If someone (collector, investor, someone buying a birthday present for his grandson) is not shilling, is not bidding on something he owns or for someone (shilling) and places a bid at an amount he's honestly willing to pay and knowing he may well end up being the winner-- it's hard to convince me that he did something wrong. In fact, that's what auctions are about.

Based on the volume of sales and the detail of the records kept by eBay, it has certainly got to be a concern.

It matters because the "pushers" have the risk associated with winning. Take away the risk (BP, fees etc...) and then I have a problem. I am with Adam on this too, as long as the sale is arm's length I am good with it.

To differentiate "market pushing" from normal auction activity, one would have to discern the intent of the bidder, which is not generally something that can be known with any certainty. To wit, that makes this a nearly pointless discussion.

Doubt it from what I know. A crazy plan to corner the market on Rose rookies (or whatever card) probably isn't going to get Feds involved. That being said, my guess is that if someone brought something to them that was specifically a Federal Crime, and had their ducks in a row, I am confident they would look at it. Just my 1/2 cent.

ps...and I agree with your last post/statement too!!

The reference was to PWCC, not Pete Rose rookie cards, per se.

Brent knows very well what his bidders are up to. "Market pushing" is his term.

What's the difference then with Mastro, where the shill bidders in many cases had the risk of paying the BP, and did pay the BP if their shilling was unsuccessful, yet the government deemed it illegal?

Sorry, I guess I got off track. My reference was to the bidders.

Juries every day are called upon to discern intent from the evidence. It's an issue in every criminal case and every fraud case, to start with. Of course you can make judgments about intent much of the time. More concretely, in this instance, I am confident that what Brent has told me about certain people's intent is accurate.

Actually in your post the buyer did nothing wrong. They wanted the card and were willing to pay the ending price for the card.

This isn't about buying, winning, being outbid or even owning a card. Its about holding or increasing market value so that there is no loss on an investment.

So does Heritage:

"No Reserve: This lot is being sold without a consignor reserve. (Note: By law, consignors may still bid under certain conditions, but they are responsible for paying the full Buyer's Premium and Seller's Commission if they do.)"


http://www.ha.com/c/ref/web-tips.zx?...sources-111815

Peter

Why the need for rule #2?

Take it as a rhetorical question or you can post your opinion. I'm just curious. If you wish to indulge me that's fine, if not, we're good either way.


Jantz

My understanding is they have that clause solely for in-person Live Auctions. They have to have it for that. Their auction software will not allow a consignor to bid on their own lots. I am not in favor of some other things which we politely agree to disagree on, as Chris and team know, but as for that clause, I believe that is the reason.

That is good to know, when I read that I thought "wtf ... well I guess at least it is spelled out in the rules." My next question is whether that language would allow someone to register for a second account and then bid without being rejected by the software.

I can't speak for Brent, but I would surmise he thinks that retractions, especially after becoming the high bidder and learning what the previous high was, look blatantly fraudulent. So -- assuming he is enforcing the rule -- people instead have to take the risk of winning if they are going to "push." I think it's a good rule, but I have not seen anything yet that convinces me that bidding hoping to run up the price someone else pays is ethical. In any event, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and several have been enlightening to say the least.

And once again, which is falling on many deaf ears, the first hand information I have is that the government really made their case against Mastro Auctions for the artificial bidding which took place by those bidders who did not even know what the high bids were and who even paid the BP when their bids did not get topped. The house had a policy, like Brent does, to not allow it, but did nothing to stop it, just like Brent is doing.

Now some of the same people on this thread who were furious that the shill bidding in Mastro distorted actual market value and posted about it constantly are now ok with the "pushing". What a difference a day makes, eh? What took place at Mastro pales in comparison to what is going on with the "pushing".

There is no comparison at all between market pushing and what happened with the shillers at Mastro. The consignors and bidders in the Mastro lots knew each other. Nothing arms length about that at all. Do not try to justify what those named on the Mastro list did with market pushing. It makes what happened at Mastro worse.

Goes to the most fundamental of economic principles, the law of supply and demand. Why think too much about it. A free market will eventually balance the two regardless of synthetic forces. In the end a shiller will be left holding the last priciest card. They will get what they deserve.

Really? No comparison? Now that is pretty funny.

Of course there is a comparison, although there are differences too and it's a matter of opinion for each person to judge whether you think the similarities outweigh the differences. But don't pretend there is no comparison: In both cases, people are placing bids with the intent and hope of not winning the item but causing someone else to pay more, in order to realize a personal benefit. And in both cases, people take the risk of having to pay if they are unsuccessful. And in both cases, the price realized is higher than it would have been if only people trying to win at the lowest price were bidding.

Greg, seriously? You were on the Mastro list, and you've already apologized for it. Even if your reasoning may be relevant and knowledgeable, because of your history, it's better you recuse yourself from this discussion.

More likely the shiller's buyer, or a buyer several levels removed, I would think. These guys are extremely savvy, they aren't going to be left holding the bag if they see a decline coming.

Exactly Gary, I apologized because I recognized that what was done was wrong. And who do you think you are? I will do not such thing and will continue to participate in this conversation. I could not care less what you think of my opinion.

Greg, I am someone who has never shilled. You did not apologize until after you were outed when the Mastro list was published.

One of them will. A non-shiller is not in most cases looking to purchase and resell, accordingly a shiller will at one point be left holding the last priciest card. Now he may have made money prior to that but eventually if the entire mkt is being shilled a shiller will be left holding the last priciest card for resale regardless of how savvy they are.

First I should recuse myself from this discussion because my name was on the list and now you are admonishing me for not apologizing sooner? Are you for real, Gary? Find another cause Gary.

Greg, you were caught shilling at Mastro. Now you are arguing that what folks are doing in market pushing is much worse ("pales" is your word) than what folks did at Mastro, which coincidentally you were one of them. If that's not something where in a legal setting, someone would recuse themselves from, I don't know what is. Obviously we're not in a court of law, so you're free to continue to say whatever you want, no matter how bad it makes you look.

I took Greg's point to be about the extent and/or impact of the conduct, not the relative culpability.

Was never caught shilling. Never questioned by the Feds. It is not coincidental that I am posting on this topic. In what world would the fact that we bought stuff back mean I should recuse myself from a discussion which I have first hand perspective of? That is ludicrous.

The artificial bidding that took place at Mastro did not have much of an impact on market values overall where as the pushing that is going on has had a very material impact on all grades. Just look at VCP.

Like I said, legal or illegal. The rest is conversation.

It was illegal for Mastro and his collaborators and the consignors who asked their friends to run up bids to do what they did. Apparently it is not illegal in Texas for Heritage consignors to bid on their own stuff. You do business in a jurisdiction you take the good and the bad laws. If you don't like IL rules (or eBay rules based in CA law) because you want to bid on your own items sell your stuff in TX, but don't cheat in IL and try to argue it is ok because someone else did something similar where it is legal. That's like saying you can have two wives in USA because it is ok in Saudi Arabia.

Ok bad example because you'd clearly be mentally ill if you wanted another wife in this country...

I can see even if 'eating' 10% on the Rose RC...as long as you are pushing the market over 20% etc...you can keep eating 10%...heck the market has gone up 70% ...i think people will continue to eat away the juice with those numbers.....

haven't read the entire thread, but considering the op's questions/concerns...

it all depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on for each individual card. each circumstance or auction is it's own monster.

1. there are people that intentionally bid up in very small increments and/or retract early in on a card for the sole purpose of giving the appearance of it getting shilled. i know of an individual, not personally, that has an ebay account solely for pwcc purchases and it purposely registers as 100% bidding activity w/ them. it's an out of the box bidding tactic, but it does indeed happen and is a lot more widespread than what most people think. they are intentionally running off other bidders on the sole basis that they wont participate in a card that is " so obviously being shilled". in the end, it is a game. i do not practice this tatic but cant hold it against someone that uses it. of course, their thought process is the exact opposite of "shilling". they are doing it in an attempt to keep the final price lower, not higher. does it work? no clue. i bid my figure and if i win, great. i never really look at who else is and how they are bidding once my eyes were opened to this strategy. it simply doesn't matter to me now that i know this strategy is definitely used and in play.

2. as for "protecting ones investment", this is where it becomes which side of the fence you graze upon. ive always bought duplicates. several times over in fact. i play the bump game and have my strategy of doing it w/ multiple examples. and even when they do bump, my sub wasnt for profit driven motives. i haven't sold a card that has yet. but when i get locked in on a card i will purchase a number of them at said price points. could this seem phishy (playing at wrigley right now, btw) to someone else looking at the activity from their vantage point? of course, but i don't care. could someone view it as someone "protecting their investment"? sure. but again, i don't care. not a flipper. but i always pay for the item once won or committed to purchase. now, if one bids it up and doesn't pay solely to inflate the price...then i would say it's definitely unethical.

3. as for bidding on ones own items, again as long as they pay i don't see a problem w/ it. i do get the other side of the fence's argument though as well. as jake mentioned if they have to cough up $500 on $5000, then that's the price they pay. however, if they bid it up and don't pay? definitely unethical both on inflation and of intentially wasting someone elses time and resources. and i applaud brent for automatically blocking nonpayers after the first instance. naturally he doesn't want his staff's time wasted, but it does weed out nonpaying shillers overtime which should help. of course, registering a new ebay account isn't brain surgery either. however, if 2 people collude to consign a card and then both bid the card up to a new stratosphere solely to create a new plateau, pay the commission fee and then they put one of their "other 9s" up a few days after this "new documented sale", i would definitely define that as market manipulation and completely unethical. this happens on an extremely frequent basis and have made notes on the subject matter over the past couple of years. it's funny how quickly the "new stratosphere card" comes right back to the market after the second card has sold at/near/above the new plateau price. they are basically paying a $500+ commission fee (or $250 max ebay fee and simply claim "mark item as being paid, don't exchange money or have to pay 3% paypal fee either) to generate thousands of additional dollars for that grade, twice!

4. and over time i have realized that what appears phishy to me "most" of the time probably isn't. recently someone pointed out publically what they thought was some suspicious activity on a spree of mantles that was purchased w/i a span of 30 minutes or so. just turned out that it was me, but again i can certainly understand where someone else would think that it was suspicious from their vantage point. a few other occasions have occurred as well, no need to rehash and i'll just digress there. must admit, brings a smile to this side of the fence and slightly entertaining to engage and gather the overall consensus when those type posts occur. a lil devious on this end, for sure.

5. now is it unethical for seller "a" to post a card, collude w/ buyer "b" to run the card up to a predetermined price or list an insane bin now price, click "buy" and money isnt even exchanged solely to manipulate vcp, ebay "sold" listings as a valid sale? definitely unethical, sad thing is that generally people fall for it all the time. and overtime it usually does become the new norm because of a "target/conversation/thread starter". "d@mn, did you see the hammer on the 79 gretzky psa 9 auction". stuff like this creates buzz for a said card/grade. is there anyway to prove that the card wouldn't have done that on its own accord overtime?

nope.


it is what it is.


so best just not to get caught up in the "what if's" and what the other side of the fence is doing.


concentrate on your game. not their's.




.

ya...i wouldnt be surprised if those buying up the 8's and 9's actiually own 9's and 10's...that way after driving up the prices they then can sell their's at a huge increase...making up most of the $$$ it cost to buy the others.

widespread panic at red rocks is how.







edit: and might wanna consider changing your default settings. :D

Bam! Kind of like the PSA 10 Rose rookie being offered in Aug via Auction house (which IMO, isn't even Mint but that is another discussion). Drive the price up on the current PSA 9 on ebay and profit on the future 10 sale in Aug.

You bring up a couple interesting theories and I respect your input but, I would have to disagree with most of what you said. I'm sorry but, if you're the owner of something, you shouldn't/aren't allowed to bid on your own item. This is shill bidding, no white-lines, clear as day.

Nothing really "phishy" about what is going on with some of these auction houses. The data is there supporting what's really going on in a lot of these "auctions".

I'm confident there will be an ending to these "stories" at some point and I'm not so sure it will be a happy ending for some folks.

hey, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion.

however from your own rundown it only looks like you disagreed w 1 part,

but you failed to read or notate the most important words...

the "i dont care" part.

i place my snipe max bid at the end. if i dont win, then i havent spent more than i wanted to. thats what i was willing to spend. it doesnt bother me who outbid me...the owner or 30 other guys going for it.

however, if i get outbid by the owner/30 other guys and then he doesnt pay, well i do have a problem w that. not only bc of the artificial run up in vcp but that i didnt get it at what i was honestly willing to pay.

but at the end of the day, how would i even know who the nonpaying bidder was. no auction house would ever give you that info. so im not gonna spin my wheels blindly about all the unknowns in life.

and trust, me. i wont be losing any sleep at 3:18am in regards to your bidding strategy but of course, a new comber w only 2 posts, im naturally " phishy " to your intent in the first place.


out of all the threads and history on n54, you choose to pick this?

ironically interesting.

"dont'cha think? it's like raaaain..."


and i usually try to stick up for the new combers, but will make the exception for you...



edit:

and it mighta been 4:18am.

when im not logged in it states 4:18, logged in states 3:18.

and please, by all means...post some of this "data".

Interesting points, Bob.

And I like the Kinks avatar...

CU
 

Thread from the CU Board with PWCC input

https://forums.collectors.com/messag...&enterthread=y