I use it because it's easier, cheaper and they get better prices. What's to wonder :confused:

Matt, not a bad effort, but replace step #3 with: "if the seller is a known shiller, don't bid"

and remove step #6

Regarding step #7, it sounds like this statement: "I certainly am not going to beat myself up or lose sleep over having bid on a card I wanted for my collection" trumps this one: "I do think shilling is a criminal, abhorrent practice"

If you really mean what you say, then you'll simply avoid sellers who you feel are crooked; otherwise, you are rationalizing.

Your position is starting to make a little more sense in light of a previous post. "The concern of a market artificially inflated by shilling is a red herring, in my view. It is an argument used solely to respond to the shilling-indifferent in an effort to point out a tangible cost of shilling."

One could also point out that the shilling-indifferent might offer other market inflation methods to justify their shilling indifference, since there are tangible costs to shilling. I've yet to see this proven otherwise or even addressed. I'll prefer hundreds of years of real life experience that market manipulation negatively affects prices rather than a theory that BINs will rise if shilling auctions were eliminated.

I think Steve B pointed it out best in that there are 3 approaches to this:
A ) Whether someone takes the high road of abandoning any market or seller that encourages or condones that stuff
B ) Or The middle road of only participating in some auctions.
C ) Or Ignores it all and only bids what they think is fair

I've consigned on eBay. I consigned because I didn't want to do the work at the time (I hate billing, packaging, packaging tape, gong to the post office, etc--- and it was easier to ship it all at once to one seller) and the particular seller I consigned to was a respected dealer who got good prices due to his reputation and known knowledge (He used to work at a museum). Realize that I've never sold trading cards printed in the thousands that come encapsulated in plastic holders with identification label and bar code at top and that can be double checked on the PSA website and looked up in a price guide. I've consigned esoteric and rare items such as vintage autographed scorecards, unique postcards, antique movie posters, medals, original art and movie star awards, where buyers bid more when the seller is well known, they've had good experience and the seller is known as knowledgeable about what he sells. I thought he did a good job and I got fair prices, so I was willing to consign again.

And, whether or not you believe it, I never shilled. To be honest, the idea of shilling never even crossed my mind. Some people think everyone thinks about doing bad things even if they don't act upon it, but that's not true. For many people, that they could cheat or maim that person across the room or slip the tip on the next table into his pocket doesn't even cross their minds. It doesn't enter their thoughts. It's unethical people who think everyone is also unethical. The prices I got were the prices I got. Some stuff lots sold less than I wanted, but overall I was satisfied.

I also admit I can be lazy-- after all, I said I consigned in part to pass the work onto someone else. The point of consigning was not to give myself more work-- say, the work of setting up phony accounts, spending hours bidding, retracting bids and and following auctions. The point was I could be napping on the couch or sipping a Diet Coke in front of Gilligan's Island while work was being done.

And I admit I'm self centered enough to think I have more important things to do than wrapping packaging tape around boxes in my basement. We polymath supergeniuses think our time better spent solving the mysteries of the universe, writing the Great American Novel (the real one, not that hack Faulkner) and reinventing the wheel (I want something rounder).

"I didn't realize polymath supergeniuses watched Giligan's Island."
"Well now you know."
"And exactly how many polymath supergeniuses are there?"
"I heard there's another one in Estonia, but it's so far unconfirmed."

Reminds me of when someone asked Doctor Who what he was a doctor of, and he said "Most everything."

Or the HAL 9000-inpsired ship's computer on the classic BBC science fiction sit com Red Dwarf that said "My name is Holly and I have an iq of 6,000. That's the equivalent of 6,000 PE teachers." In another episode he said it was the equivalent of 6,000 car park attendants.

Scott,

Actually, I do avoid auctions that I think are crooked. However I make this assessment on an auction by auction basis; I do not personally subscribe to the belief that the big ebay consignment sellers like Brent are doing the shilling. I think the owners of the cards are doing the shilling. That's my opinion alone. Now what the sellers can do to combat it, and whether or not they are doing enough, that's a whole different discussion.

Now as to the inference you are drawing, that the statement about not beating oneself up trumps the statement about shilling being abhorrent, that is how you are choosing to read into what I wrote. The two statements, for me, are in perfect balance. I can think shilling is criminal activity, call it out and avoid it when I see it-- and at the same time I can refuse to lose sleep over it, refuse to obsess over it, and refuse to scour the bidding activity of every auction like some hypothetical power nerd. For me, it's about balance-- being aware and proactive without crossing over into obsessive crusading that ruins hobby enjoyment.

What about those of us who pay attention to the information about shilling but continue to bid what they think is fair in light of the available information?

Nobody ever said there were no tangible costs to shilling. I think it is plain that the people who are upset about shilling think they are paying too much for an item (not that there is artificial market inflation). This is where I think the roads begin to diverge - one camp that stamps its feet over shilling because they are convinced that they are overpaying for items; and the other camp that appreciates the information of the feet stampers but doesn't let it get to them because they don't feel like they paid more than they wanted to.

Finally, offering other market inflation methods doesn't justify shilling indifference, it shows that an emphasis on the perils of shilling may be overstated if the true concern is the purity of markets.

To me, it is not a different discussion - whether the seller is shilling, or he is just permitting his consignors to do it, it has the same result. Just as the seller can decide not to shill, the seller can also decide that he won't allow his consignors to shill, and there are plenty of ways to accomplish that. There has been plenty of evidence in similar threads to this, to support the claim that sellers are aware of shilling and are not doing enough, and also that it would be fairly simple for them to locate consignors who are shilling, and get rid of them. But that would bust their business model.

I agree with all of the above and it's exactly how I handle my own bidding. I read your previous statements to mean that you felt you had to either check the history of all ebay sellers, which was too much trouble, or just bid on any seller's items if it was stuff you wanted, even if you knew the seller was crooked. Quite frankly, I don't check the history of ANY ebay sellers - I would have no idea that large ebay sellers were shilling (or permitting shilling) if I didn't read about it here in this forum. As a result, I've avoided those sellers. So this forum has some good results when it comes to 'fighting crime'.

If you know that the seller or his consignors are shilling, then you are supporting theft.

FWIW - I sometimes still bid in their auctions, but when I do, I always set a very low snipe and almost never win.

removed my post - sounded like whining :)

Assuming the information is not skewed by shilling. But I get it. Similar to being familiar with those who are tough on the card grades and those who are more lenient, I take the source into account when bidding.

My apologies. I went back and re-read. I got hung up on the "The elimination of shilling just means higher BINs for everyone." statement, though the implication is that shilling doesn't "cost" as much as no shilling from that statement. (something I still disagree with) :)

Along with 50 shades of "stamping". ;)

Maybe and maybe not, and where we probably disagree. No problem there. Though I think a good "exercise left for the student" would be an analysis of BIN listing prices vs their actual sale prices as a comparison to auction style realized prices, and not just a "sold" price comparison.

If Net54baseball.com decides not to support a seller by prohibiting their banner advertisements, then I will follow suit and not participate in their auctions.*

* Does not apply to signed T206 auctions! :D

Definitely. Maybe we can hire a few unpaid interns to do that. Totally worthwhile exercise!

I wouldn't recommend letting a for-profit business do your thinking for you.

I'm okay with Net54Baseball.com's stance on these issues. I assume you're here because you agree, too. Otherwise you're supporting their corporate sponsors - think of the click through rates on this thread alone!

Re: baseball cards v. art (paintings)

To me baseball cards are art, the same as an oil painting. However, they are considered a lower form of art. I am surprised that so many people talked about the two as mutually exclusive.

That's a good point.

On the other hand, this site allows criticism of the advertisers and much of the complaints, critiques and information comes from this site. If it didn't allow discussion of the topics due to advertisers, then I think boycotting and disgust would be appropriate. I would chose not to participate. But Leon allows free discussion of advertisers(within reasonable parameters, including posters have to identify themselves when accusing).

The CU board, of course, does things differently than over here :) But then, as far as I know, PSA has also never publicly said the PSA9 T206 Honus Wagner was trimmed even after the trimmer himself pleaded guilty to it in court. But I'm a reasonable guy and will give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I missed it and they have admitted it was trimmed. Or perhaps they intended to but were distracted by a shiny object on the ground and forgot. After all, show me a tinfoil pinwheel or some rainbow sparkle and I'll forget the whole world around me including what is my middle name.

There are no pinwheels or sparkle nearby, so, for the record, I can post that my middle name is Ned. Please write that down in case I later forget.

I'm ethical but easily distracted. If it weren't for my movie star looks and exquisite fashion sense, I wouldn't survive in this world.

T206collector, you are making a huge unfounded assumption. I am here because I like discussing vintage baseball and it's the best place to do it.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

I would not boycott net54 because I disagreed with a few of their business decisions, nor would I put you on ignore because you have opinions I disagree with. I will not; however, bid on stuff offered by shillers or those who allow it.

The rationalization that goes on here, to justify 'getting neat stuff' is truly mind-boggling.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Truly. But not surprising.

I find a "holier-than-thou" vibe as troubling as shilling ;)

Not as troubling as a self-satisfied, too cool for school vibe. :)

Depends on who you ask.

I had no intention of asking you, Todd. :)

Wise man--usually I would just say wise guy :)

Nice deflection.

I have nothing to deflect.

Why can't we all just get along?

This is really a non-productive discussion. I get it that some of you feel that it's fine to bid on shilled auctions. I won't continue trying to convince you not to, but please do not try to convince the rest of us that supporting such auctions is something that we should do. It's reminding me of the kid in the candy store who tries to convince the other kids that it's okay to steal because you can get away with it and no one will notice. It's true for shilled auctions as well, so I can't argue with such logic.

You guys knock yourself out with this - I've got better things to do.

I don't care about right and wrong, I just want to do what's best for ME.

At first I thought you were being sarcastic, even without the appropriate emoticon. But then I see that this is consistent with what you said two years ago:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=hidden

Enlightened self-interest?

:D

Todd good cross my friend!! Seriously, my thinking definitely has evolved and I have no trouble admitting that. A couple of years ago I was troubled mostly by card doctoring and, perhaps naively, assumed shill bidding was confined to a few of the big name auction houses. I still am, of course, troubled by card doctoring. And continue to think it's the bigger issue. But as the evidence of suspicious auction after suspicious auction of certain ebay sellers has mounted, it has troubled and pissed me off increasingly, and I decided I just wouldn't bid in certain auctions any more because I did not want to support them, however trivial an impact that has.

Fair enough, but I think I liked the old Peter_Spaeth better. :)

The question I would have for you is this.

WHY do you think your bid is a fair one?

If you assume there's been no market manipulation - shilling or otherwise- then you're operating outside of what most collectors in any field do.

For most collectibles there are pricing resources. I've been involved in a few hobbies where there is or was little to no readily available pricing information. (Films, the racing bikes, and to some degree cards before 1979-80. ) Under that condition, hobbyists are free to assign value based on their own opinion and budget. Having tastes outside the average means that's usually worked well for me. The stuff I like is often ignored by most collectors and is comparatively cheap. The cycling jersey I mentioned in an earlier post was worn in the 48 Olympics, and was a whole lot less expensive than any game worn baseball item from the same era. (Yeah, probably including uniform pants)

But those are small hobbies. Most collectors need a price guide of some sort.
And that's where a popular hobby can have problems.

If the price guide uses actual reported sales, it's very prone to manipulation. If it doesn't use actual sales then it IS the manipulation. Sometimes not by much, sometimes more seriously. There have been lots of guides that showed higher prices for stuff the writer had and lower prices for items they wanted but didn't have.

So is your hypothetical $100 card a $100 card because you personally place that value on it regardless of previous sales?
Or is it a $100 card because the last 10 sales averaged $100 or over?

If it's the latter, how is it you can't see the problem caused by price manipulation?
If it's the former, a tip of the cap to you!


My pricing method is fairly complex, sometimes I'll decide what to bid or what I want to pay based on previous sales. Sometimes I believe an item is worth more to me than the typical sale price - often tempered by budget. It's more my impression of whether an item is currently over or undervalued. I go more by price guides in hobbies where the prices are typically stable, more by instinct in hobbies where there's no guide or for items I think are special.

My general feeling is that the big consignors don't shill themselves. But also don't make a major effort to eliminate those who do or appear to.
In any business I think there's a point where certain things are tolerated. It's not right, but that's the way it is.
For instance a business could make a major effort to stop shoplifting. It's conceivable that they could stop nearly all of it. But to do that they would have to make the shopping experience inconvenient at best, or Invasive and borderline illegal at the worst. So they make just enough effort to reduce their losses to an acceptable level without driving customers away.

I've seen the opposite effect. At a rural fair they have the usual vendors. One year a guy from NYC decided to setup his tool sales booth. Which included heavy side curtains on the awning that were staked into the ground. Then double row of snow fencing, a chrome railing like fence and metal detectors. He was incredibly unpopular. Around noon, he started making loud comments about the cheapness of the fairgoers who weren't buying his stuff. Most didn't even bother entering the booth. When he started packing up shortly after, and swearing at pretty much anyone walking by he drew the attention of a few of the local farm workers. Fortunately one of the local cops defused the situation before it reached the brawl level. (Some stuff was thrown, and some threats made by both sides, which was let slide. ) When things calmed down some of the old guys took him aside and explained that his entire setup was insulting. he explained that in his usual flea market if he didn't have the fence and metal detectors he probably wouldn't have a truck left to drive home, let alone any of his inventory.

There's some lesson in there about balance, and balance in different situations, but it's late and I'm rambling.

Steve B

I haven't been on the site for a few days, so I just saw this thread for the first time.

I'm WAY to lazy to read thru it, so apologies if others have posted similar thoughts to mine :

I bid the most that I am willing to pay for an item to get it into my collection.

I don't care what it's sold for in the past.

I don't care what it's "worth".

I have been know to send offers for less than 10% of the asking price. With a polite note. Sometimes they are accepted. Sometimes they are not.

I collect a lot of stuff that few others want, that tends to keep my costs down, although the lovely wife might disagree.

As far as shilling of items that I bid on is concerned, I would prefer that it didn't happen, and I am sure that it has at times cost me money. But, there isn't really anything that I can do to stop it, especially since ebay tacitly encourages it.

Doug

Well quite a thread to read through and all I have to say is being honest cost me money for no reason since obviously some people just like to be screwed.

But seriously one thing that could reduce the shilling is if eBay would remove all the bids made by a buyer who retracted is last bid and bring the price down to where it should be in the first place, but why would they.

I went over 8 months without bidding on any auctions from the 2 big ebay dealers that seem to condone shill bidding. This was 100% a result of what I learned from reading threads like this. Thank you all for outing fraud in our hobby.

I would see so many awesome cards up for auction and I would pass on them. So many cards sold for less than I was willing to pay, but it felt good to know I was standing on my principles and not supporting this behavior.

I fell off the wagon a few days ago. Fired about 10 snipes at cards that I liked and won 1. The card came in the mail today. I love the card, but I actually feel guilty like I did something wrong. Maybe you folks can tell me I did do something wrong and continue pointing out fraud with threads like this so hopefully, I wont fall off the wagon again.

tacitly
 

And a mighty fine use of the word it was Doug :)

It is amazing to me how many people can't stop themselves from bidding on items that are being sold by sellers who are known to allow shilling and/or shill. And the excuse is that they can't personally stop the shilling. Not picking on you, Doug, as I realize that probably 1/2 to 2/3 of our forum members can't keep from pressing the bid button in such situations, and freely admit it.

Not sure why I re-visited this thread, but I didn't read any of the new posts until I saw your name, and since you have bought stuff from me in the past, and I respect your opinion, so I was curious what your thoughts were on the type of sellers described in this thread.

What's more amazing by far is the amount of purportedly educated people who are convinced that fraud in our hobby isn't a big deal and that they can control it. Of course, I'd like to be there when they sell their collections and get pennies on the dollar for their cards.

I have bought cards from PWCC and Probstein over the years...but not since all of this nonsense has come out. I often will see cards on ebay...click the link and see they are one of these two and I move on.

If one of them had a card I had to have...I'd bid accordingly...I may even overbid but that's my prerogative.

At least you have rules that you go by most of the time, and don't make excuses. We all bend our self-imposed rules every now and then.

Nah, Ullman is weak. :D:D

...

you guys are right...I AM weak! and if I were going to cleveland I would be drinking...but it doesn't look like theres going to be a net54 dinner...regardless...I will be drinking at the paul mccartney concert here in the twin cities that weekend.

I will miss you all dearly!

...

In my opinion, contributing to the profits of a company you know is acting highly unethically and breaking the law is by definition being unethical. You can tell me reasons why you do it-- and some of those reasons may contain logic and sense and I can see your practical card collecting point of view--, but those are reasons for why you are acting unethically, not reasons for why it not unethical.

And I don't want to hear theoretical comparisons of buying baseball cards to procuring bread and eggs for your starving family from an ethically challenged food industry, because we're talking about baseball cards here, something you don't have to buy. And, besides, perhaps your food buying habits should be more influenced by ethics than it is.

And pointing out that others act unethically is neither here nor there. If you and 501 others act unethically then you and 501 others act unethically. If half of collectors act unethically and the only way you can win a card is to also act unethically, then half of collectors act unethically and the only way you can win a card is to also act unethically. I understand the reasoning, but didn't see the word "ethically" once in that last sentence.

That's the way I see it. After reading the posts in the thread I certainly don't expect that everyone will agree with me.

...

David, Do you mean by allowing certain sellers to advertise here or by buying from them, or both. BTW I think I agree with you.:)