David Carradine passed on in 2009 under unfortunate circumstances. Was Shill Bill his last movie?

Actually it was Shill Bill 2

Were you not one of the people less than an hour ago who was critical of this going OT and posted this?
Here is the thread to have fun with the word shill. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=217493

Fact remains only 4 people whose names are on the list posted here with an explanation. There are many others on the list who are members here and or advertisers who have been silent and just hoping this goes away.

I'm amazed at how little attention on this thread has been directed at the list itself and its implications. I would think there would have been more discussion about:

1) Just how widespread shill bidding seems to have been by consignors. Name after name, many of them well-known, who appear to have had shill bidders driving up the prices of their items, resulting in substantial losses for the winning bidders, the list of whom reads like a who's who of the hobby. This raises several questions, including whether they were doing this in cahoots with Mastro to make sure they never had to actually buy back their own items or at least with a waiver of the buyer's premium if they did. Also, just how widespread was this strategy by major consignors in other auctions? If the practice was as routine as the Mastro list would suggest, losses to auction winners caused by shill bidding over the years undoubtedly totals many millions of dollars. And what are the legal and ethical implications for these consignors and their shills? Are there any, or will they continue to be able to pursue this strategy of inflating the proceeds from their items without any recourse or increased scrutiny?
2) The conspicuous silence, with the notable exception of Kevin Keating, from any of the many notable hobby figures who have been outed as either participating consignors or their shill bidders. Surely, word has gotten around by now of the publication on Net54 of the list. Where are the full-throated defenses, or even just attempts at explanation, from those whose reputations have been brought into question by their appearance on it? Instead, crickets.
3) Similarly, where are the other auction houses, coming on to assure us that the practices outlined in Exhibit E, resulting in losses for bidders in the hundreds of thousands from just the few auctions uncovered, has not happened and could never happen to the winners in their auctions? Seems to me there's a lot at stake for them as to how collectors and dealers perceive the degree of fairness of participating in their auctions. Again, crickets.

These are just a few of the questions the publication of this information brings to mind. Maybe it's just too much to absorb all at once, and I'm also not sure how much can be done to try to assure a more equitable playing field for us beleaguered collectors from here on, but at the least it should be worthy of continued discussion. We should be able to do better than just lumping the business and ethical side of the hobby in with the worst practices of lawyers and insurance companies and heaving a collective sigh of "what are you gonna do?"

In my opinion the ones on the list that haven't responded are just waiting for things to die down and then the posts run there coarse and then they won't have to talk about it. Think about it if the posts on here stop in the next few days or weeks do you think they are going to get on here and start one up talking about themselves and take a bunch of abuse. Not likley

Hank, I think part of the problem is that the shill may be a shill or a victim of phantom bidding or someone who is listed because of a Mastro rule violation that was not the fault of the bidder [as Kevin K. seems to be]. Unless/until the people involved step up and explain which it was, there is some speculation involved, which is where the creeps are happy to leave it. What's the Nixonism, plausible deniability? However, the longer previously active board members go without addressing the allegations against them, the stinkier the mess becomes IMO.

Kevin: I appreciate the clarity of your responses. If it was me, I would see if I could get something in writing from the FBI or prosecution, just to be clear forever. I hope others learn from your example and are straightforward and unequivocal when attempting to set the record straight.

Fred: I've had two of those cases: one the carrier paid the wrong person and one denied because the dead guy's name had been legally changed and not entirely updated in the insurer's records despite 20 years of premiums paid in the new name. Both ended up paying after a fight.

Amen! There are only a few AH's that I trust since all this *poop* hit the fan, but it sure would be nice if, as a consignor, my AH of choice came on here and said exactly that! I don't want potential bidders and hobbyists to be turned off by all the negativity and fearing that they will be shilled in a perfectly legitimate auction. Why the silence from all the big players? It's in your best interest to come on here and set things straight, whether you're on the list or not!

My guess is that most think that Al's (LOTG), Ryan's (Cubanbaseball), and Rhys's (RMY) auction houses don't have shill-bidding issues - I'm deducing this based on my experience with each and because at least Rhys and Ryan have come on here to chime in - but wouldn't it behoove you (and the bigger players) to come on here and flat out tell it like it is?

I suppose we won't hear from any/all because if there's a chance that someone is shilling their auctions that they don't know about, there could be hell to pay and possible lawsuits in their future. But it sure would be nice to know that someone out there cares and is willing to stick their neck out and say, "here I am...look what I'm doing to prevent shilling from happening in my auctions and no, I have never shilled or allowed shilling to take place in my auctions!" Simple.

Another plausible explanation why they haven't addressed could be that some of them don't care.

Or could be that shilling, as we define it here to include the house bidding against the public, is at least partially allowable in Texas, where Heritage HQ is located. Their rules say right up front that the house can bid on stuff, as Chris Ivy stated in a 2009 interview:

"Heritage, and its affiliates, in addition to being the largest collectibles auctioneer in the world, is also one of the largest collectibles dealers (i.e., buyers and sellers) in the world," Ivy explained. "Heritage Auction Galleries is almost unique in that regard within the fine art field, as most fine art auction houses aren’t dealers, don’t have dealer affiliates, and thus don’t bid in their own auctions. Most coin and many collectibles auction firms, however, do bid in their own auctions. The fact that we bid in our own sales is fully disclosed online and in our auction catalogs. We state: ‘The Auctioneer or its affiliates may consign items to be sold in the Auction, and may bid on those lots or any other lots.’ Even if we didn’t fully disclose it – which we do – it would be perfectly legal for an auction house or its affiliates to bid in their own auctions so long as the bid is made with the intention of buying the item.’

"Frankly, it wouldn’t be fair to our consignors for us not to bid in our own auction the same amount we would gladly pay for the same item in a competitor’s auction," Ivy observed.

- See more at: http://www.tuffstuff.com/news/herita....p7VVPAqw.dpuf

If Heritage bids on and wins a lot. Who do they pay the 20% buyer premium to?
It seems the rest of us may be at a 20% disadvantage....among other problems.