Curious if Peter and Ron would fess up to anyother sketchy situations that they were involved with?

Curious as to what people would think of this hypothetical situation, if it were possible for it to happen....

Two friends (A and B) both are interested in an item that doesn't pop up often, but typically would sell for around $500. But since it doesn't come up for sale often, both are willing to pay $1,000+.

In talking, they both realize they are likely going to bid each other up on the item, so they come to an agreement to have Friend B stay away from bidding on this item and let A get it for ~$500, and B will be able to get the next one that comes available for ~$500.

Is this scenario wrong? Seems like the buyer's version of shilling - wouldn't be illegal but is it ethical?

I have no problem with this. There was no price manipulation and the item sold for what it typically would bring. There's nothing unethical about not bidding.

Reading this thread with interest. I feel for those who were taken advantage of.

Those cabinets were auctioned individually and as a whole with the break-up total of $73,010 receiving a higher total than the whole. I remember watching that one with interest, some absolutely great NY cabinets within.

Just a thread count update
 

So this thread is now #7 all time in number of replies and #9 all time in number of views. I feel like I did when Bonds was chasing Aaron...

I'm predicting that it lands at #2 on both lists by the middle of next week.

Frank, the "What's Your Monster Number?" thread is safe...for now! :D

This to me is the heart of the "crime" of shilling in several of these Mastro lots.

Not holding the shill bidder responsible for paying for the lot, rather just the buyer's premium, truly removes most of the risk of this practice. If the shill bidders had to pay for the lot as well, I am sure there would have been a lot less of it.

While it is publicly described in this instance, I assume it was common practice for numerous other lots as well. Mastro colludes with a consignor allowing them to have a friend bid up the cards and they wont be held responsible for the final price, just the buyer's premium...extremely bad ethics and once again provides the market with completely inaccurate data and not only inflated prices, but in reality, not even prices paid at all.

Rob G$theil

Don't know if this is exactly true. As in the Peter case, if I bid the minimum, a "protector" of the lot would outbid me. So a little later, I'll try to bid one higher, and be in the lead, only to have them respond. So I guess the only sure-fire way to not be shilled is to only place the opening bid, and if you don't win, walk away.

Hi Scooter. You pose an interesting question. Please know that my answer is not an attack, snarky response, or anything of the sort. I am just joining in the conversation.

As it pertains to the scenario above, wouldn't this be an example of bidder collusion? I very well could be mistaken; however, think the practice actually is illegal. At the very least, it artificially suppresses the price of the item. It could likely also be argued that the consignor suffered economic harm because of the bidders' agreement.

For the purpose of full disclosure, I never participated in Mastro auctions.

Best regards to all. Happy collecting.

Eric in theory you are right, buyers cannot lawfully collude to suppress price any more than sellers can collude to inflate it. Basic antitrust law. Of course, as a practical matter, it's going to be viewed as less important than seller price-fixing.

And almost impossible to prove, since they're not going to discuss their lack of additional bids with anyone else, including the auctionhouse...