Kudos to that. :):) I don't know Leon, never meet him. But have some big time respect for how he runs this board. Makes the other forums look like a bunch of amateurs.

There's lots more coming on this, and it will turn much, but not all, of what's been said here on its head. Stay tuned.

Quoted for future reference.

:eek:

Oh shillt!

Shilling just 1 of many problems in Houses
 

Ron makes a very valid point in that shilling is not the only problem area with auction houses. He addresses "outright fakes and misrepresentation items" in which I would agree that this is actually worse than shilling. For example if I was a Art Auction house and was offering a Monet original art piece and I knew the piece was a forgery, is that not worse than fake bidding it up?

As I say, if you identify a seller doing one deceptive thing, they are more than probably doing other deceptive things. The sole motive of scammers is to maximize profits.

When you identify a seller doing something highly unethical or highly deceptive you can't knowingly identify all the unethical and deceptive (and perhaps illegal) methods they are using, you just know they are an unethical or deceptive seller. And that should be enough.

That's why I roll my eyes when people on Net54 in effect say "I know this eBay seller is selling items he knows are fake and that he may have made himself, but other items look good and I'm going to bid on those." I think "With all the good sellers out there, why they Hell are you choosing to buy from a seller who you know is trying to scam buyers? . . . And are you then going to come back to this board and complain that the item you bought from him was fake, altered or his his shipping rates were too high or that he may have shilled you or the description turned out not to be entirely accurate? Are you going to say 'I knew he was forger, but how was I supposed to know he'd lie about the provenance and use deceptive pictures?'"

drcy-----GREAT POINT

hard to argue this.

especially when the cu admin posts this:

"Hi all,

Perhaps as a non-IT person, I may not be explaining it correctly, but I assure you that I'm not trying to stall or place blame elsewhere.

That said - we are a grading company first and foremost. This means our resources will be directed to our grading/internal systems first.

I am not saying that the forums aren't important, but they do have to fall in line in the long list of priorities.

As I've said, we do appreciate your patience. I got word from our IT group that they were able to figure out the line break issue at least and it appears to be working.

There is a long list of issues we're trying to tackle and they will be addressed in due time.

-Forum Admin"



edit to add:


"i'm not trying to pass blame"

ahh. yea ya did. you blamed it on fusetalk and that you were waiting on them.



several months after the "upgrade" and member gets fed up. emails fusetalk himself. posts this:

"I asked FuseTalk and got this reply:

You may want to speak with your forum administrator and advise them of the issues - Collectors is responsible for the functionality of their installation. "



"i assure you, i'm not trying to stall"

ahh. yea ya did. that's exactly what ya did. not only that, you attempted to pass the buck and claim it was fusetalk's responsibility.



then today: "i am not saying that the forums aren't important..."

that's exactly what you are saying. but thanks for the months of misdirection and (using this next word as politely as possible), disinformation. gee thanks.



.

It would be naive to expect a company chatboard to allow unfettered criticism of the company and its products. Though that's why you shouldn't go to a company's message boards and press releases to get unfettered and objective information.

The hobby has been taught lessons about journalism lately.

I agree with those who would commend Leon for allowing this and other controversial threads to run their course.

The most remarkable aspect of the court filing, in my view, is the sheer pervasiveness of shill bidding during the period covered. One can only assume that Mastro engaged in similar conduct through much if not all of its existence. Jeff L should be commended for calling out Mastro officials long ago.

Query whether similar conduct was engaged in by other auction houses as I assume some of the same consignors and shillers did not limit their business to Mastro auctions?

In any event, going forward, it seems to me that the auction houses would be prudent to engage in some form of self-regulation. Assuming they don't, I think there is still a pretty good chance that the Mastro prosecutions will put the fear of God in all but the most brazen fraudsters.