That is fine. If you'd like. Thanks.

Ryan, of course, is correct. That if you bid within your budget or "the maximum you're willing to pay" you can't be cheated out of money is an argument that dumb people make.

I was the consignor of a 1955 Red Man set in the August, 2007 Mastro Auctions which appears on the list being discussed. It is the only item where my name is listed as consignor and Peter Spaeth as the bidder.

Peter has already related the facts and expressed views as I see them. People may question my ethics but I ask that they at least acknowledge that this was the lone entry on a very long list, and that this one transaction was much different than many of those listed. I have had many private transactions with people on this board and as a seller and buyer on eBay, and I hope my past dealings are at least considered before passing judgment.

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots. At that time I believe Mastro Auctions was considered the premier auction house in our hobby.

I have been a member on this board for about 8 years, and have read the many discussions regarding shill bidding. My understanding and views have evolved over that time like I am sure it has for many other members. I understand and agree that using a hidden reserve in the way Mastro Auctions suggested is wrong. I only ask that the members here consider that this was done in 2007, that it was recommended by the leading auction house, that it was done once, that the hidden reserve was a fraction of the value of the lot, and that the buyer's premium was paid by me.

There was no intent to deceive anyone. This set was #1 on the PSA Registry by a very large margin. Every card was the highest graded at that time and almost half of the 50 cards were the only ones graded at that level. Any one interested in Red Man cards could see that I retired the set before the auction and then re-registered the set after the auction showing that the set had not changed hands.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to clarify the record. Peter is a good friend and wrote his explanation in such a way as not to distance himself from me, but the fact of the matter is that he did not place these bids, I did. He did know what I was doing because we discussed how I had been instructed to proceed by Doug Allen, and he does not deny that, but he was not an active participant in the bidding. The worst part of this whole affair is that an honest, good guy is being hurt for doing me a favor.

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case. No problem w Peter or anyone else who bid blind on their own consignments and paid the bp. Mastro is in jail for bidding with knowledge of max bids, completely different.

This is foolish logic, I believe. There not need to be knowledge of max bids for a shill bid to occur. Any attempt for the purpose of inflating the price of an item is a shill bid.

Simply put, an auction is designed to let the market set the final price, and the market usually finds an appropriate one. But the market is falsified when shill bidding is introduced, pitting an unaware bidder versus the seller (or seller's proxy).

Like I noted before, it's similar to price gauging (gas, etc.). If you're fine with being gauged, then that's your prerogative. It still doesn't make it legal or morally acceptable.

And as they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.

What cash? The cash concocted through illegal activity?

The arbiter should be that it's illegal. As in against the law. That's enough for me.

I appreciate the fact that people named on the list have stepped up and offered their side of the story for all this.

I believe it was wrong and that people should have known better, but I still appreciate their contributions to the conversation and that this board has welcomed a difficult topic.

If there's any lesson reinforced for me, it's that there are shady people out there and when I encounter somebody like that or a deal that I'm uncomfortable with, walk away. There's always tomorrow.

Since you have no problem with shilling, please let me know your eBay handle so I can make sure never to bid in your auctions. Because I do have a problem with being illegally shilled, and yes, I would be entitled to every cent that I was fraudulently induced to spend.

No kidding. The US District Court of Northern Illinois, Eastern Division is taking shill bidding very very seriously. The argument of "I'm fine with it" seems pretty silly to me.

Agree with Ryan and others.

The buyer is "entitled" to expect that other bidders will follow laws set by legislatures and rules set by auction houses. So if a statute and/or auction house rule forbids shill bidding, the buyer is in fact "'entitled' to all of that cash."

For example, eBay explicitly forbids shilling.

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/...l-bidding.html

I'm sure most auction houses do as well.

When a potential buyer puts in a $5000 max bid on an item, and state law and/or an auction house rule prohibit shill bidding, part of what goes into the bidding calculus is that the potential buyer may actually get the item for less. In other words, he or she is not bidding "$5000," he or she is bidding "one increment above whatever the next highest legitimate bid is, up to $5000."