the list (of criminals) is revealed

[Peter_Spaeth]

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would let him bid using my ID. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if the bid from my account won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and the bid from my account was high bid, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction., particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron expected the set to go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Thanks for posting the explanation Peter. I understand, and see how things can happen. That was 2007. I think you'll agree that everyone now is edgey and ready for zero tolerance

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

Thanks for posting the explanation Peter. I understand, and see how things can happen. That was 2007. I think you'll agree that everyone now is edgey and ready for zero tolerance

Yes, and after discussing this with some people I respect, I do see the gray area.

[sflayank]

well peter admits to being a shill...how nice
so he believes theres nothing wrong with making the public believe the value of that item is what he bid when in fact there was no one willing to actually pay that price...ie the most anyone person was willing to pay lets says is 1800 and he puts in 2000...but the 1800 bidder actually would have won the lot for 1200 as the 3rd bidders hi bid was only 1100...and he doesnt see anything wrong with that....if your consignor friend ron wants at least x dollars then he should consign it to an AH that will start the bidding at x dollars...this is nothing more than artificially upping the perceived value in the eyes of the public...but theres nothing wrong with that....hmmmmm

[Buythatcard]

This list just shows 2007-2008. Can you imagine what the list would look like if it included all the years that Mastro was in business? You know that it doesn't end with Mastro. I am sure that this is still going on within many AH's today. I am not saying that the AH are involved but there must be shilling done by individuals that have a connection with the consignor.

I have won 21 items from Mastro between 2005-2009 for a total of $34,000. The list shows that I was shilled only once in 2007 on a lot of 38 Colgan Chips. It makes me wonder how many other times they shilled me.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

This list just shows 2007-2008. Can you imagine what the list would look like if it included all the years that Mastro was in business? You know that it doesn't end with Mastro. I am sure that this is still going on within many AH's today. I am not saying that the AH are involved but there must be shilling done by individuals that have a connection with the consignor.

I have won 21 items from Mastro between 2005-2009 for a total of $34,000. The list shows that I was shilled only once in 2007 on a lot of 38 Colgan Chips. It makes me wonder how many other times they shilled me.

theres also the issue the other way....maybe if you not bid that top bid..someone else was prepared to bid the exact amount as you in that bidding slot so they didn't bid it because you already beat them there.....hence they would of been the underbidder as well to fill up all those shill bids up to your winning bidding slot......just saying its not like if all the shill bidders disappeared the lot would of been won every time at the amount the apparent 'winning bid' the victim was going to pay free of shilling....basically whatever the amount they calculated the victims lost...the real amount would of been lower..but yeah I know its like I a thief saying he stole 3,000 and not 5,000 that the homeowner claims was stolen (and told the insurance company)


By the way when is someone going to post a picture with a bunch of people holding pitchforks with something funny stated on it.....you net54 guys are good at that stuff

[Jeff1970Red]

The fact is there was never any intention to purchase the lot.

My opinion is that this was not the first time this occurred.

What I ask is to stop the BS gray area talk, no excuses, the same conversation I have with my kids and myself, daily.

No pitchfork just advice.

Jeff D'Errico

[brianp-beme]

How was it determined shill bidding occurred on all these lots? Many of them are obvious, such as the ones listed as the shiller being the auction house or an employee, and ones from consigners with multiple lots, each having the same shilling bidder, but how about the other one-offs? Are there records of 'shill agreements' that wasn't obvious in this document? Being a non-lawyer, I refused to read the whole document.

Brian

[buymycards]

Peter, the only reason that no one was "run up" is because it happened that there were no bidders. If there had been bidders, you would have run them up.

[asoriano]

...you gotta love this dirty hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by buymycards

Peter, the only reason that no one was "run up" is because it happened that there were no bidders. If there had been bidders, you would have run them up.

As I thought of it, if Ron had not consigned the set at all, or if there had been a reserve or an opening bid at the reserve level, nobody could have won it for less than one bid above mine anyhow. So your hypothetical is not real, as I see it. But as I said, I do understand there are other ways to look at it.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I thought of it, if Ron had not consigned the set at all, or if there had been a reserve or an opening bid at the reserve level, nobody could have won it for less than one bid above mine anyhow. So your hypothetical is not real, as I see it. But as I said, I do understand there are other ways to look at it.

Here's my take:

If there had been, say, a $2,000 reserve on the lot, and the highest bidder bid $1,500, everyone would see that the set did not meet the reserve. This could be attributed to either the reserve being set too high, or there just being low interest in the set at that particular time. As it happened, a "shill bid" was placed for $2,000, to match the "unstated" reserve. This led people to believe the set had sold at that price. This is the lie, that the set sold, when it actually did not; and this is where, in my opinion, the main problem lies. It results in false price information being released to the public, and a false value being placed on the item. The set may later exceed the value that was falsely reported at that time, but there is really no way of knowing what effect the false info had, even if there are years between the auction in question, and the actual later sale.

The safest and best way to proceed is to set a reserve (if desired), and let the bidding determine if the reserve is realistic (at that particular moment in time). Then at least, if the item does not sell, the public has accurate information to use, in later placing a value on it.

Steve

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Here's my take:

If there had been, say, a $2,000 reserve on the lot, and the highest bidder bid $1,500, everyone would see that the set did not meet the reserve. This could be attributed to either the reserve being set too high, or there just being low interest in the set at that particular time. As it happened, a "shill bid" was placed for $2,000, to match the "unstated" reserve. This led people to believe the set had sold at that price. This is the lie, that the set sold, when it actually did not; and this is where, in my opinion, the main problem lies. It results in false price information being released to the public, and a false value being placed on the item. The set may later exceed the value that was falsely reported at that time, but there is really no way of knowing what effect the false info had, even if there are years between the auction in question, and the actual later sale.

The safest and best way to proceed is to set a reserve (if desired), and let the bidding determine if the reserve is realistic (at that particular moment in time). Then at least, if the item does not sell, the public has accurate information to use, in later placing a value on it.

Steve

The consignor obviously would have preferred a reserve, as it would not have cost him thousands of dollars not to sell his set, as it turned out, but he was told the option was not available. So he took the instruction of what was then still a mostly highly respected auction house as to an alternative. Sure everyone can sit in judgment now. Whatever.

[Rich Klein]

Peter Nash must be smiling, rubbing his hands and getting his next column ready

Did anyone notice in the 2002 auction Rob Lifson's name was posted. Now I know that things have evolved since then but that was fascinating. I repeat something I was thinking after Rob's Friday night announcement in his blog about retiring. I just found it strange a story broke on a Friday night. Usually in politics, if you want to bury a story, release the news on Friday Night.

If it's good news, release the story on Monday Morning about 9 AM

TJ Schwartz's name is posted as well as well -- he writes a column for SCD called on your side. HMMM

Peter Calderon (now at Heritage) is also listed as a shill bidder.

These are just some of the quick highlights as I don't have the eyes to read through every name.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Peter Nash must be smiling, rubbing his hands and getting his next column ready

Did anyone notice in the 2002 auction Rob Lifson's name was posted. Now I know that things have evolved since then but that was fascinating. I repeat something I was thinking after Rob's Friday night announcement in his blog about retiring. I just found it strange a story broke on a Friday night. Usually in politics, if you want to bury a story, release the news on Friday Night.

If it's good news, release the story on Monday Morning about 9 AM

TJ Schwartz's name is posted as well as well -- he writes a column for SCD called on your side. HMMM

Peter Calderon (now at Heritage) is also listed as a shill bidder.

These are just some of the quick highlights as I don't have the eyes to read through every name.

meh never mind

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The consignor obviously would have preferred a reserve, as it would not have cost him thousands of dollars not to sell his set, as it turned out, but he was told the option was not available. So he took the instruction of what was then still a mostly highly respected auction house as to an alternative. Sure everyone can sit in judgment now. Whatever.

Point taken Peter; and that is where Doug Allen's feet need to be held to the fire. At least in your case, Doug appears to be the one spearheading the illicit activities. It, perhaps, does not fully eliminate the consigner's or your culpability, but it would serve to mitigate it.

Steve

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The consignor obviously would have preferred a reserve, as it would not have cost him thousands of dollars not to sell his set, as it turned out, but he was told the option was not available. So he took the instruction of what was then still a mostly highly respected auction house as to an alternative. Sure everyone can sit in judgment now. Whatever.

Peter, I guess that's the point I made earlier: this type of practice is not just reflected on as shady now, it was shady then. As evidenced by its appearance in the court documents.

If ANY auction house offers this type of shady practice, it should have been a big red flag and clearly was not worth the respect people were giving it. Just because a person or auction house compels someone to do something illegal/unethical, doesn't mean they have to do it.

Parsing it for people sitting in judgement now is a cop out. It was wrong then - that's the point.

[Vintagefun]

CU Thread...Poof. Not sure why. Disappointing.

[ALR-bishop]

....in two shakes of a lamb's tail

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

....in two shakes of a lamb's tail

nah was more than 5 nanoseconds

[Jeff1970Red]

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I have owned it, unlike anyone else so far who is on that list. I disagree with your opinion, as I see it this was not at anyone else's expense, please see my response to Rick.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I have owned it, unlike anyone else so far who is on that list. I disagree with your opinion, as I see it this was not at anyone else's expense, please see my response to Rick.

yeah I agree he has owned it...it over now...we can take the pitchforks to the other villages now. (the other guys on the list)....there may be frankenstein out there to grab but peter would barely be a reprint of part of a shoelace on Frankenstein,, if that..

[Bruinsfan94]

Yea I'm not seeing any gray area. Should just admit you made a mistake and move on. Everyone does something they regret once in a while.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Bruinsfan94

Everyone does something they regret once in a while.

My son's mother What the hell was I thinking

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

Per forum rules, your name please

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

For the moment I am not saying anything except that your full name, and everyone posting in this thread who makes any comment per the rules, needs to put their name in their post (if not easily found by your sig line etc)....per the rule in bold letters at the top of every page. It's not that important though. If anyone doesn't want their full name in their post then they can edit their comments out. Otherwise I will be putting names in posts per the rules at my leisure .......thanks to all

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

He did.

I'm not a big baller in the card world, but I do follow the story.

Peter, I disagree 100% of what you did. But you did step up and tell your story. I do applaud your for that. Thanks.

[Shoebox]

Have been looking over the information in this document a lot through the day and while I was not directly affected by this I have a lot of thoughts I want to express.

1. Peter, seeing your name appear as a shill bidder was disappointing to me as I genuinely appreciate the knowledge, experience, and opinions you contribute to this community. However, I thank you for being willing to acknowledge your actions and face fallout from them. I respect you for doing that even if I think your actions were wrong. There are others that have much more to answer for but so far remain silent.

2.This is only a tiny portion of the fraud. 2 years worth of auctions by only one AH and this is only the transactions that someone with direct knowledge squealed on or confessed to having direct knowledge of the conspiracy. We know about Peter's because of conversations between the consignor and Maestro. How many agreements like that might have been reached that the AH didn't know about. I don't have to tell the AH that I am going to have a proxy place a protection bid on my consignment to keep from losing it at too low a price.

3. If a name appears as a shill bidder you placed a shill bid or one was placed under your name. The only way your name appears in that column was if there is direct evidence or testimony that the bid in question was part of the conspiracy. Some of the theories that some in that list may not be directly involved is in my opinion likely just wishful thinking.

4. The AH has an incentive to shill if there is a high max bid so it is possible for a consignor to have his lots shill bid without his involvement. However, when I see a board member appear as a consignor for 30 lots in this list and the names of the shill bidders only appears on their lots then I can make a pretty safe inference they were a willing participant in the fraud. If there is some other explanation for that JC Clarke I welcome you to offer it.

5. The occurrences I mention in 4 are present for Ken Goldin as well. So, there is a strong likelihood that he was involved in arranging shill bidding of several consignments to Maestro. If he is willing to participate in such actions in other auctions why should I have any confidence that he doesn't allow or even facilitate it in the auctions his AH runs? I hope Leon is already considering whether Goldin Auctions should continue to be allowed to advertise on this forum. I know I am unlikely to ever bid in one of their auctions.

I know I am just a bottom level collector and I don't have a spit's worth of significance in the collecting world but even a novice nobody like me can see that there are a whole lot more people than just the ones on this list that have dirt on their hands.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Shoebox

Have been looking over the information in this document a lot through the day and while I was not directly affected by this I have a lot of thoughts I want to express.

1. Peter, seeing your name appear as a shill bidder was disappointing to me as I genuinely appreciate the knowledge, experience, and opinions you contribute to this community. However, I thank you for being willing to acknowledge your actions and face fallout from them. I respect you for doing that even if I think your actions were wrong. There are others that have much more to answer for but so far remain silent.

2.This is only a tiny portion of the fraud. 2 years worth of auctions by only one AH and this is only the transactions that someone with direct knowledge squealed on or confessed to having direct knowledge of the conspiracy. We know about Peter's because of conversations between the consignor and Maestro. How many agreements like that might have been reached that the AH didn't know about. I don't have to tell the AH that I am going to have a proxy place a protection bid on my consignment to keep from losing it at too low a price.

3. If a name appears as a shill bidder you placed a shill bid or one was placed under your name. The only way your name appears in that column was if there is direct evidence or testimony that the bid in question was part of the conspiracy. Some of the theories that some in that list may not be directly involved is in my opinion likely just wishful thinking.

4. The AH has an incentive to shill if there is a high max bid so it is possible for a consignor to have his lots shill bid without his involvement. However, when I see a board member appear as a consignor for 30 lots in this list and the names of the shill bidders only appears on their lots then I can make a pretty safe inference they were a willing participant in the fraud. If there is some other explanation for that JC Clarke I welcome you to offer it.

5. The occurrences I mention in 4 are present for Ken Goldin as well. So, there is a strong likelihood that he was involved in arranging shill bidding of several consignments to Maestro. If he is willing to participate in such actions in other auctions why should I have any confidence that he doesn't allow or even facilitate it in the auctions his AH runs? I hope Leon is already considering whether Goldin Auctions should continue to be allowed to advertise on this forum. I know I am unlikely to ever bid in one of their auctions.

I know I am just a bottom level collector and I don't have a spit's worth of significance in the collecting world but even a novice nobody like me can see that there are a whole lot more people than just the ones on this list that have dirt on their hands.

I agree
I'm going to unsubscribe to Goldin Auctions
Do I have to start a thread to ban myself?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron expected the set to go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

yeah that's pretty bad that you would bid and there was some collusion that if you won, the consignor would pay the BP to get the card back to the consignor..why not at least make you pay it to them (and then you get reimbursed by the consignor with sweaty palms)...yeah I understand the end game..no one was hurt because he wouldn't of consigned the card in the first place without assurances he would get a certain amount or get the card back..but when there was no agreement to a reserve and he still consigned the card anyway, that's an easy sign to know that the auction house is corrupt (and tip of the iceberg stuff) I don't know why you would be a part of it....maybe for this item no one got hurt but this sort of collusion probably occurred on other items with other shillers and people were victimized....but allowing to be used as pawns gave incentive to the auction house to look for other pawns out there..

again i understand no one got hurt this time..but sometimes bad things are done many times but only one time they get caught for it....though you always hear it on 'to catch a predator' it was their first time they ever did this...

I don't think you are part of the hobby problem at all..i think personally you are a great asset for the hobby and i am sure everyone would agree....i would bid on any of your ebay auctions if you had any with no hesitation.. you also are a great resource on knowledge on cards...i hope its doesn't look like i am bashing you...i just commenting.....also you are mentioned like the very very least out of the 100s of other names on there

[AGuinness]

Garth Guibord

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim.

Actually, no. When a reserve is included, the bidders are aware of it. In this case, it's clearly deceptive. It's doesn't take a degree in ethics to see that.

Not to mention the data point each shill auction, including that one, provides the industry, but is also deceptive.

I would hope people would be smart and decent enough that when they engage with somebody with shady practices, in this case an auction house who doesn't provide a specific service but encourages a deceptive alternative, they would simply walk away and find a more respectable auction house. Not offering a reserve, but suggesting this type of bidding as a proxy is a big red flag.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Garth Guibord
Actually, no. When a reserve is included, the bidders are aware of it. In this case, it's clearly deceptive. It's doesn't take a degree in ethics to see that.

I think the key word is ethics in this statement. Lawyer......ethics............ethics............la wyer.

Just when I was warming up to you Pete......... Please tell me that you're not a family court lawyer though. Then I could care less. Those are the ones that directly piss me off the most.

I think you can basically now be known as the Jason Giambi of this site. You admitted it and thus will take less flack. You will also be commended for owning up to it rather than hiding behind lies. It will be a mute point, it will all blow over. Now I'd like to know who the other's are on the site that aren't owning up !!

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

I think the key word is ethics in this statement. Lawyer......ethics............ethics............la wyer.

Just when I was warming up to you Pete......... Please tell me that you're not a family court lawyer though. Then I could care less. Those are the ones that directly piss me off the most.

I think you can basically now be known as the Jason Giambi of this site. You admitted it and thus will take less flack. You will also be commended for owning up to it rather than hiding behind lies. It will be a mute point, it will all blow over. Now I'd like to know who the other's are on the site that aren't owning up !!

Just to clarify, my name appears at the top of that post as I'm replying to Pete. I am not Pete...

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Just to clarify, my name appears at the top of that post as I'm replying to Pete. I am not Pete...

I know I was using your quote.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

There are a lot of catty, snarky comments that would be fun to post, but really, reading this just makes me sad. You still don't get it. There are only two sides to this: right and wrong. You are on the wrong side. You did a bad thing. At least have the decency to admit it without the song and dance. People forgive most stuff, but not hypocrisy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

There are a lot of catty, snarky comments that would be fun to post, but really, reading this just makes me sad. You still don't get it. There are only two sides to this: right and wrong. You are on the wrong side. You did a bad thing. At least have the decency to admit it without the song and dance. People forgive most stuff, but not hypocrisy.

Adam, you are entitled to your opinion. Make whatever snarky comments you wish, I don't mind at all, I knew the wave of sanctimoniousness was coming when I posted. Some agree with you, and some very thoughtful people I have spoken to don't see it in your black and white terms. Maybe they will chime in, maybe they won't, whatever.

[ElCabron]

Anyone whose name is on that list in spite of their innocence is welcome to come here and set the record straight. Feel free to let us know all about how you didn't do it and how you're outraged that your reputation is being dragged through the mud. Go ahead and publicly declare your innocence right here. There is absolutely no reason not to, if you're innocent, so please post here so we can help you clear your name. If innocent people are being publicly accused of unethical actions which they didn't do, I say we demand an investigation into how that happened. Don't just sit there and let everyone think you have zero integrity. The truth shall set you free! Or shut you up. The truth will definitely do one of those two things.

-Ryan

[FirstYearCards]

Why would you ever put a bid in for something that you didn't think it was worth? Seems to me if you put a bid in for something at $5,000 and it's bid up to it, that's what you are willing to pay for it and what it's worth(to you).

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Peter, this is an argument that anyone on the list could make. As another poster mentioned, this is counted as a sale, so one way shillers drive the price of items up is that they show demand for that price (e.g., VCP). If you dot VCP with fake sales, then buyers think there is actual demand for the item at that price, where there isn't. I definitely respect practically all of your posts, so I hope you can come around your thinking on this one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Peter, this is an argument that anyone on the list could make. As another poster mentioned, this is counted as a sale, so one way shillers drive the price of items up is that they show demand for that price (e.g., VCP). If you dot VCP with fake sales, then buyers think there is actual demand for the item at that price, where there isn't. I definitely respect practically all of your posts, so I hope you can come around your thinking on this one.

Gary that was not the intent here, but I do understand that aspect of it and I had not thought about it back at the time.

[ullmandds]

Based on Peter S's history on here...I am a little surprised as well that you do not see this type of behavior as wrong...a little shocking...but I respect u for coming forward.

On another note...apparently this type of behavior routinely occurs in other areas of collecting...fine arts, etc...where the "house" will "bid up" an item to a "hidden reserve" or such...and this is accepted. While I dont like this...I dont like most things...so go figure!!!!

Many here consider these pieces of cardboard "Art"...is it time for the hobby rules to change?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Based on Peter S's history on here...I am a little surprised as well that you do not see this type of behavior as wrong...a little shocking...but I respect u for coming forward.

On another note...apparently this type of behavior routinely occurs in other areas of collecting...fine arts, etc...where the "house" will "bid up" an item to a "hidden reserve" or such...and this is accepted. While I dont like this...I dont like most things...so go figure!!!!

Many here consider these pieces of cardboard "Art"...is it time for the hobby rules to change?

Pete, for better or worse, and I have said this before many times in debates here so this is nothing new, I think running someone up knowing they have a top all is not the same thing as bidding a lot up to a reserve, especially with the willingness to pay the premium. I get the argument on the other side. As for coming forward, that's just my choice. Hopefully some others will offer their own explanations and perspectives, but if not, well I will surely take the heat for them as it's a lot easier to dump on an actual poster than people who aren't willing to engage.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Based on Peter S's history on here...I am a little surprised as well that you do not see this type of behavior as wrong...a little shocking...but I respect u for coming forward.

+1 I also know what Peter done was wrong but respect him for coming forward.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

+1 I also know what Peter done was wrong but respect him for coming forward.

I appreciate that. I much prefer to be slammed by people who disagree with me than to appear to be cowardly and not confront the issue.

[ElCabron]

As heroic as it was to "come forward" AFTER he'd been publicly outed for shill bidding, which he actually did do, maybe every board member doesn't still need to come forward and congratulate Peter. I think we all get it. He did a wonderful thing and has received plenty of kudos and validation for it. Hopefully Peter will serve as inspiration for others to come forward and admit their guilt, which will certainly be received with thunderous applause while board members sing "For he's a jolly good fellow" before each one individually praises the shill bidder in a brand new post for being such a stand up guy.

-Ryan

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I appreciate that. I much prefer to be slammed by people who disagree with me than to appear to be cowardly and not confront the issue.

I don't know Peter, and I'm not a piling-on type of poster, and I generally don't cast stones, and I'm not without my own faults, but that was a duesch bag move in 2007.

It appears you haven't gone through the 10-step shiller program. Your are now a recovering shiller, which means stop digging.

But I do commend you for having the balls to post. In 12 months, no-one will remember this.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by bnorth

+1 I also know what Peter done was wrong but respect him for coming forward.

Yeah, that is what I meant with my post. Agree Ben.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gary that was not the intent here, but I do understand that aspect of it and I had not thought about it back at the time.

Thanks for your response, Peter. Obviously, you did not gain from this transaction, and frankly, although you are defending him, I think your friend put you in a bad spot. If you had not accepted that request out of friendship, you would not be having to defend yourself now.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Question will be coming.