hypothetical major problem with well respected board member

[Sophiedog]

Originally Posted by sflayank

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

I would have thanked you for not bidding and probably gave you the doubles....Some people are just greedy and take advantage...I think I would say who it is in this case

[Fred]

Wouldn't an agreement not to bid (because you were supposed to pick up the doubles) be like "partnering" in the auction? I see people posting that they'd like to "partner" up on a lot. What's the difference here>

Wouldn't the person that won the lot (and was supposed to sell the dupes) be stiffing the guy that "parnered up" in the auction?

Am I missing something here?

[Mountaineer1999]

I can't get past the $20,000.00. Or is that hypothetical too.

[freakhappy]

Is reverse shill bidding a real thing? Never heard of that before. Anyway, I don't think "reverse shill bidding" is any sort of offense. One person chooses not to bid on an item no matter what their intentions are afterwards...nothing stands out as a violation to me. I may be wrong, but I doubt this exact thing doesn't happen too often. I would think, like stated above, that teaming up on an auction is more common...which of course is fine.

[Wite3]

What bothers me more is that the OP seems to be protecting the other party...which to me seems worse than actually backing out of a deal somehow. Why? Because, the OP knows not to deal with this person anymore and the rest of us have to take our chances we will not get burned by that person. This, of course, is assuming everything you said is correct.

Just my two cents...

Joshua

[Republicaninmass]

Also, if the member is outted, would it really be surprising if there are more incidents with him.

[EvilKing00]

This forum, from what I have seen in the short just over 2 years I have been here, has been great. Buying on the bst, your trusting that sending $$ to a guy you probably never met or even spoke to will send you your stuff. Trading cards is the same we need to trust each other to get our packages. On this forum there has to be trust between members or the bts doesn't work.

Guys who share their wisdom & knowledge so complete strangers can learn. This board to me is like an oath of honesty, at least to each other. yea, yea sounds like im being ignorant, but to me so far, that's what its been. AND THATS WHAT IT SHOULD BE. On this forum there has to be trust between members or all the informative threads are not worth reading.

A guy FROM HERE, screwing another member is flat out wrong. I think it goes against everything this board is supposed to be about. Sure there are 3 sides to every story. Id post his name / user name along with all the proof, emails, pm's you have, and he can do the same & tell his side.

This way others can decide on the truth & not go through the same situation u find your self in. BUT id run it all by leon first.

[Sophiedog]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Also, if the member is outted, would it really be surprising if there are more incidents with him.

Excellent Point!

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by sflayank

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

A deal is a deal. There are few things lower than not honoring your word. Plain and simple. There are no excuses.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cammb

What would I do? I would ignore your next post!

What would I do? Tell this poster (CAMMB) to put his name in his post. You can say what you want to but if you want to poke or jab someone (on this board), put your name next to it.

and to add, I don't care to get in the middle of anything but if I can help I will always try to...but prefer for members to work it out themselves..

[Exhibitman]

Or what we all should behave as if we were...

The issue of whether a bidding partnership is collusive is a close one [my experience is that the partnerships generate higher bids overall by pooling resources on the lot] but entirely irrelevant. Gentlemen do and do not do certain things not because they are enforceable contractual obligations but because they are the right things to do when interacting with other gentlemen. A gentleman:

--honors his wagers.
--keeps his word.
--watches out for his friends
--never cheats his co-venturers.

I partner with others on auction lots all the time. Never had a problem so far. Is it enforceable? No. Nor would I try to enforce it if the bidding partner decided to renege. I figure once someone gives you a cheap lesson about who he really is, choose to believe it. If a member here chose to cheat another member and it is clear-cut I'd favor outing him and then suspending him for a time. Might not teach the offender anything about how to behave but it would prevent others from being harmed. That said, it is the OP's choice whether to do so.

I have heard of certain members here whose word is no good on deals such as the one referenced in the OP and have refused to partner with those people on auction lots. Whoever it is this time, don't think for a moment that word of your behavior won't get around off the front page, so to speak, and that there won't be consequences to it even if the OP refuses to out you here.

[vintagetoppsguy]

At this point, I think the OP is either a total nut job, or isn't telling the entire truth. He claims he don't want to give up the name, but he's never had a problem outing people by name before...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171975

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185189

[Peter_Spaeth]

Perhaps he doesn't want to out him because the guy would come back with another side of the story.

[ruth-gehrig]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

At this point, I think the OP is either a total nut job, or isn't telling the entire truth. He claims he don't want to give up the name, but he's never had a problem outing people by name before...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171975

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185189

Appears he's been temporarily banned before as well.

[Exhibitman]

I've dealt w/the OP a number of times and always satisfactorily. I don't think he would just invent this wholecloth; he may not want to name names this time for some reason.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps he doesn't want to out him because the guy would come back with another side of the story.

I have wasted many a day pondering the thoughts and actions of others. In time, I realized this was one of my biggest wastes of time.

I would start this thread so the other party might reconsider the deal to avoid being outted. I'd think if he did "make" upward of 10k and he is a cheat, he doesnt care to be outted, as 10k is probably the biggest haul he is going to cheat this board out of.

edited: My cheat decided 7500 was a big enough risk to his reputation, and our friendship. Since I knew him personally, and the deal wasnt established on these boards, I decided at that time NOT to post about it.

[sflayank]

im not outing the other member because he contributes immensely to this board with his knowledge about certain areas of collecting....the likelihood of him ever having dealings with board members is virtually zero...he does not sell anything and what he buys are usually exceedingly rare cards that only a handful of people collect...i am not looking for a back and forth...this was simply..he needs 12 of the 19 in a lot and i would take the 7 doubles provided the lot didnt go over 20000...it went for 10000....he informed me he was out of the country the 1st month...the 2nd month he was visiting his children grandchildren etc the 3rd month ive gotten no response....all the years on the board we've exchanged information many many times...this lot came up for auction and i knew he would bid on it and knew there would be doubles
so we made this deal....like i said while the cards are rare...they are just pieces of cardboard...was just asking what board members thoughts on sharing a lot were and if theyve had any similar experience

[Republicaninmass]

what would you do?

Originally Posted by sflayank

im not outing the other member

So is your mind made up?


-------------end of thread--------------?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

So is your mind made up?

I think his mind was made up before he even started this thread. He asks us what we would do, and many of us told him to divulge the name of the member, but he chooses to do otherwise. I still don't understand the purpose of the thread. What a waste of time!

[ramram]

Maybe I missed it somewhere above but, what cards were they?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by sflayank

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

Well, it looks like you've asked for opinions and you've had quite a few responses to "out" the offender. The requests aren't to "out" him just so everyone can publicly shame the person, rather it's to protect other board members from the same situation. I see that point.

The appearance now is that your being a nice guy to someone that potentially screwed you out of thousands of dollars OR that there really wasn't much of an agreement between the two of you to begin with.

It'd be interesting if the person that you said screwed you responded to this post with a completely different story.

[batsballsbases]

Well back to selling on the BST!
Leon thanks for moving this thread even when it first came on it had no business on the BST.
I did give my 2 cents early on but got some change back!
And Larry remember spend your own money that way you have no one to blame but yourself if the deal goes sour!

[frankbmd]

Jabberwocky

Up is down and left is right,
Right is wrong and termites bite.

Hypothetical is as real can be,
but the deal remains a mystery?

Well, respect me if you will,
for I shall never reverse a shill?

And while our members are highly touted,
a slip and fall can get you outed!

Does all this mean we've lost our marbles,
with rants and posturing with silly garbles?

"Bring the noose and hang 'em dead",
while I move on to another thread.

[Gradedcardman]

Originally Posted by BlueDevil89

Sorry, my friend. Looks like you got snookered. Your competition got you to stay out of the auction so he could steal it for a song, and burned you in your side deal in the process. Lesson learned.

If I were you, I would likely not have any further dealings with that board member.

Good Rule of Thumb: Assume that all baseball card collectors are pirates and thieves who would steal from their own mothers (---who would definitely steal valuable collections from widows for pennies on the dollar). Go into all of your transactions with this assumption, and you will likely never be taken advantage of in any of your dealings.

Now, I know such an approach is an overly cynical one. However, when it comes to dealing with people with whom you have no personal relationship, it is an approach that will ensure that you exercise the appropriate level of caution.

It's every man for himself out there. If you happen to come across a fellow collector with integrity, consider yourself fortunate. There are certainly plenty of them out there. But I would never make such an assumption about anyone, regardless of their reputation on this or any other board.

Remember what Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."

I'm with Chris here AND have been where you are standing !!

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I agree with every word of this post, with empahsis on the bolded text.

I see threads on the board quite often such as, "Looking for a partner on auction lot XX" and that's basically what you two were - partners in the auction. It doesn't matter who the bidder was or who paid for the auction, you were partners and he didn't hold up his end of the agreement. Obviously as others have said, there's nothing you can legally do about it, but he definitely needs to be outed as someone I wouldn't want to do business with. Please out this board member.

David...they weren't technically partners. Rather than pony up the money together, they conspired to committ "bid rigging" which is just as wrong as "shill bidding".

Now, I have had people get locked out on a lot that I threw an early bid in on, that then wanted to go in half and we partnered up that way. But in the OP's instance, they conspired to "bid rig", win the item for a song, therefore ripping the consignor off, and now the silent partner is getting the shaft.

I am sorry, but I can't warrant any sympathy here.

[chipperhank44]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Good luck enforcing an illegal contract.

Someone stole my weed, I'm calling the cops.

[Runscott]

To follow-up on what David (Cycleback) and Adam had to say, collusion doesn't always cause the final bid to be lower;e.g-I agreed to go in with another board member on a fairly expensive large lot of cards. I ran the bidding end of things and bid it up fairly high. When it got to the point where it was too high for me, I stepped away. The take-home message is that I would not have bid at all if not for the other forum member agreeing to go in with me on the lot, so my bidding stimulated activity and possibly caused the lot to sell for more than if we had not partnered up. Sometimes neither of the 'colluders' would bid unless they had an agreement, so in those instances the final price has to be either the same or higher.

This case (if the $20K estimate is correct) might have yielded opposite results, but only because the pool of prospective bidders was much smaller.

I don't know about outing the other guy - there are two sides to every story, and getting into a massive pissing match is never pleasant for anyone but the railbirds.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

Is reverse shill bidding a real thing? Never heard of that before. Anyway, I don't think "reverse shill bidding" is any sort of offense. One person chooses not to bid on an item no matter what their intentions are afterwards...nothing stands out as a violation to me. I may be wrong, but I doubt this exact thing doesn't happen too often. I would think, like stated above, that teaming up on an auction is more common...which of course is fine.

right you cant really prove the second guy really would of bid...people say they 'would of' done lots of stuff but they never do..

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right you cant really prove the second guy really would of bid...people say they 'would of' done lots of stuff but they never do..

How is that different from a hundred other propositions that are proven (or not) every day by examining the evidence and drawing inferences? Someone admitting he would have bid seems like pretty competent evidence to me.

[68Hawk]

These cards weren't 'worth' $20000.
They were worth what they sold for - $10000.

If only one other bidder believes an item is worth double what it sells for in the majority, how is it 'worth' the higher number. At the higher number, the sale merely represents an overwhelming desire to own the item beyond logic and likely recompense, and clearly evidences over estimating the items worth.
Should the item be available for sale again, and the one other bidder who is willing to bid highly has found his itch scratched and is no longer looking.....the number at which most see value is the true worth of the item.
Everything else is sheer pride of ownership in its many guises.

Oh, and the guy who dudded you is a cad, as Adam pointed out in an earlier post.

[the 'stache]

Without commenting as to the specifics of the deal in question, here's how I feel. All you truly have in this world is your word. You are either an honorable man, or you are not. And it is in moments like these where a person's true character is shown. And to me, nothing I could ever buy, no matter how valuable, or rare, or how much I wanted it, would be worth sacrificing my integrity.

[SMPEP]

I'm surprised the obvious answer hasn't been suggested:

Pistols at 40 paces. And if you're a good shot ... a great collection full of rare wonders will be on the market.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by 68Hawk

These cards weren't 'worth' $20000.
They were worth what they sold for - $10000.

If only one other bidder believes an item is worth double what it sells for in the majority, how is it 'worth' the higher number. At the higher number, the sale merely represents an overwhelming desire to own the item beyond logic and likely recompense, and clearly evidences over estimating the items worth.
Should the item be available for sale again, and the one other bidder who is willing to bid highly has found his itch scratched and is no longer looking.....the number at which most see value is the true worth of the item.
Everything else is sheer pride of ownership in its many guises.

Oh, and the guy who dudded you is a cad, as Adam pointed out in an earlier post.

There's often a "break" value in lots where the sum of the single items is greater than what the lot sold for. This is usually because collectors don't want to spend a whole bunch of money for a large lot where they only want 1-2 cards, and then go through the trouble of trying to sell the extras they don't want.

Here is an extreme example of a 53 card lot that went for ~12K in an REA auction: Link, and then a single card out of that lot (the M101-6 Cobb) went for nearly 20K by itself: Link. There's no picture of the card in the Goodwin auction, but it was the same card as this was discussed as it went down here: Link.

Again, this is an extreme example of a lot that obviously went under the radar, but it's fairly common where if you buy large lots, you can sell the cards individually and do quite well.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Sorry, but I disagree with the comments about bid rigging, reverse shilling, collusion, etc. I don't think these terms apply at all to this discussion. If the 2 bidders in this discussion were the only 2 bidders then all of those descriptions might apply. However, as I read the OP's first post, he said that 2 people agreed not to compete against each other in an auction that presumably could have had many more potential bidders. They did not control the rest of the bidders so there was not guarantee that their partnership would be successful. Just my 2¢.

Jeff

[ullmandds]

what'd I do? I did NOTHING wrong I say...NOTHING!!!!!!!

[7nohitter]

Name the moron you had the 'deal with' or there was no logical reason for this entire thread. Rube.

Am.D%%R&*(#$$$#e^^^&77w M99i99l09090909090le.....r

[Sophiedog]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Without commenting as to the specifics of the deal in question, here's how I feel. All you truly have in this world is your word. You are either an honorable man, or you are not. And it is in moments like these where a person's true character is shown. And to me, nothing I could ever buy, no matter how valuable, or rare, or how much I wanted it, would be worth sacrificing my integrity.

Well said Bill....True 100%

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

Sorry, but I disagree with the comments about bid rigging, reverse shilling, collusion, etc. I don't think these terms apply at all to this discussion. If the 2 bidders in this discussion were the only 2 bidders then all of those descriptions might apply. However, as I read the OP's first post, he said that 2 people agreed not to compete against each other in an auction that presumably could have had many more potential bidders. They did not control the rest of the bidders so there was not guarantee that their partnership would be successful. Just my 2¢.

Jeff

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

I'm surprised the obvious answer hasn't been suggested:

Pistols at 40 paces. And if you're a good shot ... a great collection full of rare wonders will be on the market.

Bitch-slaps at three feet would be more entertaining for the rest of us...

http://youtu.be/SNbup9-yj7c

[ruth-gehrig]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

Name the moron you had the 'deal with' or there was no logical reason for this entire thread. Rube.

Am.D%%R&*(#$$$#e^^^&77w M99i99l09090909090le.....r

Im beginning to think this "hypothetical" situation isnt real

[edhans]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

Exactly what is the difference between this "bid rigging" and two (or more) friends who agree to buy a lot and divide it up? If my friend an I each want a few cards in a lot, are we really obligated to bid each other up? Sorry to appear dense, but I'm obviously missing something.

[nolemmings]

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

Agreed, although your analogy might be a little strained in the sense that the market in your scenario is probably somewhat small and thus having a large percentage of its bidders collude would have a greater impact on price. Still, I'm not going to argue with an antitrust lawyer, at least not just yet, until Happy Hour is over

Still, partnering as described elsewhere in this thread also somewhat artificially affects the market and price. If few or no individuals can financially participate in the upper-end bidding for a lot and pooling is required, haven't you in essence manipulated the market as well? At least you've pretty much set some barriers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by edhans

Exactly what is the difference between this "bid rigging" and two (or more) friends who agree to buy a lot and divide it up? If my friend an I each want a few cards in a lot, are we really obligated to bid each other up? Sorry to appear dense, but I'm obviously missing something.

It's a fine line, as has been mentioned, and I think it depends in part on your intent. If the intent is to pool resources to buy something you might not otherwise have been able to buy, or wouldn't have wanted to buy, it's ok; if the intent is to keep the price down by ensuring you and someone else don't independently bid, then it's not ok. Now in practice it can certainly be hard to tell the difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Agreed, although your analogy might be a little strained in the sense that the market in your scenario is probably somewhat small and thus having a large percentage of its bidders collude would have a greater impact on price. Still, I'm not going to argue with an antitrust lawyer, at least not just yet, until Happy Hour is over

Still, partnering as described elsewhere in this thread also somewhat artificially affects the market and price. If few or no individuals can financially participate in the upper-end bidding for a lot and pooling is required, haven't you in essence manipulated the market as well? At least you've pretty much set some barriers.

Todd price fixing is still per se illegal, before or after Happy Hour, so the specifics of my example don't really matter. Hypothetically, because as we all know this would never be prosecuted, a showing of price impact isn't necessary, it's assumed.

[edhans]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

. Now in practice it can certainly be hard to tell the difference.

Nigh on impossible, I would think.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a fine line, as has been mentioned, and I think it depends in part on your intent. If the intent is to pool resources to buy something you might not otherwise have been able to buy, or wouldn't have wanted to buy, it's ok; if the intent is to keep the price down by ensuring you and someone else don't independently bid, then it's not ok. Now in practice it can certainly be hard to tell the difference.

I agree with this.

[kamikidEFFL]

Sorry to hear the bad news. But I agree with some people here, I feel he made you stay out of the auction. I would always look out for your own best interest. It stinks that you learn the hard way but you will know for the future.

[SMPEP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMPEP
I'm surprised the obvious answer hasn't been suggested:

Pistols at 40 paces. And if you're a good shot ... a great collection full of rare wonders will be on the market.

Bitch-slaps at three feet would be more entertaining for the rest of us...



Adam - I know better than to open that link! But I can imagine the entertainment.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for me the comparison of Ford and GM has no bearing on this discussion. Ford and GM are not participating in an auction.

In the broad sense of the definition, collusion usually relates to an illegal act (but not always) for a dishonest purpose. I don't see anything wrong with 2 parties that are familiar with each other agreeing to partnership to save themselves money. As I stated, they were not the only potential bidders and there were no guarantees that they would be the high bidders (which is why this certainly isn't bid rigging).

If the 2 parties knew that they were the only bidders, then it certainly would be collusion, bid rigging, etc. But if this was a normal auction/ auction house, there is no way for the partners to know who the other bidders are or what the outcome would be.

Jeff

[ibuysportsephemera]

People have used the term bid-rigging. It really is an incorrect usage for this discussion. Typically the term is used when parties collude and the outcome of the bid is guaranteed. Because this was an auction with anonymous participants, there was no way to guarantee the outcome.

Jeff