Sadly Johnny, what seems to be more addicting is the greed of auctioneers.

You know what is going to be real interesting? We have an example going right now where we will be able to see just how they may benefit from what they are doing or to see if they lose $ on this deal, assuming they let the auctions on ebay run. Of course, if they don't let them run I will assume like many others will assume, that they are hiding something.

Lot # 55 in their last auction for 4 HIGH 1952 Yankees ended at $700. Let's assume they charge a 10% fee to the seller. HOC actually gets the lot for $630.
The McDougald has already sold for $202.50 http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...item4ab3cc3043

And the other three are currently running on ebay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...item53eb88e062

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...item53eb995595

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...item4ab40abec4


ch..r i-s. shr..e-v..e

He's in Chicago waiting on the grand jury. 4 years and counting!!

Johnny is right about the auction environment and sadly us in the hobby are just as guilty because many will continue to bid if the it its an item they are interested in or the price is low enough. The one I do not understand is why people continue to consign to these auction houses. The one that really comes to mind is Mastro, they continued to have strong auctions even after the word had got around that they were not on the up and up.

Lee Beh.rens

..

as already stated
 

As stated before in this thread, everyone posting in it needs to have their full name by their post(s). That means everyone please. Thanks

Wow...absolutely digusted by this. Theres goes my business as well and I was a big fab of Huggins and Scott as I have always been pleased and the cards were as described.

Is it me or does it seem the big boys get to make/change the rules as they go and use different rationale as to why their situation is valid...kinda like an 8-yr-old. I feel the auction houses should be the examples in the industry setting the highest stamdards for honesty and integrity. Being honest and acting with class is rarely fiscally benefical in the short-term but lays the foundation for long-term growth and evelopment both as a business and hobby. Im just sick of this and will slink back to the bay and fend for myself. 1 week, a bad reference and another bad auction house experience and yes im talking to you heritage...

Steven William Frickin' Suckow

"we don't see the bids"
 

Recently an auction house owner who has been around quite a while told me that some of the software used by the different auction houses DO enable them to see the bids.....and if not, one can easily get the software to be able to do so......so if they "shill bid" items we are bidding on, it is difficult to believe they do not see our bids as well.

Furthermore , logic tells me that if you bid $2000 on an item and THEY win the item, does anyone here think they pay $2200 plus the juice????. Maybe their final prices show $2200 but my guess is that the "employee" pays $2001 or so, just sayin'

Let it be known that H&S lost money on this endevor so they just weren't buying for a good deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the house, or an affiliate or employee, is bidding to win and not to run up max bids it can see (i.e., to shill), then I have no issue with it.

The problem is one of intent and motive. Since we cannot judge intent and motive from where we sit (i.e., since we don't know these folks), the prudent thing to do would be for them to refrain from bidding altogether.

Also, bidding to win and then resell in their store lines their pockets. If they win, they get it at a discount (buyer's premium paid from one hand to the other). If they lose, they increase the buyer's premium paid on that lot to them.

Win-win = lose for bidder

This entire issue can be reduced to that single sentence.

It is also incredibly simple to remedy; don't bid on your own listings.

I sell stuff on ebay for a few local guys...sometimes they bring me stuff that's pretty cool and I wouldn't mind having it....is it okay for me to create another ebay account and bid on that item? What if I don't win it and I'm the only other bidder? Is it still okay?

I know this is a rhetorical question but I'd only answer it to say that I would be OK with you making an offer before it hit ebay. It saves them the selling fees, shipping, waiting, etc. Same thing with H&S. If they want an item, make an offer to the consignor for the price you want to pay. If they don't want to do it and want a true auction, then let's do that. A true auction without the dealer's hand in play.

I'm not real familiar with prices for 1952 Topps cards. Am I the only one that thinks that lot would be an odd one for someone to buy to try and make money on, at least at that price. Although they are high #'s, they were all graded authentic.

Then your consignor is happy, and the winner who paid what he wanted to is probably happy too.

Ignorance is bliss in a non-arms length transaction.
Willing to pay and had to pay could be two different things.

Is it still okay if I'm only bidding on it because I think it's going too cheaply and I might be able to sell it in a different venue for more money?

Let me know your ebay handle so I can be sure to stay far away should you decide to sell anything ;)

I think you are missing a key piece to this.

If someone pays me a buyers premium of $20, I'm up $20 for my efforts.

If my daughter wins and doesnt pay me the $20, (highly likely as she is 3 and always broke) I'm out my $20. She saves on the front but together we are even, so now she has to flip them for more then the cost plus the $20 I'm out. Not always easy to do.

So if HOC wins and doesnt pay H&S, H&S are out 20% of the previous bid, as that was a guaranteed BP to be paid before HOC bid up. Now who know if HOC hadnt bid up if someone else would. That's their biggest risk if it's borderline a good price, loose the BP and make it on the flip.

Now if HOC slowly bumps up that BP managing their risk on not winning too many lots then they can create a significant amount of profit for H&S to compensate for the lots they do win and have to flip. Now celing bids, if ones been entered it likely could be accessed but I won't go there.

That sounds like a hidden reserve, which I personally don't mind. How is it any different than starting the auction at a minimum bid? Granted, the latter would be cleaner.

To be clear, I think shill bidding -- that is, placing a bogus bid whose only purpose is to bump a different bidder to a higher level -- is wrong.

is it a perfect distinction? No, probably not. Can one posit examples where the effect is going to be similar? Probably. But to me intent does matter, and placing a bid with intent to win feels different from placing a bid with the intent to run someone else up.

Okay, but just remember that Huggins and Scott has dibs on the bargains.

The difference between the ebay scenario and H&S scenario is everyone is NOT playing under the same rules!

In the ebay scenario, we are all playing under the same rules - no buyers premium!

When H&S places a bid in their auctions (as HOC) and does NOT have to pay the buyers premium they are at an advantage over the other bidders. When you make a bid in an auction, you like to believe that the other bidders are making the same considerations as you: bid amount, buyers premium, any other fees - essentially, do I feel comfortable at this TOTAL price. When HOC makes bids they do not have to consider these other variables: H&S $200 bid = $200, other bidder $200 bid = $239 (with buyers premium) - those are not the same amounts; therefore, thats an advantage!

When H&S increases the bid amount, they directly increase the buyers premium; therefore, directly increase their profits - even if they dont win the item. Its a conflict of interest.

In the ebay situation, the seller (with the new user ID) can make a bid and increase the amount. The other bidders are playing under the same rules: seller $200 bid = $200, other bidder $200 bid = $200 - same amounts, no advantage gained. The seller does have a conflict of interest in this case because he likely is charging the individual who consigned the item a fee (higher it sells for - higher fee amount); however, in this case, the seller is taking more money from the consigner - NOT the other bidders.

I see numerous people spinning this a variety of different ways and using different comparisons, but this is a conflict of interest. Any auction company that bids on its own items should have it clearly listed right under the buyers premium - "we bid on our own things and dont have to pay buyers premiums!"

An.dy Ke.nn.edy

1.) HOC pays the Buyer's premium on each lot they win.

2.) They bid on a small fraction of lots in the auction. Primarily for the needs of their storefront or frequent customers with wantlists. There is no nefarious plot to artificially drive up prices so that no one can't get good deals.

3.) Peter Spaeth is correct. It's all about intent and motive. It is also about trust. If you think something is amiss (which I assure you in this case there isn't), place a maximum bid (as stated earlier in this thread) and stick with it.

For those who are truly interested and want to discuss this in a cordial manner, the owner's have generously offered to discuss this personally. The phone numbers are posted earlier in the thread.

James Feagin

James -

Thank you for the information.

One question:

House of Cards is owned by Huggins and Scott, correct? So, they are essentially paying the buyers premium to each other? The left hand is giving the right hand the money; therefore, its not really paying the buyers premium.

If what I wrote above is wrong, I apologize, but please clarify. Earlier in this thread, it was stated that both businesses are run from the same address and operated by the same individuals.

An.dy K.enn.edy

Andy,

Although operated from the same address by the same owner, I am not privvy to the finances other than Mr. Huggins runs them completely as separate businesses. I am an employee of H&S and NOT of HOC. There are also multiple employees of HOC who do not work for H&S. That's what I can tell you from that end.

James

So why did they need the 52 Topps lot of Authentic graded cards? Obviously not a store need since they threw them up on ebay, and obviously not a frequent customer wantlist filled.

Dan,

You can always call HOC and ask. They have an "open door" policy when it comes to those questions. I have nothing to do with HOC, so I don't know why they bid on those. Perhaps they had a wantlist customer who fell through? I can only hazard a guess.

James

The solution to that would seem to me to be to register these customers who have wantlists with HOC for the auction.

Thanks James.

Essentially, the same individual owns the same company; therefore, the owner of House of Cards pays the buyers premium to the owner of Huggins and Scott (who are the same person).

All of this comes down to this:

Huggins and Scott occasionally bid on items in there own auction as House of Cards. As a bidder in their auctions, you never know if the item you are bidding on is also an item they are bidding on. Personally, I think that should be stated under their rules section, but thats simply my opinion.

If you dont feel comfortable with this possibility, then you should not bid on items in Huggins and Scott Auctions; however, if it does not bother you or you are willing to take the risk, then continue to bid.

But it would really make me upset, if I lost out on an item and then saw it posted on ebay by House of Cards.

An.dy K.enn.edy

James,

If I'm to understand what you are saying, House of Cards had a "storefront need" for "four" Topps 1952 high numbers. Thus, they placed a bid and ultimately win the cards. Regrettably, after receiving the items from Huggins and Scott they have buyers remorse and feel the cards no longer serve their "storefront needs." Thus, a decision is made to sell the cards on eBay. Yeah, okay; I'm good with that explanation :eek:.

By the way, the four Topps 1952 high numbers sold for:

$202.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $181.75
$100.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $89.60
$371.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $333.23
$138.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $124.20
------------------------------------------
$812.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $728.78


One question that really needs to be asked. Can House of Cards consign items to Huggins and Scott???

Lovely Day...

That is not even close to what I wrote and takes a leap that was never mentioned. Should further questions arise, please contact the owners. As much as I would like to hang out on Net54, I do have an impending publication deadline to meet.

James

Wow!
 

Based on the H&S lot selling for $822.50, I believe the final bid was $700. So the "profit" was $28.78? Had they let the previous bid of $650 take the auction, they would have received $113.75 in juice.

Or is my math off here?

Does that mean there are employees who work for both companies? If so what would be the purpose of that?


Chr...s Sh..-re..v-=e

Erick,

It's tough to speculate, because we are waist high in murky water. For example, did House of Cards place the $600 bid? Thus, the $650 second place bidder might have conceivably won the lot at $550.

Lovely day...

I think Dan B has hit it on the head. If they are buying things because of a storefront need or for customers with want lists, why not just have them register and bid on the H&S auction?

Secondly, if you don't want these customers bidding in the auction for some reason, why not just sell directly to the customer instead of putting it on Ebay?

Ch...s Sh..-r-..ev..e

I agree. Very murky at this point. To me, it doesn't even matter anymore. The murkiness is all brought about by the fact that one entity owned and operated by the same person is bidding on items owned and operated by that same person. It's murky because it's murky.

Only way to clean up the waters is to have H&S (employees, subsidiaries, owners, etc.) stop bidding on their own auctions.

No Erick you are correct. H&S will always be out the profit of the previous increments BP amount if HOC wins.

Im 99% certain H&S would make HOC pay the BP as each lot required effort to scan, detail, receive, ship and process the funds.

HOC then is in the same boat as all of us, paying a 20% premium on lots and have to find a way to make a profit on the flip. Now maybe its just a risk they take while trying to bump up auctions and occasionally win but I doubt this as your one example shows a significant loss of profit.

Even if I were willing to accept the notion that one hand paying the other is not a competitive advantage (which I don't), what about all the auctions that they bid on and don't win. Those lot prices are driven up putting more Money in H&S hands. They could look at the lots they win as collateral damage

Josh & James - It's nice of you to attempt to do "damage control" for H&S and HOC, but it would be much more meaningful for Bill Huggins to address these issues himself on Net54, rather than inviting anyone who is concerned (MANY Net54ers are CONCERNED!) to call him to discuss.

It has long been my assumption that pretty much the same individuals own both H&S and HOC, with Bill owning a majority interest in both companies. FWIIW, I have known Bill since the mid-1980s, and I have always believed him to be a person of high integrity.

I would prefer that auction houses, their retail affiliates, and/or their employees be precluded from bidding in their own auctions. But, personally, I have no problem with auction houses, their retail affiliates, and/or their employees (1) putting their own items in their auctions, and (2) bidding on items (except their own) in their auctions, PROVIDED this is very clearly made known to us bidders. By this, I mean that each item so owned should be clearly noted, both in the auction catalog and online; and furthermore, each lot on which the auction house, their retail affiliate, and/or their employees bid should be clearly noted online during the course of the auction along with whether or not the auction house, their retail affiliate, and/or their employee is the current high bidder. This could still lead to shill bidding by auction houses, especially on those lots with higher maximum bids, but I seldom leave maximum bids because of this concern.
Val

Yes collateral damage is the risk they could be taking.

I can't seen any advantage in paying a BP from one hand to the other. Keeping it simple.

You have $20 in your right hand.

Right hand gives the $20 to the left hand, you still have $20.
Right hand does not give $20 to the left hand, you still have $20

-$20 spent + $20 made = $0 profit
$20 saved + -$20 earned = $0 profit

Paying the BP from one company to the other obviously affects how much profit each company makes at the end of the day/month/year. Even if the same individuals own both companies, this will make a difference in each individual's profit, unless each of the individuals owns the same percentage of both companies, which I doubt is the case.
Val

Chris -

I mean no disrespect, but I think you are over simplifying this and not looking at whole picture.

1) Does H&S take a percentage from the consigner? Lets just assume its 10% (as I have no idea if they do and if so, what the percentage would be - simple assumption for illustration purposes).

They bid $600 on it, but it only cost them $540, because they got $60 from consignor. All of a sudden that profit Erick showed earlier just grew from $28 to $88.

2) When HOC bids in a H&S auction, the only possible scenarios is H&S benefits.

Either - they increase the bid amount; therefore, directly increasing the buyers premium. If current bid is $200 (H&S makes $39 - 19.5% buyers premium). If they make a bid of $300 and are outbid by another bidder max bid, the new high bid is $330 (H&S makes $64.35 on buyers premium). They just made $25 by simply making a bid. Do you make $25 (or any money) by making a bid in the auction? This profit amount increases with the value of the item.

OR - they win the item at a discount versus other bidders. If they win an item at $200 and pay the 19.5% buyers premium and receive a consignors fee of 10%, then total cost = $239 - $20 = $219. Also, this assumes that they do pay the buyers premium, if you dont think they do because the two places are owned by the same person - then the savings increase!

When a bidder can only benefit from bidding in an auction thats a conflict of interest.

Any.y K.enne.dy

0 profit but they have a $20% advantage over the person bidding next to them. So, if they get any item at a 20% discount, how do they not win that battle? And why would I play a game where the house has a 20% advantage? This isn't vegas and the potential to "win big" isn't even there.

They are able to own an item at a 20% savings over anyone else. If they take the next increment over anyone, bidding it up 10%, they still get the item at 10% less than previous bidder. Not a level playing field.

In math terms, the item is $1000 (bid by outside bidder). He stops because he knows he has to pay $1200. Auction house bids up to $1100. Since they don't have to pay premium, they still get it at $100 less than previous "REAL" bidder.

Im keep it simple on the BP side only as to clarify there is very little advantage to not paying a BP.

In theory HOC gets a lot for 20% less but then H&S is out that 20% buyers fee that every 3rd party bidder pays or would pay if they win.

So if H&S gets 10% of the hammer price from the consigner, who do you think pays that on the lots that HOC wins? HOC, so its not profit, either they get 10% from me or they get it from HOC. If they don't take their 10% and no BP then yes HOC gets the cards for 90% of the hammer price and a 20% BP savings. But now H&S is out that 10% and the 20%. I think its all even.

Now if they bid up and up and still don't win, then yes HOC is making H&S a profit on the 10% hammer price and the 20% BP for every increment they can raise it by.

Hi Andy,
I'm not sure what you mean by over simplifying or the point that I am over simplifying is, but I agree with everything you are saying. For the record, I am of the opinion that this is a major conflict of interest and I am skeptical as to why HOC would buy those 1952 Topps cards to try and resell as they say.

Maybe I didn't do a good job of explaining how I feel about this, but I think I am seeing the big picture. To me, it is a big conflict of interest and I personally don't buy the two different businesses they are trying to sell to people on the board.

Ahhh, I see you were talking about Chris B

ch...s Sh..-re-v..e

I think I'm done beating this horse. Last point other than to say that I won't be bidding at H&S anymore.


Bottom line, an item is worth a certain amount of money. H&S bidding on their own items allows them to bid up items close to that value. If an item is too low, they bid it up until it gets closer to the real value. If they lose, great. They get all the fees, etc. On the other side, if they win, they still get an item near the value of the item and then resell it on HOC. Even if they break even or lose at HOC, they can declare that loss or break even. I'm sure they make up any break even or loss (of which I don't think there is any) by all of their "losing" bids.

Let me make it clear that I don't know how many items they are bidding on. But I'm sure it is judicious and calculated. They aren't going to go crazy and win items way over value. They are going to get them right up there near the value that they think they can sell them for on HOC. But, if they can get a $1200 item for $1100 and then resell it for $1200, they make $100. If a buyer wins the item at $1000 (one increment lower), he breaks even.

I don't see how this can be a level playing field and I ain't playing on it anymore.

How about these 2 lots?

http://jan12.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=41124

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-JGA-Jap...item53eb994c40

Vintage Chris - sorry for the confusion, yes we agree and I was referring to the other chris.

Jaybird - summed it up PERFECTLY.

In this case, maybe they took a shot and only made a little. The damage is in the lots that they place on the lots they DONT win. In those cases, they increased the bid price and therefore the buyers premium - making themselves more money. And you have NO idea - you think your in a bidding war with another bidder, but it could be the auction house.

There is no way of ever knowing when HOC is putting bids in on an item unless its the last winning bidder and then you see the cards on ebay in their store. How often do they bid on an auction raising a price to what they feel is acceptable and you never know?

A.ndy Ke.nned.y

Thanks guys, I think we are in agreement that it can be quite shady and yes if they bump but don't win they WIN on the consigners fee + the BP. We will never know.

one tiny thing Jason - "if they can get a $1200 item for $1100" how would they get something at $1100 that you and I couldnt? Saving on the BP or consigners fee? If they are then that savings hurts H&Ss profit by $100, so no advantage.

all around they should just stay out of it, go bid on everything else out there.

From the same lot:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-1985-Mi...ht_2329wt_1185

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-1973-Ja...ht_2332wt_1165

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1970s-Tokyo-...ht_2766wt_1165

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-c-1960s...ht_2664wt_1165

I guess we're just nitpicking now since we all agree that it ain't right, or at least some of us agree.

The advantage is that they now have the item. Profit isn't realized until that item is sold. We'd have to track the item until it is finally sold to decide where the profit was won or lost.

You don't need to be a professional ethicist to know that what H & S is doing with HOC is dishonest. Owning a few items at net bid cost with no real BP, no real commission and no shipping is a small price to pay for all of the added bid increments--i.e., added BP fees and commission fees, since both are % calculations--that SHILLING through HOC permits H & S to make. It is crooked as the day is long, in my humble opinion, and no amount of clever talk will get around it. I don't have a problem with an auctioneer selling its own stuff but an auctioneer should not be bidding on items in its own sale, period, regardless of whether done directly or through a related entity. The appearance of impropriety is too great.

I'm Ad@m W@rsh@w and I approve this message.

New policy!!!!
 

So look, we at Huggins and Scott have ALWAYS tried to do the “right thing.” Certainly none of our actions are meant to hurt, deceive, show any dishonesty or lack of integrity. While we could show you auction invoices with hammer prices and buyers premiums, along with matching cancelled checks, just to prove that EVERYONE pays the 17.5% buyers premium, it just doesn’t seem that it would really do any good at this point.

In light of your voices that have spoken loudly, we have have instituted the following policy effective immediately: No one who is currently employed with Huggins and Scott or House of Cards may bid on any items in any Huggins and Scott Auctions. I can assure you, none of this will happen again with our auctions.

Bill Huggins
President
Huggins and Scott Auctions
www.hugginsandscott.com
1-866-462-2273
auction@hugginsandscott.com

Wow - Power to the Net54 People!!

That's great Bill, I have always enjoyed bidding in your auctions and clearing this up means I will continue to do so.
Bob M@rquette

"Certainly none of our actions are meant to hurt, deceive, show any dishonesty or lack of integrity."

This point seems lost on the Net 54 lynch mob, unfortunately.

Thank you, Bill. It means a great deal when a company is willing to take a look at their customers and give them what they want.

I appreciate the change and will continue to buy and sell through you in the future.

Chris

Thanks Bill! I've been pleased with my H&S winnings in the past and will continue bidding w/them in the future.
Rob
:)

Bill Huggins is a long time good friend which I stated to start this post. I have known Bill and John for almost 40 years now.

I had to think long and hard before starting this thread but I was really upset to see the items I was bidding on surface on ebay 2 weeks later.

I think we have all gotten through to a long time hobby veteran who heard our cries and answered the call. I have full confidence and absolutely no doubt that this new policy will be enforced at H&S and HOC.

This excellent change couldn't have happened without the many voices here on NET54! And even though many of us do not spend billions of dollars on baseball cards each year, we are all still customers and Bill really came up to the plate for us!

I encourage anyone who may have pulled their names from the bidder list to get added back on as I will personally back the validity of this new policy.

A very special thanks to: Bill Huggins, John Scott, Josh Wulkan, James Feagans who contributed here. And of course a very special thanks to the NET54 family and Leon for making a difference in OUR hobby.


Sincerely,

Dan Mckee

Good job Bill!

Its refreshing to hear someone use some common sense and put their customers forst when they speak. I will continue to purchase from h/s and after my prdeal with heritage auctions will have more money coming your way.

Steven Suckow

Re: New policy!!!!
 

Kudos for doing the right thing, Bill.

ok
 

thanks

Wow!
 

Wow...what a forgiving lot?!?!

Not even an apology? We're listening to what our customers want...meaning for HOC/HS not to shill their own auctions and basically rob their customers of their hard earned cash?

And from this moment on...we're not going to steal your $$$ anymore?!?!

And many of you are ok with this...end of story? WOW!

I must admit this silence is deafening to me.

Peter, I know from your posts you are a much more educated and overall experienced collector than myself. But for me, I am tired of not being listened to with legitimate concerns such as the one with h/s auctions. Bill changed his policies and apologized...my inexperience leaves me somewhat historically uneducated, but at this point I was happy Bill changed. If the cards I want are at a good price, I have no reservations on bidding.

Steven Suckow

Legitimate point, but, as you know, stuff triumphs over everything else. EOS.

Steven, I will defend the way Chris handles his customers at Heritage - I can guarantee you that he goes overboard trying to resolve issues, and I didn't see anything in your posts here or your PM's with me that indicated otherwise. If I had known that he was going to get attacked repeatedly after trying to resolve your situation, I would never have suggested you contact him. You apparently did so with your line drawn in the sand, and any response by him that fell short of what you demanded was going to result in your taking the issue to this board, and then apparently never letting go of it. I don't think that's fair.

I'm sure I'll regret not avoiding this train-wreck.

KRAMER: What did you go up there to heckle her for?

JERRY: Because she came down to the club and heckled me! Give her a taste of her own medicine!

KRAMER: Oh, YEAH! You gave her a taste of medicine, alright.

JERRY: Well, I didn’t want her to have an accident.

GEORGE: What accident?

KRAMER: Well, after he heckled Toby, she got so upset, she ran out of the building and a street sweeper ran over her foot and severed her pinky toe.

GEORGE: That’s unbelievable!

KRAMER: Yeah! Then after the ambulance left, I found the toe! So I put it in a Cracker Jack box, filled it with ice, and took off for the hospital.

GEORGE: You ran?

KRAMER: No, I jumped on the bus. I told the driver, “I got a toe here, buddy – step on it.”

GEORGE: Holy cow!

KRAMER: Yeah, yeah, then all of a sudden, this guy pulls out a gun. Well, I knew any delay is gonna cost her her pinky toe, so I got out of the seat and I started walking towards him. He says, “Where do you think you’re going, Cracker Jack?” I said, “Well, I got a little prize for ya, buddy – ” – knocked him out cold!

GEORGE: How could you do that?!

KRAMER: Then everybody is screamin,’ because the driver, he’s passed out from all the commotion…the bus is out of control! So, I grab him by the collar, I take him out of the seat, I get behind the wheel and now I’m drivin’ the bus.

GEORGE: You’re Batman.

KRAMER: Yeah. Yeah, I am Batman. Then the mugger, he comes to, and he starts chokin’ me! So I’m fightin’ him off with one hand and I kept drivin’ the bus with the other, y’know? Then I managed to open up the door, and I kicked him out the door with my foot, you know – at the next stop.

JERRY: You kept makin’ all the stops?

KRAMER: Well, people kept ringin’ the bell!

GEORGE: Well, what about the toe? What happened to the toe?

KRAMER: Well! I am happy to say that the little guy is back in place at the end of the line.

GEORGE: You did all this…for a pinky toe?

KRAMER: Well, it’s a valuable appendage.

Lovely Day...

Scott - No trainwreck, pm sent. Won't happen again.

Thanks Steven, and thanks for the PM. No problem - this is definitely the place to air your concerns.

There was no shill bidding here. Shill bidding is placing a bid for the purpose of bumping a bidder who has a max bid to a higher level. You are wrong to accuse Bill Huggins of unethical conduct. You may have a legitimate disagreement with him about the practice of house accounts bidding to win, but to leap from there to accusing him of being unethical is just wrong. It is unfortunate that others who agree with me will not speak up.

Peter.

Facts speak louder than words. Not accusing H&S of anything nefarious, but the fact remains that every time they bid a lot up, they screwed the other bidders. Glad that he's stopped it, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened. End of story.

I don't agree Kenny. If someone is willing to pay more than I am, I don't feel screwed, I feel outbid. It doesn't matter to me if the higher bidder is inside or outside, if the bid is legitimate.

Peter,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, although the posts and the response seem to indicate that it is in the minority. Everything that I would say has already been said, but my thought is that if I'm outbid by an actual bidder, then I'm outbid. If I'm outbid by the house because it didn't get what they were hoping for, or I won it for more than I should have paid because I got bid up by the auction house, then IMO, I got screwed. Most posters here seem to agree

Kenny I have no doubt that I am in the minority in terms of being OK with house bidding (to win, not to bump), but also no doubt that others who are unwilling to post see it my way. In the end, it is just as you say, a matter of opinion. My main point is to clarify that whatever H&S was doing, it was not -- as far as we know -- shill bidding as that term is commonly used and understood.

And that is where we will have to agree to diverge, opinionwise, because I don't think it is OK at all. When the bid to win is because the prior bid seems too low, or when the bid to win ends up simply being a bump on the way to a higher bid, I view that as a problem. If you seriously don't, then I suppose that's fine. When I decide to personally auction some of my stuff, remind me to make sure you know about it. :D

I'm stunned that there are collectors who apparently think this is no biggie and now that the policy has changed everything is ok. Has anyone asked whether or not House ofcards does the same type pf thing with their Ebay auctions.
In my opinion it is certainly unethical for an auction house to bid on their own auctions.

Dave Krabal

Does anyone wonder whether the change would have been made had this thread not been started ?

Of course everyone knows that this "issue" wouldn't have changed b/c in their eyes, they were doing nothing wrong. Things like this or just things in general don't get changed without people pointing out the possible wrongdoing effect it will have on their business and/or the community.

How does anything with possible unethical implications get changed? Through the masses voting it to change or peer pressure or mind changing in general. I'm just glad that the President of H&S was listening and made the proper adjustments...I give him full credit for that.

For the record, I do believe it is wrong to bid on their auctions like they were doing, but I can honestly see both sides of the spectrum.

Mik/e C.a.vv.e.