I find some of the information Jeff has posted disturbing to say the least. However, my experiences with Goodwin have all been pretty good (except for that time where they forgot to mail me the card I won for quite some time -- that got fixed pretty quickly after I called though). I can only remember placing two "toppling" bids, one of which I won under my max and one of which I lost. The other times I won (and I have certainly lost some as well), I did so the old fashioned way -- I stayed up and bid again when someone outbid me on a card I really wanted. I guess that could have been a friend of the consignor bidding me up, but I certainly wouldn't allege that because I have no basis upon which to make that type of accusation.

BTW, I don't have a dog in this fight in terms of being a consignor. I have never consigned even one of my cards to Goodwin, Mastro . . . er Legendary, REA, Mile High, or anyone else. My card buying habits are akin to the proverbial black hole. Once I suck them in, they never go back out. Unless a catastrophe occurs or I die (in which case I suspect that my wife will happily clear out all those pieces of cardboard that obstruct her ability to have her clothes fill up every closet in our house), my cards will remain in my safes and safe deposit boxes and I will continue to buy, not sell.

While my anecdotal experience with Goodwin does not by any means prove or disprove any of the allegations that have been made in this post, it is also circumstantial evidence. Fair is fair, and if the suspicious auction results are going to be focused on, so should those results which seem to be on the up and up. My two cents.

Kenny Cole

Kenny of course most of the auction results are within reason but with due respect that isn't the point. IF, and I say if because I don't know, even one auction was shilled, or a sale reported that didn't occur (see Corey's post on the potential harm that can cause), that would be wrong. So even a small subset of prices that seem dramatically out of line (and quite a few have been posted and these are just examples from what I have observed), or cards for sale after they supposedly were auctioned, or cards that seem to be recycled through auctions, that in my always humble opinion is worthy of being discussed. And that is all it is, a discussion, not a trial or a witchhunt.

If the threshold for being allowed to discuss the potential that wrongdoing has occurred is "proof," one could almost never discuss such things on a forum like this. I am sure there are many people here who would prefer it that way. But I think it's a legitimate discussion.

Peter has cited something which seems so obvious about this entire discussion. Nobody is suggesting in any way that all lots in any auction are shilled. Even Mastro Auctions, which was clearly involved in shilling, perhaps manipulated 5% of any given auction (this number is a guess). Only certain lots in any auction will be targeted, such as:

1) lots with high ceiling bids
2) lots bid on by certain collectors who the auction house know well, and also know will keep bidding to any level until they get the lot. Those kind of bidders have been targeted and shilled for a very long time; it is not a recent phenomenon.
3) lots that appear to be going too cheaply and the auction house will gladly buy them at those levels.
4) lots that may have secret reserves.

So in any scenario, even the most egregious, we are only talking about a small number of targeted lots. Posters have come on this thread stating they consigned three lots and got paid, or left a ceiling bid and won a lot for less than their max. That is fine, but the fact is those posters are entirely missing the point of this discussion.

I have no idea what goes on in a Goodwin Auction, I have never participated. But to turn a blind eye to some of the outrageous results appears shortsighted.

It seems like the auctions in question total around $20K in abnormal sales on the high side. If the house cut is 30%, why would they mess around risking their reputation over $6K?

jeff,I have a psa 9 from Sussor you can have for $455! How's that!
 

This beautiful 62 Topps leader card~!;)

Late weigh in.
I consigned the S81 Speaker (Lot 41) in Bill's auction just ended.
I expected it to fetch somewhere in the $5k - $6k range before the vig.
I will say I was disappointed with the results achieved and, by inference, would suggest there was no shilling or hidden reserve going on. And to satisfy Jeff's healthy auditor's skepticism, I did not, repeat did NOT bid on my own lot.
The market dictated the value.
Based on this and my previous transactions with Bill, I will step up and say he runs an fair auction.
Thanks for reading.
Bob

We really need some of those consignors who have those 1967 PSA 8 commons which sell for 5K to speak up.

And are consignors permitted to bid on their own lots in Goodwin's auction?

It is very reassuring to hear that Lot 41 was legit.

One thing not to lose track of in these discussions is that anyone can bid on their own items in any auction--all they need is a friend or family member to set up a separate account. So the consternation over the dreaded specter of consignor bidding is really a waste of energy since there is nothing an auctioneer can do to detect or prevent it if a consignor has half a brain and is intent on doing it.

If a consignor wins his own card does the consignor have to pay the buyer's premium? That is, if a consignor can bid in the first place.

Our software prevents any consignor from bidding on their own items.

Peter -- the answer is yes, the consignor has to pay the buyer's premium (and any other applicable commissions) if they win their own card, assuming they can bid in the first place. (And if they can't, as Exhibitman said, a surrogate can do it for them.) However they may still come out ahead if, say, they have to eat the BP on 2 lots but can successfully shill 3 others into the stratosphere.