B&L Auction Disclosure [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

05-19-2008, 02:47 PM

Posted By: leonThis was gone over before. We don't feel the need to state which auction lots are owned by us. We have already said that any lot you feel there could be an issue with, specifically pertaining to bidding (which seems to be where the main issues can be) we will be happy to disclose the bidders to.....however, only to a 3rd party fiduciary type person. I won't lie though if asked...I do own several lots in the auction....the Just So, the N321, the Lorillards, the N360's....and the Mothers bread card, are the main ones....and there a few lesser ones too. Other than bidding activity what is your concern and maybe I can help alleviate it.....?

Archive

05-19-2008, 03:16 PM

Posted By: Steve MurrayGuess I missed that episode.

Archive

05-19-2008, 03:51 PM

Posted By: leonI searched and found the thread on our original announcement. Scott spoke about it then I did, in response to King...I am not trying to be antagonistic just pointing out what you missed (or might not remember) from before.....and this was taken from a longer response but addresses your question specifically. "King March 8 2008, 10:26 AM "1. When you guys list a card/lot that you own, will you identify as such? I think Barry Sloate does that, and I really appreciate that. I don't know of other auction houses doing that. \ \ My response: 1. I don't believe Barry does this at this point. We don't believe we will single out our items or any others. Our bidding records are available to be viewed by a 3rd party if anyone thinks there is an issue. For instance if you think there is an issue....you find a good 3rd party, unbiased, non-hobby person, and we will prove there are no improprieties going on. Records will be maintained forever. Most of my 19th Century stuff will be sold in these auctions and folks will know this material but it probably won't be marked in any special way.

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:02 PM

Posted By: Jeff Priznerbut why don't Auction Houses call out owership? What's the harm in doing so?

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:04 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI agree that there should be some disclosure of ownership by the auction house. That being said, to be honest, I could care less if there is such a disclosure in a Sloate or B & L auction. It really depends on how much you trust the house.

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:12 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaI think having a neutral third party is a good way to go. I don't see the harm either way in mentioning which lots belong to the auctioneers and I doubt it would curb anyone from bidding, but I also don't think it's necessary to do so.

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:26 PM

Posted By: TimCould someone explain to me why they would want to know who the seller is? Doesn't it come down to trusting the House and their ability to review the items prior to showing the public?

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:29 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanTim, yes it does come down to trusting the auction house. Problem is, when so many of the auction houses engage in shill bidding and other fraud a bidder would like as much information as he can get regarding the auction house's possible motivation to commit fraud. And before everyone jumps in and tells me that I shouldn't bid in any house's auction that I am not comfortable with, well, I'd have a very boring year and a tiny collection if that were the case.

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:33 PM

Posted By: WesleyTim, I personally am not overly concerned about whether the auctionhouse owns the items for auction. But I believe there are worries about an auctionhouse shilling its own items because instead of the 12 1/2 % commission, the auctionhouse would have 100% at stake if it owns the lot. I doubt anyone is worried about this happening in Leon/Scott's auction specifically, but everyone wants to be able to compete fairly.

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:33 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAfter our original discussion on this topic I put an asterisk next to all lots I owned. It barely registered a whimper, and I stopped doing it. Nobody really seemed to care. In the auction I closed last week I owned exactly two lots: the E107 Waddell and the WG1 Fogarty. Would anyone have bid differently if they knew this? However, I agree there is no harm in disclosure. When I bid in an auction it makes no difference to me who owns any given lot. If I found out that one I was interested in belonged to one of the employees of the auction house, it wouldn't affect my bid at all.

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:37 PM

Posted By: T206CollectorI really have no problem with non-disclosure because there is an incentive for an auction house to shill up all of its auctions to generate more revenue. As long as you trust the auction house not to do that, it should not matter whether the auction house owns the item being auctioned. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> to see signed pre-war card galleries, articles, my blog, my collection and more!

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:41 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanBut of course when an auction house shills items it owns it gets additional revenue in both the premiums and the underlying increase in price of the item.

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:48 PM

Posted By: WesleyIn addition to monetary motivations for shilling, the auctionhouse also has the advantage of knowing when to shill. If a whale has placed a large ceiling bid on a particular lot, wha tis to stop the auctioneer to keep running up the lot? Even if there is no high ceiling bid, the auctioneer can change his mind at the very last moment in order to "win" his lot back if the price is too low.

Archive

05-19-2008, 04:53 PM

Posted By: John SLeon and Scott are stand-up guys. I will bid regardless.

Archive

05-19-2008, 05:06 PM

Posted By: Steve MurrayMy post has nothing to do with "trust". I've dealt with both Scott and Leon and have no reason not to trust them. But I recall the thread started by DR (Barry_Bonds)in April 2007. Unfortunately Mr. Bonds deleted all of his comments but a fair reading of the comments that followed displayed some concern regarding Mastro, it's employees and shilling. Doug came on a generally satisfied everyone that proper measures were in place to safeguard against abuses by employee consignors and employee bidders. Mastro now discloses in-house ownership of lots. See page 7 of its May auction catalogue. I would like to think this was a direct result of comments on this board. So, nothing personal toward B&L but I feel that full transparency is warranted for all Auction houses.

Archive

05-19-2008, 05:10 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanAhhh Steve....

Archive

05-19-2008, 05:32 PM

Posted By: Marc S.are owned by the auction house, without specifying which lots...?

Archive

05-19-2008, 05:33 PM

Posted By: Rob D.Welcome to the auction business, Scott and Leon.

Archive

05-19-2008, 05:56 PM

Posted By: SCThe biggest concern I would potentially have is how the description is written. In theory, the auction staff should be writing fair, accurate, enticing, but also somewhat impartial descriptions. Is it possible to write an equally objective description/grade for an owned item as a consigned item? Perhaps. But we've all seen the old "when the collector has it it's ExMt, when the dealer is selling it it's NrMt" difference. Grading has taken some of the bias out, but some is still there. Edited to add: This is meant as a general comment on auction houses/ownership.

Archive

05-19-2008, 05:59 PM

Posted By: scott brockelmanAbout 20% of the lots are mine and Leon's. Most of those are the nickel and dime lots, filler if you will. Leon, as noted above has a handful of the higher value items. But the vast majority of the lots are consignments from collectors and dealers who thought we had a great concept and would attract an active bidding audience for their items. This includes most of the 4 figure lots as well. Obviously they trusted us. As others have stated, we also have bid with every auction house in operation since 1990 and never once gave a thought to who owned the item. We trusted them to act in a prudent and responsible manner. We expected them to sell the item in a honorable manner. Did they? Well, most did. You only learn from experience. I realize this query is not posed directly at us, but again, we have absolutely no reason to shill bid or play games with lots. This is our initial foray into the auction world and would hope that you trust us as much as we trust you. Scott

Archive

05-19-2008, 06:58 PM

Posted By: BobI know Scott and Leon and I could care less if the cards in their auction are owned by them. Isn't it all about trust? If you don't like the non-disclosure, don't bid.

Archive

05-19-2008, 07:11 PM

Posted By: Steve MurrayThank you. You just made up my mind. I won't bid.

Archive

05-19-2008, 07:14 PM

Posted By: Tony AndreaTbob wrote: "I know Scott and Leon and I could care less if the cards in their auction are owned by them. Isn't it all about trust? If you don't like the non-disclosure, don't bid." Well said Tbob............ Regards, Tony Andrea

Archive

05-19-2008, 07:22 PM

Posted By: Robert DimandThe more someone tells me to trust them, the less I do, especially if they keep repeating it. The market will speak. I'm on the side. Sorry

Archive

05-19-2008, 07:35 PM

Posted By: TimI don't understand the "I'm not participating at all" attitude towards this or any other auction. If you want to bid on an item, regardless of who owns it, you have a price set that you are willing to pay to own it. If the auction in question exceeeds what you want to pay, stop bidding. I don't get the negativity. I've been posting on this board for a short period of time but I doubt Scott and Leon are willing to put their reputations on the line doing anything out of line.

Archive

05-19-2008, 07:42 PM

Posted By: Joe D.Steve makes a very fair point. I would love for all auctions to disclose items they own. I think it is an important policy to have in place. That being said... Leon and Scott should be cut some slack as this is their first auction. I am sure many of their polices will evolve over time. Hopefully they will consider Steve's point (which as I said, i agree with) for future auctions. I say bid with confidence.

Archive

05-19-2008, 07:55 PM

Posted By: MikePugedaIf the idea of disclosure is to minimize shill bidding, don't you think that if a company is going to shill, they will do so regardless of disclosure. Surely it is not that difficult to have friends or phony accounts set up to bid on said items. As has been stated before, it all boils down to trust. Leon and Scott seem to be stand up guys and I won't hesitate to bid in their auctions. I can understand the concern Steve expresses, and it is valid, but until given reason to doubt, why always focus on what could happen. I'm sure every board member has bid on at least one item that has been shilled, whether it is obvious or very discreet. Steve, do you really have such concern over Scott and Leon owning undisclosed lots (and potential for shilling)that it would prevent you from bidding in their upcoming auction? Mike

Archive

05-19-2008, 08:02 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffIt seems like there are several possible reasons to disclose ownership vs. consignment, although not everyone agrees with those reasons. But it is clear that those reasons do exist, at least for some people. My question is, what reason is there not to disclose that an auction house owns a particular lot? -Ryan P.S. Auction looks great. Nicely done, Scott & Leon.

Archive

05-19-2008, 08:25 PM

Posted By: Leon I have a call into Scott right now to have an impromptu executive meeting. We certainly want everyone to feel comfortable bidding. I imagine our meeting will happen this evening but at the very latest tomorrow to discuss this. It's hard to get such important people together at once <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>...and, he might have a life. Thanks for the vote of confidence so far in the auction. To be frank we felt that with the policies in place this would be a non-issue....Learn something new everyday.... regards

Archive

05-19-2008, 08:53 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeMike makes good points. So does Ryan. I personally would love to have full ownership disclosure in every auction I participate in. I'm not sure it would change anything I do, but I suppose it might make me feel better when I'm bidding a lot of money on an item and trusting the house. IMO, when it is all said and done, trust IS the issue. A given auction house can say anything, be it Mastro, REA, Barry Sloate, or any of the others. I agree that transparency is best, but generally speaking, who is going to know if they are not accurate in some pertinent respect? I don't know that there is an absolutely fool-proof answer, but at least Scott and Leon have pledged to keep their auction records in perpetuity. Understanding that there will probably be some criticism about how that works in practice, it at least demonstrates an attempt to deal with the very issue which is now a concern -- which I suggest is indicative of good faith. I have heard rumors that certain auction houses can get better grades for cards than can others. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I frankly am more concerned about the prospect of buying an over-graded card from an auction house which does so much business with a grading company that it is given a favor than I am about buying a card from an auction sponsored by someone I know, with (a presumably) already graded card, who has pledged to keep their auction records in perpetuity, even if they own that card. Maybe that's just me. In any event, I think I'll go ahead and bid on the cards I want in the auction. To those of you who bow out, thank you. That gives me a better chance to win the cards I want than I might otherwise have had. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Kenny Cole

Archive

05-19-2008, 08:55 PM

Posted By: AdamI think this is all silly. I am going to bid in this auction regardless. I will point out, however, that I was going after a T206 Green Cobb graded PSA 4 in REA's recent auction (I didn't end up winning it), and there was even a disclosure along the lines of "the guy who provides REA's internet connection owns this card."

Archive

05-19-2008, 08:59 PM

Posted By: john wAdam, I believe that you phrased it best - "...this is all silly." Trust is everything. John

Archive

05-20-2008, 12:14 AM

Posted By: cmoking"After our original discussion on this topic I put an asterisk next to all lots I owned. It barely registered a whimper, and I stopped doing it. Nobody really seemed to care." I cared. I cared a lot. Frankly, it probably didn't change my bidding pattern, but I still really appreciated that. I wish you continued that policy. IMO, the more transparency the better.

Archive

05-20-2008, 05:02 AM

Posted By: barrysloateKing- I certainly don't mind disclosing what I owned, but it was 2 lots out of 182. And I owned none in my January auction. If it makes bidders happy, I will be more cognizant of it next time.

Archive

05-20-2008, 08:12 AM

Posted By: leonScott and I spoke about this this morning. We believe we have a great system in place and have precuations set in writing that should alleviate any fears. A couple quick points to note. 1. While other auctions have a written rule allowing their employees to bid in their own auctions we have a written rule against it. 2. From day 1 of our auction we are NOT able to see "up to" or "max" bids. Quite honestly we don't care as it doesn't matter. We are an open book and will prove it. If you get outbid it was by someone (a real person) who is willing to pay more for the item. 3. We will never please everyone but hope we have earned the trust of the great majority of the hobby. We are comfortable with the rules set in place. At the end of the day we don't feel it matters who owns an item as long as there is no shilling and you are getting exactly what you think you are. Thanks again for the confidence placed in us.... regards leon

Archive

05-20-2008, 08:15 AM

Posted By: dstudebaBarry - I also noticed when you started and stopped this practice.

Archive

05-20-2008, 08:24 AM

Posted By: BrianI'd like to know which lots are owned by the house. Will it keep me from bidding? Maybe. Does it influence my decisions? Absolutely.

Archive

05-20-2008, 08:31 AM

Posted By: barrysloateDan- I'm not sure I even consciously stopped the practice. I think because my entire January auction was consignments, it slipped off my radar. And because only the two lots in the May auction were mine, I didn't think it was important. I now realize disclosure is important so I will be sure to asterisk my lots next time. I have no problem revealing the ones I own. To take this a step further, what about someone selling lots he owns on ebay? Does everyone feel there is a need for disclosure there too?

Archive

05-20-2008, 08:55 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliMy personal opinion is that when I'm bidding on eBay, I'm not paying a buyer's premium to the house, so it's not important for me to know which lots are house-owned. I prefer the disclosure when I'm bidding with an auction house, however. -Al

Archive

05-20-2008, 08:56 AM

Posted By: BrianI forgot to ask -- why would an auction house be against this disclosure?

Archive

05-20-2008, 09:23 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanKenny brings up a good point. Just because an auction house says something is so, i.e., that they don't allow employees to bid, they don't commit fraud (using shills to bid or run people up) and they will disclose lots that they own doesn't mean they are telling the truth. That being said, when they make certain pronouncements and then are easily caught in lies due to the multitude of witnesses which exist they are setting themselves up for a possible criminal prosecution. I suppose in order to gauge which auction house is telling you the truth when they make such annoucements of virtue, you have to figure which principals of the auction houses are sociopaths and willing to break the law. Edited to add: And for what it's worth, transparency is huge. The more the better. If one trusts the auction house, the additional transparency will only engender more good will. The auction houses that refuse to provide transparency are usually either hiding something or give the appearance that they are hiding something. There is no downside to transparency is my point.

Archive

05-20-2008, 09:29 AM

Posted By: Joe D.Leon, If I am reading your update correctly - I think it is unfortunate that you discussed this issue and still decided not to disclose. The whole thing begs the question: Why not disclose? What specifically is the fear by the auction house that would lead them to listen to this concern - but yet decide to still not disclose?

Archive

05-20-2008, 09:42 AM

Posted By: Jason L...until I get enough money to particpate in one of these! Then it's life or death <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-20-2008, 11:39 AM

Posted By: Bob C Trust, but Verify was a signature phrase of Ronald Reagan. He used it in public, although he was not the first person known to use it. When Reagan used this phrase, he was usually discussing relations with the Soviet Union and he almost always presented it as a translation of the Russian proverb "doveryai, no proveryai" (Trust, but Verify). At the signing of the INF Treaty he used it again and his counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev responded: "You repeat this phrase every time we meet," to which Reagan answered "I like it." My feelings are Mr. Reagan's signature phrase also works well in the world of auctioneering particularly as it relates to the discussion/s in this thread. Bidders or potential bidders should not be blinkered to material facts such as house ownership of lots offered.

Archive

05-20-2008, 12:20 PM

Posted By: Scott Mt. JoyAnother possible bidder who thinks an auction house should give a full disclosure of lots they own. My first auction bidding and winning was Sloates a year ago and one of the reasons why was his disclosure of his personal lots. It does make a difference. One thing to consider, by not disclosing it, it makes me feel like you have something to hide. Even if you don't have anything to hide, this directly affects my level of trust I have for your auction house.

Archive

05-20-2008, 12:53 PM

Posted By: barrysloateHi Scott- I certainly have nothing to hide and was happy to share my personal lots right on this board (granted, after the auction). I suppose I would blame leaving them out to indifference. But I see this is a bigger issue than I imagined, and I will conduct things differently next time.

Archive

05-20-2008, 01:25 PM

Posted By: Scott Mt. JoyThx Barry and I hope you add the notations back on the lots you own in your next auction. When I used Your I meant all auctions. I have total faith in your auction and have been happy the times I won and they were well under the max bids I placed, happy camper. I was more relating to the B & L auction in that being a first time auction with no history and considering a large amount of the lots are owned by the house (which is cool by me) that a full disclosure would be the right thing to do to promote trust. The fact that they have been reluctant to post a list of all their lots does bring up a red flag in my books and very well might keep me from bidding.

Archive

05-20-2008, 01:30 PM

Posted By: barrysloateTo Scott M. and Everyone, I don't think I need to speak for Leon and Scott but I will. I don't believe their position on disclosure should raise any red flags at all. I think there is a reason for what they are doing, but they need to explain it themselves. I don't doubt that every aspect of their auction will be conducted ethically and professionally.

Archive

05-20-2008, 01:34 PM

Posted By: boxingcardman"One thing to consider, by not disclosing it, it makes me feel like you have something to hide. Even if you don't have anything to hide, this directly affects my level of trust I have for your auction house." Called "the appearance of impropriety"; a good argument for disclosure. Another good argument is that several potential customers have stated that it does matter to them. Why needlessly alienate potential customers. Finally, there are a pile of auction houses; why not differentiate your product from theirs by going the transparency route? Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Archive

05-20-2008, 01:41 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI think Leon just doesn't want to 'fess up to being the owner of that Nazi helment in the auction. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-20-2008, 01:43 PM

Posted By: leonWe will put a list of lots we own on this thread later this evening. Scott was unaware of a few extra lots I put in from my stuff at the end of our listings so it will be a bit more than he stated.........I hope this helps in everyone's comfort level. We want to do what is right.....We have not one iota to hide.....and are more transparent and less expensive than almost any auction house in the industry.....Thanks again for the large amount of bids we have received so far. We look forward to many more great auctions too...Best of luck if you go for something.....

Archive

05-20-2008, 01:43 PM

Posted By: Dan ParadisWhy can't everyone just assume that for Sloate and B&L Auctions all the items are owned by the auctioneer (and then bid accordingly)? If they identify their items we all of a sudden trust them? What if they lied about what they owned? How would we know? We trust them to identify their stuff, but don't trust them with the auction? Either way there could be dishonesty (one would be lying and then possibly cheating, the other just possibly cheating). If you don't trust them, I wouldn't bid (that includes EBAY sellers, REA, B&L, etc). Labeling items they owned wouldn't make me all of a sudden trust them. I'd much rather bid in Barry and Leon's auctions than an EBAY auction any day. That's just how I feel. It makes sense to me but I guess everyone has the right to their own level of trust. Dan

Archive

05-20-2008, 01:46 PM

Posted By: leonI agree completely and wholeheartedly. With that said I am also in agreement with my other good friends in this thread too....so we will try to please everyone <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.

Archive

05-20-2008, 01:46 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanLeon & Scott: thanks for listening and responding so quickly.

Archive

05-20-2008, 02:42 PM

Posted By: Joe D.Thank you Leon and Scott for the forthcoming list. now.... can we have Lichtman banned from bidding? He is a trouble maker - and shouldn't be allowed to participate.

Archive

05-20-2008, 02:46 PM

Posted By: Dave F Joe- Now aren't you being just a tad ridilious? Could you not settle on Lichtman just being banned on a few specific lots? Or do you really need him locked out of the entire sha-bang? Dave

Archive

05-20-2008, 02:52 PM

Posted By: leonWe hope to have all of those folks wanting full disclosure in the spirited bidding......We put more lots in this auction than we probably will in future ones as we are only just getting started.....our lots are 1,3,4,12,13,27,30,34,36,37,47,48,51,63-65,72-75,77,79,82,83,89, 92-101,103-107,114,122,124,128,129,133-36,138,139,141,144, 158-61,165-170,172,183,187....... In Scott's defense I added about 20 at the last minute to give type collectors something more to bid on <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>....We hope ya'll enjoy...... Remember "0%/12.5%" why pay more? edited to add a few page breaks.

Archive

05-20-2008, 02:57 PM

Posted By: Scott Mt. JoyThanks for the list and I look forward to bidding!

Archive

05-20-2008, 03:20 PM

Posted By: cmokingExcellent, thanks! I think in the end, there probably will make no difference in the final price...but it makes some people happy, so that can be good for business, with no negatives for you guys. Good luck in the auction.

Archive

05-20-2008, 03:25 PM

Posted By: Dave FSince it looks like Lichtman will be took care of...must be something I can do to get Joe D banned. Joe, maybe if you'd get mad about the lot numbers Leon and Scott gave themselves? I have to get you "whales" out, so the poor folk can win something.

Archive

05-20-2008, 03:27 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanIn order to usurp any possible sanctions on me, I have decided to self-ban myself from bidding on a handful of lots in all B & L auctions going forward. As such I will not be participating in any lots featuring Norm Cash.

Archive

05-20-2008, 03:31 PM

Posted By: Dave F Jeff- I dont know proper court procedure. But I think at this point I want to either "object"...or "make motion to proceed" Damn, if I'd just watch more of my wife's programs at night.

Archive

05-20-2008, 03:32 PM

Posted By: WesleyThanks Leon. At the end of the day, people were going to bid regardless. But if this increases the comfort level of the some potential bidders without burdening the auction house, then it is a good move. Hopefully, other auction houses will follow your lead.

Archive

05-20-2008, 04:01 PM

Posted By: Rob D.So, Leon and Scott, how about periodic updates on the number of bids withdrawn because people placed them not knowing one of you was the owner of the lot? I imagine the number will be huge, now that that info has been disclosed.

Archive

05-20-2008, 05:18 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanHuge. Under/over? 2.

Archive

05-20-2008, 05:24 PM

Posted By: SteveSo, Leon and Scott, how about periodic updates on the number of bids withdrawn because people placed them not knowing one of you was the owner of the lot? I imagine the number will be huge, now that that info has been disclosed. Unbelievable. Less I say the better. Steve

Archive

05-20-2008, 05:29 PM

Posted By: Rob D.Jeff, How much can I get down on the under?

Archive

05-20-2008, 06:26 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanRob, for you I'd give you 100 to 1 odds and a limit of 10K on the bet.** **Upon placement of your bet, I will immediately proceed to withdraw two of my bids. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-20-2008, 06:29 PM

Posted By: Rob D.Kudos to you for disclosing that.

Archive

05-20-2008, 07:05 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI'm all about transparency.

Archive

05-20-2008, 07:11 PM

Posted By: leonYou are so transparent you are like "buddah"......I'm tellin' ya'... "buddah"....

Archive

05-20-2008, 08:38 PM

Posted By: Josh SiegelThere is an auction system in place that does help to eliminate the potential for auction houses to shill bid. The one catch with this system is that you have to be an actual auctioneer to participate. This means that you have to be an actual licensed auctioneer and not an internet auction company. This is he eBay Live auction format. The downside is that the Ten Minute Rule Auctions cannot be run withthis format. It is a good old fashioned auction format with absentee bids left on eBay with no one being able to tell what the high bid is until the item comes up for sale. There is a live floor audience like any LIVE auction. Think about it....an auction in it's truest form. Everyone leaves their best bid prior to the auction of follows along and bids in real time. Many auction houses do not like formats such as this because it takes too much control out of their hands. Also, licensed auctioneers have state rules to follow that do not apply to internet auctions. eBay does not promote the live auctions that well because they do not make as much $$$ as they want to so they can sometimes be easily overlooked. I think Mastro, Heritage, Sotheby's and a few others use this format for many of their auctions. Leon hasn't even had his first auction yet and he is being run over by critics. I'll be sure to not bid on one of the lots Leon owns!!! Why wouldn't I buy a card from a great collector. Some people just think too much for their own good. Instead of assuming everyone is a crook, just figure out who the crooks are and who the hobbyists are. A crook will always be a crook. If you have him disclose which lots he owns, the crook will have John Doe consign them! Thanks for trying to run an honest gig Leon - Josh Siegel

Archive

05-20-2008, 08:58 PM

Posted By: Rawn HillIf there was anything that I was bidding on, this would be much more relevant, there are no Carrigan items, but I do trust that this is a legite this thing. The prices so far are not out of line in accordance with similar auctions one same items. I'm not an expert by any stretch, however, I do keep certain in my logs, this is lagit. You can tell by the very high bids that I would I place. Rawn

Archive

05-20-2008, 09:11 PM

Posted By: john wKeep this up and we will all be bidding in the same old auctions - people need to find a girl. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-21-2008, 11:43 AM

Posted By: Jim ClarkeCan anyone name a auction company that has never had an employee have a personal lot in the auction? I can't think of any. I actually would be more prone to bid on a lot owned by the auctioneer. I used to have Barry and Lew give me the full descriptions of their own lots in their auctions... It was good conversation and I enjoy hearing them pitch me on stuff they like. I have even had Barry tell me that he is the owner of a lot (Gypsy Queen) and it is at a pretty high price and their were better deals in the auction. I rewarded him for his opinion and jumped the bid two amounts and won it (I might add, I was in Vegas and on my 5th beer) JC

Archive

05-21-2008, 09:01 PM

Posted By: Jim ClarkeI take it that no one could name a company?

Archive

05-21-2008, 09:08 PM

Posted By: leonDid I tell you about the Just So and the N321 in our auction? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.....and I agree with you. I always like winning some of Lew's personal collection in his auctions.....it's been great. I would have bid the same though, even if they weren't his. Ownership doesn't really matter to me as long as there is no shilling and procedures in place to protect me as much as possible. Nice to see you posting again.....Good luck in our auction. There should be a few things that interest you....