodedHamster said:

See, I disagree. 99.99% of the people pissed off never read that NYT article. So, to me, it’s more about the issue itself and not what Deniz did or didn’t say. Personally, I would not consider an advisor or investor an employee, for reasons stated above (namely, ability to influence at ground level on a daily basis). If I was a member of the general public, I would probably think Mark was an employee, however. Put another way, the large majority of stuff I see from Joe Public is “Mark Haspel was grading his own games.” I think that sentiment is both fair to believe (based on what’s out there), but also inaccurate, if that makes sense. I 100% agree WATA employees should not grade their own games. So while some may see arguing what is an “employee” as semantics, I think it’s key.

There’s a second divide, though, which is whether it’s appropriate for investors to participate in grading companies at all. I think that’s far more interesting and important for future in collectibles. How much separation is needed to participate? Lots of gray lines in the space. 

 

To your first point, graders grading their own games is certainly a no-no because of potential biases. However, I think is is less of an issue than the grey area with those people working in a higher office. Grades which are way-off would be quickly noticed by the consumers, and will make them lose confidence in the grading company, with a likely negative outcome.

With your second point, I feel the people at the top office are the ones that have the most potential for unscrupulous acts if kept unchecked. There’s a lot of potential insider info leak which has the potential to cause huge shifts in the markets. Or they can use their authority of knowing the pop reports to mislead the potential buyers. Too many what-ifs, I know, but this is exactly why consumers don’t want “conflicts of interest”. Too many variables to take the market seriously.

Also, you seem to be downplaying MH’s role at WATA. He isn’t just an “investor” in the company, but a “Chief Advisor” at the company. I would presume there has to be regular communications between MH and WATA in order to have that job status, otherwise why mention him as “Chief Advisor” in the first place? 

[GPX | 1,369]

4 hours ago, Jeevan said:

Plot Twist:

  Hide contents

No one works at WATA!!!!  

 

No wonder why there’s such a backlog! 

[Alder | 243]

25 minutes ago, GPX said:

Grades which are way-off would be quickly noticed by the consumers, and will make them lose confidence in the grading company, with a likely negative outcome.

The part of Karl's video that shows the A+ Tomb Raider with tears in the seal really stuck with me. Why is nobody talking about that?