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.

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. ;)

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.

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

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

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

Well said Bill....True 100%

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?

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

http://youtu.be/SNbup9-yj7c

Im beginning to think this "hypothetical" situation isnt real :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nigh on impossible, I would think.

I agree with this.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Hey, there's honor among thieves. Doug was mad at Bill when he cooperated against him. Doug was mad at Rogers when HE cooperated against him. Shit happens.

Nothing illegal about the above mentioned agreement.

I have never someone discuss price fixing on such a small level.

I didn't say it wasn't illegal, or that a certain element of damage or quantum of proof was needed. Your comment seemed to liken the two situations and as a practical matter they are worlds apart.

Disagree completely.

Your grammar is as flawed as your legal analysis. :D

The discussion is purely technical, as acknowledged repeatedly.

Jesus is there nothing you can't turn into a discussion of Doug? :D

What auction and lot # was this deal on?

Suppose 15 very low pop commons in 9 are available in an auction in individual lots, and the three top set registry guys, each of whom need them all, agree to allocate their bids so as not to bid against each other in the hope that each comes away with 5. Suppose there are also other anonymous people who will bid on some as well. Are you saying this is not collusive? (I don't care for and haven't used the term bid rigging.)

PS this isn't just a hypo. I have seen an email where a leading collector proposed just this to another collector, who to his credit ignored the proposal.

So Larry is guilty of collusion by NOT bidding?

Peter...I was just mentioning bid-rigging in general...I wasn't pointing it at you.

I agree that the example that you are using above is definitely collusive. The more people that get involved, the more of an enterprise it becomes and then it certainly is limiting a sellers chance of maximizing his profits.

My comments are strictly related to the OP's description of 2 friends agreeing to partner-up to participate in an auction that they might or might not win.

I was once at a local auction house that had a bunch of sports memorabilia. Myself and 1 other person bid against each other on almost every lot. We cost each other a lot of money. Fast forward a few years and I run into this person again in Brimfield (he is a dealer). We recognize each other and laugh at how much money we cost each other. We agreed that if we ever saw each other again at an auction we would compare notes prior to the auction. I don't think that there is anything wrong with this type of agreement. As I stated earlier, there is the potential for others to bid and no guarantees of price in an auction setting.

Jeff

update
 

i was just contacted by the winner of the auction...
here is the email...
Saw thread. Do whatever you need to do. I am not home. Was in Kentucky guiding
daughter through a divorce. My wife took it hard. It is our 40th anniversary and
after divorce was final I booked us on a Circle South American cruise on the
Oceania Regatta. You can check their web site. We won't be home until sometime
in April. Cards are still at home as far as I know. Not a high priority at the
moment.

Jeff, the one nice thing about your scenario is that you're both present and you'd be able to see if your abstaining bidding buddy was trying to screw you...:p

As mentioned before, I've see THREADS on the THIS BOARD asking people to PARTNER up on auction lots. Is that considered collusive? If so, then why would something illegal be allowed to occur so openly on this board?

What auction were the cards in?

I could care less who the other party is I just want to see what baseball cards are causing this commotion ;)

Yeah after all this we should at least get to see the cards.

3 month cruise....must have been some good cards

update
 

it was an REA auction fall 2014

What is the downside about outing the auction and other person?

Well Sherlock, the absconder of the cards:

• Is “a major contributor to this board”
• “highly respected” on this board
• has a daughter who lives in Kentucky
• is on a very long South American cruise on the Oceania Regatta
• has access to the internet on the vessel

Was it Colonel Mustard….? If so, in which auction and what cards were absconded?


Geesh, enough already.... the poor guy probably took the cruise to get away from all of us....:D

One possibility...


https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...x?itemid=32569

Peter is correct of course.

Smalltime collusion may be hard to prove if it's done quietly.
But it's still not allowed.

I was at a small estate type auction that ran once a month. Small enough that the auctioneer announced before each auction that the help were all independent dealers who were allowed to bid. Any other way and he'd have no help. They all specialized, and rarely bid even within their own specialty.

Anyway, one night there's a bag of coins. And it gets bid up a bit, to maybe $40. One guy in the front row turns to another and says "Let me have this one and you can buy the next" The auctioneer stopped, gave them both a stern reprimand about how he could lose his license and if they wanted to do that stuff to discuss it ahead of time outside. Restarted the item at 45, got a bid from a new bidder and 50 from the other guy for the sale.


On the bigger end of things, here's an article about the settlement with a group of stamp dealers who ran a collusive bidding ring for almost 20 years.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/s...stamp-auctions

The sort of stuff they colluded on was similar, biggish to large lots where there would be limited competition from either collectors or from other dealers. Their ring made up a huge percentage of the buyers with both the interest and the funds to buy large lots regularly.

I have mixed feelings about small guys combining to buy a lot. It might sort of be collusion technically, but usually neither would be a serious bidder so the teaming up actually increases the competition a bit.

Steve B

It's a little late now and can't be undone, but I don't think appropriate to post this guys response. I am sure with a little research his identity is easily discovered. I am sure he does not want his personal life aired in such a manner, nor want it to be known he is away for three months. I would delete, but again too late.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I figured it out, but since Larry doesn't want it disclosed, I'll leave it alone.

Dennis, the link provided was for a 15 card lot (not 19 cards). Close with the $10K bid, but no cigar.

Fred, I know, I went through the entire baseball card section and couldn't find a perfect match, maybe I just missed it.

I would HIGHLY suggest you do NOT indicate who this person is now that you've indicated he's out of town for a long period of time and his cards are at his house!!!! Time to lock this thread Leon.

Holy crap, the most sensible thing imparted in this thread so far....

not cool
 

I feel that not only posting that info about being gone that there is far too much personal info in there.

That is frankly not cool and I suggest immediate deletion of that personal information.

Where is the common sense in that?

Peace, mike

If this was indeed the Hocus Focus lot I am sure I know who the winner was….unless Larry is telling stories.

55 Hocus Focus
 

Leon was kind enough to unlock this thread for me.

I am the person Larry is referring to. I am currently in Brazil and have been out of the country since early January, and was not at home for most of December either for family reasons

Due to Larry's stress level on this matter, in the first part of February I had my house sitter open the package of cards in question. There were 19 different Topps 55 Hocus Focus baseball cards in the lot. I had 12 of the subjects in the lot but lacked 7 of them. I had the house sitter pull the 7 cards I did not have ( giving me 19 of the 24 in the sub set), and had her try to keep the best of the duplicate cards. She was pretty nervous about it all. She then mailed the 12 duplicates to Larry.

He got them, and posted to that effect on 54 on February 17, but did so in the Memorabilia Forum rather than this forum. Not sure why, but I was concerned that most of those who saw this thread, would not see or be aware of his thread in the other forum. Hence I asked Leon to let me post this in what had been a locked thread.

I have told Larry that if he wants to keep the 12 duplicates he can name the price he thinks fair. As he mentioned in the first post, the lot went for about $ 10,000. I also told him that since I would not be back home until mid April, he could wait until then to decide and pay if he wanted to keep them.

Hopefully that concludes this matter.

On another subject I can say that Tikal, The Panama Canal/Panama City, Machu Picchu, Torres Del Paine National Park, The Chilean fjords and glaciers Ushuaia ( The End Of The World ), The Falkland Islands and Iguazu Falls have been tremendous. Rio coming up

Al, you do a great job in those commercials.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-...goldsmith.jpeg

The Country Cookin in Christiansburg, VA is also nice.

Al, good hearing from you, have a safe journey. Sounds like fun!

Al you've surfaced-sounds like you are having a blast!

Al, you know how to travel and you know how to live. Wish you the best, my friend.

Glad this appears to have worked out well for all. Safe travels my friend.

Z wheat