+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.

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

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

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

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.

Nobody does sarcasm quite like Ryan. I should have let those posts stand where Adam and Ullman originally thought I was a victim, I guess.

So the "Hidden Reserve" was basically the same concept that PWCC used in eBay for years as well as are still in the Terms of Service at multiple auctionhouses going today. Not illegal, just unsavory.

I wasn't in the vintage card market at that time, and I don't really splash in the deep end now, but I will continue to make minimum bids and then snipe at the end.

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

Makes me want to open a pizza shop . It's kind of disturbing to the soul .