Originally Posted by benjulmag (Post 2154374)

This item has a reserve. Here is how the auction rules read on reserves: RESERVES A Reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published. Any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with "Reserve Not Met" in the online bidding. SCP may implement this reserve by bidding on behalf of the consigner and may place a bid up to the amount one increment below the reserve, by placing successive bids if necessary. No reserve bids placed by SCP will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "PASS" in the online catalog. Reserves when in place will be pre-determined and set within the auction software prior to the start of the auction. Maximum bids will be treated as straight bids on items with reserves until the reserve price is met. If you place a maximum bid in excess of a reserve amount that has not yet been met, your bid will automatically be placed at the reserve price. All bids placed after a reserve has been met will continue with normal bidding increments unless straight bids are placed by a bidder.

The point is we have no idea how many, if any, of these recent bids are anything more than the house making consecutive bids on behalf of the consignor to give the impression of bidder interest (which is exactly what is needed to generate the highest price). Maybe SCP read Jeff's prior post (#22) in this thread commenting on the lack of bidding the first day of bidding? Suddenly the bids started coming in and in Jeff's next post 13 hours later the bidding (with the BP) had hit the psychologically significant $1M level.

This to me well symbolizes the deceptive (but legal aspect) of the auction business -- the ability of the house to exercise bids on behalf of the consignor up to (the low end of) the item's estimated value. This tactic is universally employed by all prominent HAs across all fields of collecting, and absent federal legislation prohibiting the practice almost certainly will continue. HAs are expected by their consignors (and shareholders) to generate the highest possible prices for their consignors, and what state would dare proscribe the practice and induce HAs thinking of setting up/already headquartered in their jurisdictions to flee to a neighboring state? Not to mention too I doubt these states mind receiving the extra sales/use tax they receive by higher auctions prices.

I have referred to this practice of HAs exercising secret bids on behalf of the consignor to induce prospective bidders to believe there is genuine market interest at those levels as legalized fraud. Yes, if one reads the fine print one can be put on notice of the practice and therefore the uncertainty of the genuineness of any bid below the reserve price. But IMO it is the exception, not the rule, that auction observers are aware of what the auction rules allow to take place behind the scenes. Isn't the premise behind the illegality of fraudulent practices society's refusal to be a party to inducing people to believe something that in fact is not true, all with the objective of getting a person to be willing to pay something that otherwise he/she would not pay? HAs will respond that by disclosing in the rules that the practice exists, therefore bidders/observers have been fairly put on notice. But is that really true? At the end of the day why should a bidder need to have any uncertainty whether he/she is bidding against a "real" person?

Originally Posted by Hankphenom (Post 2154856)

I thought AH's prohibited consignors from bidding on their own items. How is the AH doing it for them any different?

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector (Post 2154869)

Too bad you can't un-restore a card. :D

Originally Posted by egri (Post 2154873)

I'm sure if someone stuck it in their bike spokes, they would come pretty close. :D

Originally Posted by Hankphenom (Post 2154856)

The distinction between this practice and shill bidding strikes me as negligible. I thought AH's prohibited consignors from bidding on their own items. How is the AH doing it for them any different?

Originally Posted by benjulmag (Post 2154920)

I agree with this point. Regardless whether the AH is the party entering the bogus bid, the objective is the same -- to induce the bidder to believe a bid reflects genuine market interest from a "real" bidder. The only distinction between this practice and "regular" shill bidding is that this practice is forewarned in the auction rules
as allowed to take place. As I stated in my original post (which for some strange reason -- senior moment?:o -- refers to AHs as HAs), I regard this distinction to be unconvincing.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2154935)

It is my feeling that an item should always sell for one bid more than the second most interested party is willing to pay. I find anything that interferes with that anathema to the auction process.

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector (Post 2154869)

Too bad you can't un-restore a card. :D

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2154939)

Disagree. By this logic starting any card with an opening bid of more than .01 is shill bidding. There is very little difference between starting a card with a high opening bid and having a reserve. I have seen cards get no bids or one bid in auctions. I prefer the reserve being posted at sometime before the auction and not remain hidden.

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2154939)

Disagree. By this logic starting any card with an opening bid of more than .01 is shill bidding. There is very little difference between starting a card with a high opening bid and having a reserve. I have seen cards get no bids or one bid in auctions. I prefer the reserve being posted at sometime before the auction and not remain hidden.

Originally Posted by atx840 (Post 2153565)

Before the restoration

"This example once suffered from a surface crease which detracted from the beauty of the card. "

https://i.imgur.com/2iUGYG1.jpg

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2155168)

What a mess! It looks like somebody ate it and puked it out!

Yawl need to cut this restorer some slack. He was given this nightmare of a card to work on, and it must have been extremely difficult. He had to spend days looking at this card under magnification and try to recreate the print spots. Obviously, matching the ink, which was made a hundred and ten years ago, wasn't easy to do. If you study the orange background, you'll see the colored-in areas appear yellowish. Again, what a mess. They should have just left the thing alone.

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 2154960)

Most professional restorations are reversible.

Originally Posted by MVSNYC (Post 2155179)

This.

Many years ago there was a restored Wagner for sale in Mastros; the restoration was later "reversed", although PSA still re-slabbed it as "authentic, altered".

Here's an image post-restoration reversal...

Originally Posted by MVSNYC (Post 2155179)

This.

Many years ago there was a restored Wagner for sale in Mastros; the restoration was later "reversed", although PSA still re-slabbed it as "authentic, altered".

Here's an image post-restoration reversal...

Originally Posted by Hankphenom (Post 2154856)

The distinction between this practice and shill bidding strikes me as negligible. I thought AH's prohibited consignors from bidding on their own items. How is the AH doing it for them any different?

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang (Post 2155218)

I'm glad that card was brought back to it's original condition. It looks great just the way it is.

Originally Posted by mrreality68 (Post 2155231)

I do not understand why they restored this one in the first place

Originally Posted by uniship (Post 2155312)

It’s. A. Wagner.

Going to sell for a small fortune. Rightfully so.

$2m

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 2154427)

No they aren't. And it seems a lot of them don't know what the F they are doing! (according to the bids I see) They should become a member and get enlightened.

.

Originally Posted by Schlesinj (Post 2155530)

I am assuming the buyers are looking at this as a piece of art then a baseball card collector. A display piece and they would rather look pretty.

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2154939)

Disagree. By this logic starting any card with an opening bid of more than .01 is shill bidding. There is very little difference between starting a card with a high opening bid and having a reserve. I have seen cards get no bids or one bid in auctions. I prefer the reserve being posted at sometime before the auction and not remain hidden.

Originally Posted by tulsaboy (Post 2156181)

I'm not a pre-war collector, though I sure like to learn from this group and to see everyone's collections. They are mind blowing. I am curious to watch over the next few decades to see how prevalent "restoration" becomes in the sportscard industry. In other collectable/art markets, it is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes actually adds value.) Major museums regularly do cleanings of old art, and as part of those cleanings often gently touch up some of the art where age/weathering/poor treatment has taken its toll. When art is defaced by museum visitors, it is often restored to eliminate/remove the damage. I know that similar approaches are taken with vintage posters and prints. Being familiar with vintage cars, it is of course routine to restore older vehicles (though there is a niche market for untouched, factory original examples as well.) I completely understand that the idea of filling in paper loss, recoloring areas that are missing color, removing marks etc. is repugnant to (probably) most sportscard collectors. Personally, I like em just as they are, warts and all. But tobacco cards, like the T206, are now well over 100 years old. And they are cardboard. Cards that have now been slabbed are probably mostly protected from further damage from handling and accidents, but the vast bulk of cards that are not in holders will continue to age and sustain damage. I am just interested to see whether or not these items, as they push through their second century of existence, begin to experience more "restoration." And, most importantly, whether or not that becomes an accepted practice.
kevin

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 2155328)

if they cut it in 2 they could sell it twice!

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier (Post 2156751)

Why limit it to two? Cut it into teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy pieces and use them to make relic cards! :eek:

Originally Posted by mrreality68 (Post 2156280)

Kevin you have some really valid points. Thanks for sharing them.
I do not believe (but I could easily be wrong) that restorations will be common in Card collecting. Even with the higher dollar cards. For one the way grading companies grade and then classify it (ie instead of raising the "grade" it gets either and Authentic, Altered, or Restored grade on it. Just as you see on the one in SGC. That results in less bidders at the higher prices like you have seen in several recent but past auctions. In addition card collecting has a "purity" to it and an appreciation for the life of that card. So anything that takes away from that devalues it somewhat

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2156758)

Part of the problem from my perspective is that so many of the decisions made by the TPGs about what constitutes an "alteration" to begin with is borderline arbitrary. A card that has tape on it hasn't been altered? Really? But if you remove the tape, then it has? Lol. But only sometimes? Uhh, OK. And if the surface of a card gets dented by something, then that lowers the grade because a card with an indent is a damaged card. Unless of course the surface damage we're talking about was caused by a screw down holder smashing down the corners. That's not "damage", that's an "alteration", tantamount to trimming or recoloring a card. :rolleyes: And speaking of timing, apparently even that's OK to do with some cards but not others. Some of this stuff is just ridiculous. The screw down holder damage equating to an alteration is the probably the one that irks me the most. The TPGs should treat that like they do with creases. Just have a rule that says a card can't grade higher than a 5 if it has screw down damage or something like that, but don't stamp it with some scarlet letter and no explanation at all for why the card received it. The fact that PSA does not differentiate between "trimmed", "recolored", and "screwed down too tight" on their slabs is a real shame. Because I guarantee the market would value those all differently if they knew the reason behind the grades.

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2156756)

Good lord Gary, don't go giving them any more ideas like that.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok (Post 2156770)

Originally Posted by benjulmag (Post 2154920)

I agree with this point. Regardless whether the AH is the party entering the bogus bid, the objective is the same -- to induce the bidder to believe a bid reflects genuine market interest from a "real" bidder. The only distinction between this practice and "regular" shill bidding is that this practice is forewarned in the auction rules as allowed to take place. As I stated in my original post (which for some strange reason -- senior moment?:o -- refers to AHs as HAs), I regard this distinction to be unconvincing.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2156758)

Part of the problem from my perspective is that so many of the decisions made by the TPGs about what constitutes an "alteration" to begin with is borderline arbitrary. A card that has tape on it hasn't been altered? Really? But if you remove the tape, then it has? Lol. But only sometimes? Uhh, OK. And if the surface of a card gets dented by something, then that lowers the grade because a card with an indent is a damaged card. Unless of course the surface damage we're talking about was caused by a screw down holder smashing down the corners. That's not "damage", that's an "alteration", tantamount to trimming or recoloring a card. :rolleyes: And speaking of timing, apparently even that's OK to do with some cards but not others. Some of this stuff is just ridiculous. The screw down holder damage equating to an alteration is the probably the one that irks me the most. The TPGs should treat that like they do with creases. Just have a rule that says a card can't grade higher than a 5 if it has screw down damage or something like that, but don't stamp it with some scarlet letter and no explanation at all for why the card received it. The fact that PSA does not differentiate between "trimmed", "recolored", and "screwed down too tight" on their slabs is a real shame. Because I guarantee the market would value those all differently if they knew the reason behind the grades.

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier (Post 2156751)

Why limit it to two? Cut it into teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy pieces and use them to make relic cards! :eek:

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2157098)

I was referring to them now physically cutting up cards to sell the individual pieces, like they already do with game-used bats, jerseys, etc. That is totally different than selling fractional shares in a card, they don't cut up the card in that instance of having multiple owners.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok (Post 2157112)

Understood. I guess my point (poorly stated) is that owning a digital blockchain versus a 1 millimeter square section of an card is a distinction without a difference.

Originally Posted by SteveS (Post 2153708)

This one doesn't even have a crease. First $3 million takes it.

Originally Posted by Fred (Post 2157101)

Why don't the AHs just indicate there's a frigging RESERVE on the lot and either tell what it is or at least indicate when the reserve price is met.

Originally Posted by Fred (Post 2157101)

Why don't the AHs just indicate there's a frigging RESERVE on the lot and either tell what it is or at least indicate when the reserve price is met.