Cards that CAN and CANNOT be soaked?!

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

leaves me nearly speechless.....................

+1

[1952boyntoncollector]

You don't have to buy a card if its priced to high......plus whoever is shilling..if they 'win' the item they will pay 10% etc..so I don't think it can be that common.... if a card you want to sell for 250..and its at 200..you going to shill for 220? if win you just lost 22 dollars..makes no sense

there are enough ebay auctions and auctions out there we can come up with what we want to offer for a card..if a card is bid too high, we don't buy it..

a reserve is almost the same thing as a schill bid or a starting price at the amount the seller wants...it all comes down to what the buyer wants to pay for the card....a card is worth what someone wants to pay for it..

but at least the buyer knows exactly what the card is.... a soaked card that is not disclosed is assumed to be not soaked........why not tell the buyers on ebay that a card is soaked if no big deal? I haven't seen one listing that says that..

however I see lots of starting prices and reserves on cards...so buyers know how much the seller wants for the card, shilled or not.....at least the buyer knows what the card is..

when cards are won , they we know what someone was willing to pay for the card..whether there were prior shill bids or not.......the card is the card.....

if put 'card was soaked'...will the prices go down from a same listing in which saying the card wasn't soaked?..... if the value is the same..then i a wrong soaking doesn't matter...


but if someone is willing to pay $500 for a card whether there was a shilling to get there or a reserve price...was the problem...to the buyer its worth $500........if put 'buy it now' for $500...or shilling..the outcome is the same....with the soaking ..its not...or lets see at least one ebay listing saying card was soaked...

if a seller of a 1952 Mantle psa tells you on an auction yesterday, that he shilled up to $30,000..cause he didn't want it go for less than that..and he risked paying $3,000 if he
'won' and the card ultimately sold for $35,000...would you subtract value for that? how about if he told you in soaked the card? ...which one hurts the value more..thoughts?

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

You don't have to buy a card if its priced to high......plus whoever is shilling..if they 'win' the item they will pay 10% etc..so I don't think it can be that common.... if a card you want to sell for 250..and its at 200..you going to shill for 220? if win you just lost 22 dollars..makes no sense

there are enough ebay auctions and auctions out there we can come up with what we want to offer for a card..if a card is bid too high, we don't buy it..

a reserve is almost the same thing as a schill bid or a starting price at the amount the seller wants...it all comes down to what the buyer wants to pay for the card....a card is worth what someone wants to pay for it..

but at least the buyer knows exactly what the card is.... a soaked card that is not disclosed is assumed to be not soaked........why not tell the buyers on ebay that a card is soaked if no big deal? I haven't seen one listing that says that..

however I see lots of starting prices and reserves on cards...so buyers know how much the seller wants for the card, shilled or not.....at least the buyer knows what the card is..

when cards are won , they we know what someone was willing to pay for the card..whether there were prior shill bids or not.......the card is the card.....

if put 'card was soaked'...will the prices go down from a same listing in which saying the card wasn't soaked?..... if the value is the same..then i a wrong soaking doesn't matter...


but if someone is willing to pay $500 for a card whether there was a shilling to get there or a reserve price...was the problem...to the buyer its worth $500........if put 'buy it now' for $500...or shilling..the outcome is the same....with the soaking ..its not...or lets see at least one ebay listing saying card was soaked...

if a seller of a 1952 Mantle psa tells you on an auction yesterday, that he shilled up to $30,000..cause he didn't want it go for less than that..and he risked paying $3,000 if he
'won' and the card ultimately sold for $35,000...would you subtract value for that? how about if he told you in soaked the card? ...which one hurts the value more..thoughts?

You asked for thoughts, so here are mine. Try proofreading your posts before hitting the submit button. Also to suggest soaking a card in water is worse than shilling is ridiculous.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mikehealer

You asked for thoughts, so here are mine. Try proofreading your posts before hitting the submit button. Also to suggest soaking a card in water is worse than shilling is ridiculous.

I glad you discussed the content of the post....talking about proofreading etc seems like you are avoiding the actual discussion....

if you think a card is bid too high due to shilling you can choose not to buy the card..or can choose to buy the card at your price......... to say 'is ridiculous' with no content of an argument is ridiculous......

so basically anything you say after this post..ill just post that what you say is ridiculous..........(if your post actually has content and doesn't just address proofreading)......

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I glad you discussed the content of the post....talking about proofreading etc seems like you are avoiding the actual discussion....

if you think a card is bid too high due to shilling you can choose not to buy the card..or can choose to buy the card at your price......... to say 'is ridiculous' with no content of an argument is ridiculous......

so basically anything you say after this post..ill just post that what you say is ridiculous..........(if your post actually has content and doesn't just address proofreading)......

Well spoken.
Shilling is stealing and is against the law. It doesn't matter what a person is willing to pay for an item, when if not shilled that person would have gotten the item for less. Shilling also creates a false market value. Did I mention that shilling is stealing!
I'm not saying soaking is an accepted practice by all. Some think it is altering a card and some don't. I understand both sides.
I'll bet that if you ask anyone that has soaked a card, if they have soaked they would tell you yes. On the other hand if you asked someone that has shilled if they have shilled, you will not get such a truthful answer.
So I will stick to my earlier statement, to even suggest soaking is worse than shilling is ridiculous.
Merry Christmas to all.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mikehealer

Well spoken.
Shilling is stealing and is against the law. It doesn't matter what a person is willing to pay for an item, when if not shilled that person would have gotten the item for less. Shilling also creates a false market value. Did I mention that shilling is stealing!
I'm not saying soaking is an accepted practice by all. Some think it is altering a card and some don't. I understand both sides.
I'll bet that if you ask anyone that has soaked a card, if they have soaked they would tell you yes. On the other hand if you asked someone that has shilled if they have shilled, you will not get such a truthful answer.
So I will stick to my earlier statement, to even suggest soaking is worse than shilling is ridiculous.
Merry Christmas to all.

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?

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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..

What if the auction house is doing the shilling? All shilling is illegal, unethical, and downright evil. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of how much collectors have overpaid because of it.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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?

I would, but I'm one of the few who is against all altering: soaking, erasing, etc.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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?

Are you really asking this?

[bnorth]

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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?

Yes, shill bidding impacts the value of cards.

Leaving aside the particular auction you cite, please allow me to explain.

- Card X (could be a '52 Mantle, could be something different) is up for auction
- There are a number of bids on the card, all of which are legitimate
- Bidder Y is currently winning the auction at $10,000
- Bidder Y has placed a max bid of $12,500
- Bidder Z (who actually owns the card and is selling it in this auction) places a shill bid of $12,000
- Bidder Y wins the auction at $12,100

In the example above, Bidder Z stole $2,100 from Bidder Y. Additionally, to answer your question, Bidder Z has impacted the entire market for Card X.

Because of his unethical shill bidding, the card's market value is now perceived to be $12,100. Had he not placed the shill bid, the market value would have been perceived to be $10,000.

So, Bidder Z has not only robbed someone, he also caused future buyers (in the short term, at least) of Card X to overpay.

Hope this makes sense. And please know this isn't an attack.

Best regards,

Eric

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

+1

leaves me speechless..that you are left speechless