If you bid on a card and the seller did not ask you to bid for them, it is not shill bidding... no matter what. Your intent is meaningless if you are going to pay for the card. I'm quite certain the seller would not care in the least if you only bid on their item to manipulate the pricing for yours. They would take the money and run.

I have a related question, interested to get people's take on it:

Hypothetically, I have two copies of a card, and they are the only two copies known to exist. As such, I could sell each for $5k. However, if I destroy one, making the other, the only copy in existence, I could sell it for $15k. Any ethical issues with me destroying the card?

If you own both of them I guess you are technically entitled to do whatever you want with them, but personally couldn't see myself ever doing that.

You could actually place the second card in a safe deposit box and not let on that it exists. That would be one alternative to destroying an artifact.

Oh come'on barry - that's cheating! Say everyone knows you have two so hiding it will do you no good.

Well that actually creates an ethical dilemma. Is it better to lie and preserve the card; or tell the truth, but destroy something of great value?

What you have are two bad choices. Of course, there are other ways to look at it.

I don't think you should destroy the one card, and I don't believe the price would rise from $5,000 to $15,000 anyway. Even if you are an unethical bastard, keep both cards.

it's a hypothetical - assume the facts are as offered.

David - you can't see a circumstance where two guys both badly want the card - if there are two of them then they aren't bidding against each other and if there is only 1 then they are?

I think everyone pretty much agrees that if a person can pay the bill, they can do what they wish with what they purchase, even destroy it.

That does not, however, make the person's actions right or even ethical.

The actions of Upper Deck and others in destroying many historical bats and jerseys in order to place small pieces of them in cards are a good example here. They may have paid the bill for what they destroyed, but I'd still love to give whoever came up with the idea a swift kick in the nuts.

Seems to me that if you locked one card away and advertised the other as the "only" card in existence that would be fraud.

I differentiate between hypothetical possible and hypothetical impossible. Hypothetical impossible go into the moot pile.

Besides, I said you should not destroy one card, and that was my opinion of the ethics.

Beyond the question of what is ethical, a question is when is if and when is it okay to act unethically? Does $10,000 and a dumb trading card come close? Is it okay to break baseball card ethics for $1 million? Duly note that this scenario doesn't involve lying or deception-- ala altering a card or hiding cards in a safe then lying about it. In this scenario, the seller accurately states at sale that there is only one card in existence. Does this say that the the practical result ($1 million) can be so enormous that it makes performing the unethical act okay? Even further, can the enormity of the gain transform an unethical act into an ethical one?

Fair enough :)

Is it limiting you to one edit per post?

As I see it, it helps to make a few distinctions regarding ethics. In the scenario that Matt offers, the destruction of the valuable card or other item would be base, lowdown, petty, and altogether mean. But I wouldn't accuse the guy who destroys the card of injustice. He owns the card fair and square and can rip it up as he pleases. But it still shows bad taste and dubious character. As for David's question about whether a million dollar profit can make something ethical, I don't think it would. Overwhelming duress can excuse an unjust action, but it does not transform an unjust action into a just one. The same thing goes for a base or dishonorable action.

if this is an entirely different card then how are you shill bidding? and where is the ethics problem? it is not 'his" card he is bidding on, rather bidding on what he thinks is value according to a previous purchase..