This is the problem with grading...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just to add a bit of clarity it is my understanding that Joseph M Pankiewicz hasn't worked at SGC in nearly 10 yrs. Now back to my popcorn.

It's my understanding that he hasn't been a grader for them in nearly 10 years. The SGC website refers to him as a representative that accepts consignments on their behalf. Whether or not that means he's on their payroll I don't know.

http://www.sgccard.com/appearances.htm

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It's my understanding that he hasn't been a grader for them in nearly 10 years. The SGC website refers to him as a representative that accepts consignments on their behalf. Whether or not that means he's on their payroll I don't know.

http://www.sgccard.com/appearances.htm

Just going by what I was told with regards to his grading status. So my apologies for that....... I would assume if he is accepting consignments or submissions he is being paid for his time.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just going by what I was told with regards to his grading status. So my apologies for that....... I would assume if he is accepting consignments or submissions he is being paid for his time.

My assumption was incorrect. It is now my understanding, from a very reliable source, that he doesn't get paid whatsoever from SGC, for anything he does for SGC. I stand corrected.

[SMPEP]

I knew I'd be in the minority on this one!

In my opinion ... if there are two legitimate bidders above a shill bid ... eh. The are two other bidders would have pushed it to the same price any way. There was no change in the eventual sales price.

When the underbidder is fraudulent ... then yes, we have a problem ... because the high bidder would not have had to pay his highest price. So the $475 bid is a bit more concerning, because I see your concerns about the actual underbidder. (There could have been two shill underbidders in that auction, in which case the winner was defrauded.)

Cheers,
Patrick

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

I knew I'd be in the minority on this one!

In my opinion ... if there are two legitimate bidders above a shill bid ... eh. The are two other bidders would have pushed it to the same price any way. There was no change in the eventual sales price.

When the underbidder is fraudulent ... then yes, we have a problem ... because the high bidder would not have had to pay his highest price. So the $475 bid is a bit more concerning, because I see your concerns about the actual underbidder. (There could have been two shill underbidders in that auction, in which case the winner was defrauded.)

Cheers,
Patrick

the problem with this logic is the person who is schill bidding or under bidding, (which ultimately are the same thing, the user bidding on their own item) is that the person doesn't know what is going to happen after they put their bid in.

right? at the time of committing the act, they are essentially the same thing.

that is like saying, i robbed the bank, when it was illegal, but they made it legal a year later so its ok that i did it. the problem with that is you don't get out of jail because its now legal to rob banks. obviously robbing banks is a bad example but you get the point.

kevin

[PolarBear]

The ironic point of this thread are the people mocking someone for paying X dollars for a piece of cardboard with a picture on it, when they themselves pay 2X dollars for a piece of cardboard with a different picture on it.