Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector
I like this post much better than you made...I like the discussion and thanks for the good response...
I think a reserve is the same thing as shilling..the item doesn't sell if it doesn't go over the reserve......I know there are problems with shilling...I can tell you when I have bid on used cars and I have felt I was bidding against the soda machine in the back of the auction
the issue why I think shilling is not so bad is I cant see it being prevalent...let the seller keep eating a buyers premium every time he 'wins' a card....I would never want to risk losing 10%..i know there are some extreme examples out there where it could make sense in theory but time after time I just do see it taking place in the real auction houses..
I do see old threads on the soaking that I had not seen till today. They make the same points about if you don't disclose it for fear the item will go down then there is something wrong with that..
can we agree that if there are two identical cards in every way (except whatever happens to the paper if one of them was soaked ) and if one was soaked and the other wasn't and they are being sold raw, that you will prefer the unsoaked card?
however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?
|
A few more points on shilling and soaking.
Why do you think that a shiller is paying 10%? Most just cancel the transaction so there are no fees.
Shilling is stealing even if the shill bidder was not the under bidder. More bids bring more interest to a card.
Card soaking. I would pay the exact same price for 2 cards that look exactly the same even if I knew 1 was soaked. Now if they done a bad job of soaking that is a different story. I personally see nothing wrong with soaking if done properly.