the list (of criminals) is revealed

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

I'll send you a private message later.

That is fine. If you'd like. Thanks.

[drcy]

Ryan, of course, is correct. That if you bid within your budget or "the maximum you're willing to pay" you can't be cheated out of money is an argument that dumb people make.

[RGold]

I was the consignor of a 1955 Red Man set in the August, 2007 Mastro Auctions which appears on the list being discussed. It is the only item where my name is listed as consignor and Peter Spaeth as the bidder.

Peter has already related the facts and expressed views as I see them. People may question my ethics but I ask that they at least acknowledge that this was the lone entry on a very long list, and that this one transaction was much different than many of those listed. I have had many private transactions with people on this board and as a seller and buyer on eBay, and I hope my past dealings are at least considered before passing judgment.

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots. At that time I believe Mastro Auctions was considered the premier auction house in our hobby.

I have been a member on this board for about 8 years, and have read the many discussions regarding shill bidding. My understanding and views have evolved over that time like I am sure it has for many other members. I understand and agree that using a hidden reserve in the way Mastro Auctions suggested is wrong. I only ask that the members here consider that this was done in 2007, that it was recommended by the leading auction house, that it was done once, that the hidden reserve was a fraction of the value of the lot, and that the buyer's premium was paid by me.

There was no intent to deceive anyone. This set was #1 on the PSA Registry by a very large margin. Every card was the highest graded at that time and almost half of the 50 cards were the only ones graded at that level. Any one interested in Red Man cards could see that I retired the set before the auction and then re-registered the set after the auction showing that the set had not changed hands.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to clarify the record. Peter is a good friend and wrote his explanation in such a way as not to distance himself from me, but the fact of the matter is that he did not place these bids, I did. He did know what I was doing because we discussed how I had been instructed to proceed by Doug Allen, and he does not deny that, but he was not an active participant in the bidding. The worst part of this whole affair is that an honest, good guy is being hurt for doing me a favor.

[steve_a]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Can we please put an end to this stupid "stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again." argument? It's complete BS.

If there's an item that you are willing to pay $5,000 for (with that being within your budget) but legitimate bidding goes no higher than $2,000, you should win the item at he next increment above that. Just over $2,000. If you are shilled (and I'm not talking about placing a max bid) up to or near your max, you will still win the item for an amount that was within your budget. But the market has determined that it's a $2,000 item. You'll find that out when you go try to sell it and lose $3,000. Because you were a "victim" of dirtbags who got rich by stealing from many of us in the hobby.

If that situation happens in a private sale or at a show, it's on the buyer. If someone is selling a $2,000 item for $5,000 and you buy it, it's your own fault. In an auction, it shouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you are bidding against a legitimate buyer. Unfortunately, we all know that with very few exceptions, that is not a safe assumption.

It's stupid and incorrect to assume that anyone who was shilled was desperate or caught up in the moment with no self-control. It's equally false to assume that you can only be shilled if you set a max bid. I do not set max bids because I've always believed it was an invitation to be shilled. Which it clearly is, with certain auction houses. So there are plenty of us on that list that were victims in spite of your guarantee that we couldn't be shilled in those circumstances. So let's stop with that, k?

-Ryan

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case. No problem w Peter or anyone else who bid blind on their own consignments and paid the bp. Mastro is in jail for bidding with knowledge of max bids, completely different.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by steve_a

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case. No problem w Peter or anyone else who bid blind on their own consignments and paid the bp. Mastro is in jail for bidding with knowledge of max bids, completely different.

This is foolish logic, I believe. There not need to be knowledge of max bids for a shill bid to occur. Any attempt for the purpose of inflating the price of an item is a shill bid.

Simply put, an auction is designed to let the market set the final price, and the market usually finds an appropriate one. But the market is falsified when shill bidding is introduced, pitting an unaware bidder versus the seller (or seller's proxy).

Like I noted before, it's similar to price gauging (gas, etc.). If you're fine with being gauged, then that's your prerogative. It still doesn't make it legal or morally acceptable.

And as they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by steve_a

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case.

What cash? The cash concocted through illegal activity?

The arbiter should be that it's illegal. As in against the law. That's enough for me.

[AGuinness]

I appreciate the fact that people named on the list have stepped up and offered their side of the story for all this.

I believe it was wrong and that people should have known better, but I still appreciate their contributions to the conversation and that this board has welcomed a difficult topic.

If there's any lesson reinforced for me, it's that there are shady people out there and when I encounter somebody like that or a deal that I'm uncomfortable with, walk away. There's always tomorrow.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by steve_a

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case. No problem w Peter or anyone else who bid blind on their own consignments and paid the bp. Mastro is in jail for bidding with knowledge of max bids, completely different.

Since you have no problem with shilling, please let me know your eBay handle so I can make sure never to bid in your auctions. Because I do have a problem with being illegally shilled, and yes, I would be entitled to every cent that I was fraudulently induced to spend.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by drcy

The arbiter should be that it's illegal. As in against the law. That's enough of a line in the sand for me..

No kidding. The US District Court of Northern Illinois, Eastern Division is taking shill bidding very very seriously. The argument of "I'm fine with it" seems pretty silly to me.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by steve_a

The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash.

Agree with Ryan and others.

The buyer is "entitled" to expect that other bidders will follow laws set by legislatures and rules set by auction houses. So if a statute and/or auction house rule forbids shill bidding, the buyer is in fact "'entitled' to all of that cash."

For example, eBay explicitly forbids shilling.

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/...l-bidding.html

I'm sure most auction houses do as well.

When a potential buyer puts in a $5000 max bid on an item, and state law and/or an auction house rule prohibit shill bidding, part of what goes into the bidding calculus is that the potential buyer may actually get the item for less. In other words, he or she is not bidding "$5000," he or she is bidding "one increment above whatever the next highest legitimate bid is, up to $5000."

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by RGold

I was the consignor of a 1955 Red Man set in the August, 2007 Mastro Auctions which appears on the list being discussed. It is the only item where my name is listed as consignor and Peter Spaeth as the bidder.

Peter has already related the facts and expressed views as I see them. People may question my ethics but I ask that they at least acknowledge that this was the lone entry on a very long list, and that this one transaction was much different than many of those listed. I have had many private transactions with people on this board and as a seller and buyer on eBay, and I hope my past dealings are at least considered before passing judgment.

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots. At that time I believe Mastro Auctions was considered the premier auction house in our hobby.

I have been a member on this board for about 8 years, and have read the many discussions regarding shill bidding. My understanding and views have evolved over that time like I am sure it has for many other members. I understand and agree that using a hidden reserve in the way Mastro Auctions suggested is wrong. I only ask that the members here consider that this was done in 2007, that it was recommended by the leading auction house, that it was done once, that the hidden reserve was a fraction of the value of the lot, and that the buyer's premium was paid by me.

There was no intent to deceive anyone. This set was #1 on the PSA Registry by a very large margin. Every card was the highest graded at that time and almost half of the 50 cards were the only ones graded at that level. Any one interested in Red Man cards could see that I retired the set before the auction and then re-registered the set after the auction showing that the set had not changed hands.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to clarify the record. Peter is a good friend and wrote his explanation in such a way as not to distance himself from me, but the fact of the matter is that he did not place these bids, I did. He did know what I was doing because we discussed how I had been instructed to proceed by Doug Allen, and he does not deny that, but he was not an active participant in the bidding. The worst part of this whole affair is that an honest, good guy is being hurt for doing me a favor.

I don't know this individual but do want to ask one question.
When Mastro refused to take the set with a high minimum or reserve why would you not search for another auction house that would take it. The competition among auction houses is fierce and I am sure you could have found one of the leading auction houses who would have taken it under your terms.

[MRSPORTSCARDCOLLECTOR]

As a newbie a few questions I like to ask is does anybody think this news will affect the market for Topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card or other similar much sought after cards?
Do some of these high sought after cards have artificial higher value because of this?

[RGold]

I have not consigned many items but every auction house I have talked to does not like high starting bids because it looks bad to have unsold items. Also, there were not as many auction houses in 2007. Today, I see some of the newer and smaller auction houses using high starting bids, and I agree it is a bad look to see many lots unsold.

I am not sure why more auction houses will not use reserves except most buyers do not like participating in them.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I don't know this individual but do want to ask one question.
When Mastro refused to take the set with a high minimum or reserve why would you not search for another auction house that would take it. The competition among auction houses is fierce and I am sure you could have found one of the leading auction houses who would have taken it under your terms.

Especially for one that was #1 on the PSA register by a large margin...

[D.P.Johnson]

The odds must be astronomical that the one and only time two people conspire to shill at auction they both get caught...bad luck I guess...

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by BASEBALLCARDGURU

As a newbie a few questions I like to ask is does anybody think this news will affect the market for Topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card or other similar much sought after cards?
Do some of these high sought after cards have artificial higher value because of this?

So that is a great question. But you won't get a good answer until three years down the road and see how it affects future bidding. If the next three high grade '52T Mantles all go for $400-500K, then that's the "true value" of the card in that grade. If it sells for $370, then $340, then $300, then people bidding are showing that they've been affected by this news and are no longer willing to set records with that card.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by RGold

I have not consigned many items but every auction house I have talked to does not like high starting bids because it looks bad to have unsold items. Also, there were not as many auction houses in 2007. Today, I see some of the newer and smaller auction houses using high starting bids, and I agree it is a bad look to see many lots unsold.

I am not sure why more auction houses will not use reserves except most buyers do not like participating in them.

With the advent of VCP, I don't mind a high starting bid as long as it is under what the average selling price. It is when the starting bid is higher than the average selling price, and then you have to pay an exorbitant buyer's premium is what turns bidders off. With all the info that is available, it is easy to see if you are getting ripped off or not.

[drcy]

I never considered a single sale a determination of market value anyway. The $3 million for the Mark McGwire ball was just what one idiot with money to burn was willing to pay. Even though someone paid $3 million, the ball was never worth $3 million. Didn't matter what it sold for. Prices often go down drastically when one big spender leaves the market or the two people who want the card the most get theirs. Good statistical analysis usually starts by throwing out the highest and lowest numbers.

[Huck]

Originally Posted by RGold

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

Why not make the "hidden reserve" the first bid? Bidders could then decide to pay more or not bid at all. Dollar wise, you had an idea as to what the set should fetch, open the bidding with said figure, and let it ride.

[Prince Hal]

I don't personally know any of the folks on the "shill" list. If the information as presented is true, Ronald Goldberg and Peter Spaeth and all the others thus far identified are crooks. I'm sure you are not bad people and you're not Isis. But anyone who manipulates the market is a crook. You enter an item for the market to decide and you win or you lose. That's your gamble. Forget the shill moniker it's too misleading. You are just common, but repentant (sort of), crooks. Everyone is sorry or has an excuse when they get caught and the prisons are full of innocent people. Mia culpa all you want. You can't unring a bell. Very sad. Duncan MacKenzie

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Bill,

Not for a second do I believe Bill has exited the hobby. We may not see his name but it is my opinion (and it is just that, an opinion) that he is still "in the hobby" somehow.

He is, well as of about a year ago he was, I sold him something, on here I want to say.

[RCMcKenzie]

Not only is 'not offering to pay more than you are willing to spend' not "dumb", it's a tautology. Be careful out there, gang.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by BASEBALLCARDGURU

As a newbie a few questions I like to ask is does anybody think this news will affect the market for Topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card or other similar much sought after cards?
Do some of these high sought after cards have artificial higher value because of this?

uh......yah!

[Kenny Cole]

I have tried to stay out thus far. I am now unsuccessful. I am not on either list simply because I didn't' win one of those auctions. I was probably one of those legitimate bidders who bid Ryan up at the same time the auction house or consignor/friend was doing that. We have similar interests. Even by losing, I screwed my friend.

I get all the stuff about altering the price point of the PSA 8 card and whatnot. Blah, blah, blah. Its wonderful to have the best card ever and I am certain that getting that 8.5 so you can drop that ratty 8 is exhilarating. Its just the shits when you find out you paid substantially more than you would have had things been honest. Yawn.

But to me, it is much more basic. Ryan won a lot we probably both bid on. It cost him more than it should have, because neither one of us knew we were both being cheated to begin with. I probably beat him on one of the other auctions that have no bidding records that was also shilled.

Peter, you were absolutely wrong. I get the reasoning though. There is a long list of people, myself included (on multiple occasions), who do things for friends while knowing that they are ... wrong. The fact that you did it for a friend doesn't make it less wrong, it just makes it more understandable. Been there, done that. Can't really shoot at you too hard.

That list makes me sick. I hope that its wrong while I know it probably isn't. What a betrayal. I'm historically an SGC guy, but probably no longer. Just a sad revelation all around.

[Shoeless Moe]

Leon, ban these son of a bitches!!!! They come back under an assumed name owe well, they wouldn't like that anyway, they have to big of egos and want the world to know them, well who gives a rats ass about them, BAN 'EM ALL!!!!!! Judge Kennesaw Mountain Luckey!!!!

[Huck]

[QUOTE=botn;1497093

At no point did we ever conspire with anyone at Mastro on those bids. We never knew who was bidding on our items or what their bids were. I have no recollection which of our consignments I was the one to place a bid and which my former business partner bid on but since he is no longer here I have to take responsibility for our actions. Sometimes a top all would be placed and other times we would bid incrementally so as to not open ourselves up to being shill bid, as ironic as that might sound. In each instance our bids were made with the intent to buy back the item and a willingness to pay the buyer’s premium, as we did each time we bought back a lot. It did not feel right doing this but I never thought of it as being illegal.

[/QUOTE]


Incremental bidding -

Example 1: Lot A, you the cosigner think the lot should sell for $2,000.

Did the bidding go like this?

Bidder 1: $650.00
You: $750.00
Bidder 1: $900.00
Bidder 2: $1,000.00
Bidder 1: $1,200.00
You: $1,400.00
Bidder 3: $1,600.00
You: $1,800.00
Bidder 3: $2,000
You - See that is the rub, did you stop or keep pushing?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Prince Hal

I don't personally know any of the folks on the "shill" list. If the information as presented is true, Ronald Goldberg and Peter Spaeth and all the others thus far identified are crooks. I'm sure you are not bad people and you're not Isis. But anyone who manipulates the market is a crook. You enter an item for the market to decide and you win or you lose. That's your gamble. Forget the shill moniker it's too misleading. You are just common, but repentant (sort of), crooks. Everyone is sorry or has an excuse when they get caught and the prisons are full of innocent people. Mia culpa all you want. You can't unring a bell. Very sad. Duncan MacKenzie

I disagree. Sure, they got caught, but they owned up to their mistakes. Do you remember the Joe Pankiewicz threads? He was caught multiple times shilling his own consignments with Probstein...even accused of doctoring cards to get grade bumps. Probstein was made aware of Joe's actions and did absolutely nothing. And when Joe finally responded, of course he denied everything and told us how honest he was, blah, blah, blah. Heck, he even called for an apology to Rick. All the proof was right there, but he still denied it. Peter and Ron have admitted their mistake and take responsibility for their actions. To me, that says a lot about their character as opposed to people like Joe Pankiewicz or Rick Probation.

I wonder if those with the pitchforks have bought anything from Probstein since that mess a couple years ago? I'd be willing to bet so. You'll buy from a guy that allows shill bidding, but you're so quick to condemn here. I made a vow at that point to never buy anything from Probstein again AND I HAVE NOT! And it wasn't because of the shilling in his auctions, it was because he turned a blind eye and LET IT CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. So again I ask, how many of you pointing fingers here have bought from Probstein since then? Post your eBay IDs and let's find out.

[ElCabron]

Kenny,

Your bids on the particular lot I won that is on this list didn't affect the price at all. You didn't drive me up. You were probably the 3rd high bidder. Had you been the underbidder, it wouldn't list my name in the "victim" column. You bidding against me is just healthy competition. Nothing wrong with that. But after you had maxed out (if you were even bidding on this lot), I was shilled up another $2,000+ of pure shill bids that had nothing to do with you.

I'm just happy the list is now public because I should be receiving a check any day now from Doug Allen as restitution, right? Yep.

Also, the main reason all these scumbags on the list aren't responding in this thread is that they're too busy spending everyone's money they made, consequence-free, from all of this. I'm guessing quite a few of them made deals to tell the truth about Mastro and Allen that got them off the hook, but also keeps them from posting here about any of it. This is especially true of the employees of Mastro and Legendary that many of us know well and consider to be friends. They haven't posted here because they are guilty.

The real lesson here is that crime absolutely does pay, and pay very well. So, congrats to all you silent scumbags who are reading this in your huge houses bought with money you stole. Sleep well tonight, douchebags!

-Ryan

[Robert_Lifson]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The consignors' items were shilled because they wanted it shilled and worked with someone else to get it shilled.

My one and only post about this at this time: The above statement is not accurate in all cases. It may be the case with virtually all of the 2463 auctions listed in the document, but it is definitely not the case with the one lot in which I am listed as the consignor. That lot is listed because there was shill bidding on this lot. But I (as the consignor) had nothing to do with the shill bidding, did not work with anyone to get my lot shilled, and most certainly did not want my lot shilled. There is much additional fascinating information about this lot and the case in general which I choose not to share here (as this is not the time and place) but I will add this: The consignor-portion of the funds stolen by Mastro Auctions via shill bidding against the high left bid on this lot were sent to me against my wishes and were immediately returned by wire (as opposed to check as my attorney said he was concerned they might just not cash the check) and the FBI was given all information, and this played a significant role in launching the entire investigation. As I have said, there is much additional information, but please excuse that I will not be posting more about this right now. I just felt that it was important to clarify this.

Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC

[Klrdds]

I have not read each and every post on this topic but I have read about 3/4 ths of them so forgive me if this topic has been addressed already.
A lot of us old time / veteran collectors have to wonder how long has the Mastro shill bidding been actually occurring ? Since only a few years of results are available one must ask how long did this go on ?
Does it go back to Mastro - Steinbach auctions ?
Does it go back to mergers with Oregon Trading , which later did business for a time as Mastro West, and with Ron Oser and their merger into a bigger Mastro Auction company ? No harm is meant to Ron Oser with this comment.
Does this prove an old adage of that " as long as there are auctions there will always be a phantom ( shill ) bidder " that I heard as a warning years ago when phone and fax bids were accepted as the auction business began in lieu of live auctions .

Also to digress was a greater scam attempted when Bill Mastro came out with an attempt to sell shares in his auction house to a select few collectors and bidders and customers . I was offered shares but turned them down as overvalued and a bad long term investment with little prospect of an adequate ROI. Does any one remember this ? Looking back now it seems like a Ponzi scheme was attempted .

[drcy]

No doubt lots can be shilled without consignors' knowledge. The auction houses get a percentage of the final bids and would like all boats to rise, and some outside collectors like their investments to maintain their market value. Some collectors are willing to buy cards just to 'protect' the market value of the copies they already own. Of course there's nothing errant with honestly (I said honestly, as opposed to a miscalculated shillingly) buying the cards, other than it may be seen as a dubious investment strategy.

[prestigecollectibles]

There were more than 80 lots consigned by Hal Lewis where Stephen Spector was listed as the shill bidder including the T-206 Wagner I won. It seems in many cases two people were working together. Does anyone know if these are real people or just made up names used by Mastro?

[drcy]

Hal used to be a regular board poster.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by RGold

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots.

Evidently it was! :-)

[ElCabron]

Originally Posted by prestigecollectibles

There were more than 80 lots consigned by Hal Lewis where Stephen Spector was listed as the shill bidder including the T-206 Wagner I won. It seems in many cases two people were working together. Does anyone know if these are real people or just made up names used by Mastro?

Hal is real. A real scumbag, that is. You might remember him from such hits as "Henry Reccius Honus Wagner." A quick search should tell you all you need to know about Hal. Hope you're reading this, Hal.

-Ryan

[bcornell]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Hal is real. A real scumbag, that is. You might remember him from such hits as "Henry Reccius Honus Wagner." A quick search should tell you all you need to know about Hal. Hope you're reading this, Hal.

-Ryan

Hal Lewis and Stephen Spector are both attorneys in Tallahassee. I'm on the list of their shill bids, although I'm not a "victim".

I'll gladly second what Ryan said about Hal. He had no idea what he was collecting and no integrity. Good riddance.

[whiteymet]

I just started to take a look at the list and found two items that were curious.

The first is from Auction 41 April 07 Lot # 829 Consigned by Dan Knoll, Shilled by Dennis Beechy, won by DOUG ALLEN for $862 and the loss amount was $44! This is not like other lots where the shill won the lot, this appears that Doug wanted the lot. See:

http://legendaryauctions.com/_The_Ey...-LOT69974.aspx


The second item also from the April 07 Auction Lot #671 Consigned by Gilbert Proter, shilled by Andrew Filipowski, won by Tony Arnold for $60,717 the loss amount was $ 4,424,

However if one looks at the listing below it shows the lot did not sell. Wonder what happened?

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=69816

[mickeymao34]

The statement that "just because they are consignors doesn't mean they are part of the scam" is true theoretically. But if it has a the one and the same shill bidder consistently throughout 30-40 consignments the pointing of finger seems justified. And WTF is Darryl??

[cardaholic]

There's one sure-fire way not to be shilled: Never bid over the minimum bid.

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by cardaholic

there's one sure-fire way not to be shilled: Never bid over the minimum bid. :d

true dat! Lmfao

[BBSD]

Curious if Peter and Ron would fess up to anyother sketchy situations that they were involved with?

[scooter729]

Curious as to what people would think of this hypothetical situation, if it were possible for it to happen....

Two friends (A and B) both are interested in an item that doesn't pop up often, but typically would sell for around $500. But since it doesn't come up for sale often, both are willing to pay $1,000+.

In talking, they both realize they are likely going to bid each other up on the item, so they come to an agreement to have Friend B stay away from bidding on this item and let A get it for ~$500, and B will be able to get the next one that comes available for ~$500.

Is this scenario wrong? Seems like the buyer's version of shilling - wouldn't be illegal but is it ethical?

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by scooter729

Curious as to what people would think of this hypothetical situation, if it were possible for it to happen....

Two friends (A and B) both are interested in an item that doesn't pop up often, but typically would sell for around $500. But since it doesn't come up for sale often, both are willing to pay $1,000+.

In talking, they both realize they are likely going to bid each other up on the item, so they come to an agreement to have Friend B stay away from bidding on this item and let A get it for ~$500, and B will be able to get the next one that comes available for ~$500.

Is this scenario wrong? Seems like the buyer's version of shilling - wouldn't be illegal but is it ethical?

I have no problem with this. There was no price manipulation and the item sold for what it typically would bring. There's nothing unethical about not bidding.

[Joe_G.]

Reading this thread with interest. I feel for those who were taken advantage of.

Originally Posted by whiteymet

The second item also from the April 07 Auction Lot #671 Consigned by Gilbert Proter, shilled by Andrew Filipowski, won by Tony Arnold for $60,717 the loss amount was $ 4,424,

However if one looks at the listing below it shows the lot did not sell. Wonder what happened?

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=69816

Those cabinets were auctioned individually and as a whole with the break-up total of $73,010 receiving a higher total than the whole. I remember watching that one with interest, some absolutely great NY cabinets within.

[wolf441]

So this thread is now #7 all time in number of replies and #9 all time in number of views. I feel like I did when Bonds was chasing Aaron...

I'm predicting that it lands at #2 on both lists by the middle of next week.

Frank, the "What's Your Monster Number?" thread is safe...for now!

[trobba]

Originally Posted by RGold

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

This to me is the heart of the "crime" of shilling in several of these Mastro lots.

Not holding the shill bidder responsible for paying for the lot, rather just the buyer's premium, truly removes most of the risk of this practice. If the shill bidders had to pay for the lot as well, I am sure there would have been a lot less of it.

While it is publicly described in this instance, I assume it was common practice for numerous other lots as well. Mastro colludes with a consignor allowing them to have a friend bid up the cards and they wont be held responsible for the final price, just the buyer's premium...extremely bad ethics and once again provides the market with completely inaccurate data and not only inflated prices, but in reality, not even prices paid at all.

Rob G$theil

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by cardaholic

There's one sure-fire way not to be shilled: Never bid over the minimum bid.

Don't know if this is exactly true. As in the Peter case, if I bid the minimum, a "protector" of the lot would outbid me. So a little later, I'll try to bid one higher, and be in the lead, only to have them respond. So I guess the only sure-fire way to not be shilled is to only place the opening bid, and if you don't win, walk away.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by scooter729

Curious as to what people would think of this hypothetical situation, if it were possible for it to happen....

Two friends (A and B) both are interested in an item that doesn't pop up often, but typically would sell for around $500. But since it doesn't come up for sale often, both are willing to pay $1,000+.

In talking, they both realize they are likely going to bid each other up on the item, so they come to an agreement to have Friend B stay away from bidding on this item and let A get it for ~$500, and B will be able to get the next one that comes available for ~$500.

Is this scenario wrong? Seems like the buyer's version of shilling - wouldn't be illegal but is it ethical?

Hi Scooter. You pose an interesting question. Please know that my answer is not an attack, snarky response, or anything of the sort. I am just joining in the conversation.

As it pertains to the scenario above, wouldn't this be an example of bidder collusion? I very well could be mistaken; however, think the practice actually is illegal. At the very least, it artificially suppresses the price of the item. It could likely also be argued that the consignor suffered economic harm because of the bidders' agreement.

For the purpose of full disclosure, I never participated in Mastro auctions.

Best regards to all. Happy collecting.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Hi Scooter. You pose an interesting question. Please know that my answer is not an attack, snarky response, or anything of the sort. I am just joining in the conversation.

As it pertains to the scenario above, wouldn't this be an example of bidder collusion? I very well could be mistaken; however, think the practice actually is illegal. At the very least, it artificially suppresses the price of the item. It could likely also be argued that the consignor suffered economic harm because of the bidders' agreement.

For the purpose of full disclosure, I never participated in Mastro auctions.

Best regards to all. Happy collecting.

Eric in theory you are right, buyers cannot lawfully collude to suppress price any more than sellers can collude to inflate it. Basic antitrust law. Of course, as a practical matter, it's going to be viewed as less important than seller price-fixing.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Eric in theory you are right, buyers cannot lawfully collude to suppress price any more than sellers can collude to inflate it. Basic antitrust law. Of course, as a practical matter, it's going to be viewed as less important than seller price-fixing.

And almost impossible to prove, since they're not going to discuss their lack of additional bids with anyone else, including the auctionhouse...