It's Closing Night of a Great Vintage Auction
 

And you have your eye on a few things you really want. You know a few other collector-friends that go after the same stuff. Do you discuss it with them?

-
If it is a collector friend where our interests overlap we probably have discussed it prior to the close of auction and decided who would go after it and who would lay off. We usually take turns on who gets the hammer, you get this one this time and I'll get the next one next time. One of the best parts of the hobby is helping each other with our collections.

Nothing worse than two friends running each other up if it can be avoided.
-

I think it is safe to discuss auctions with anyone. Nothing (IMO) gets by any collector these days.

Typically yes, it avoids us running each other up for no beneficial reason. Typically there are some items each may be going "all out" for and those we all agree to let the other have it, then there are some items we all want but aren't in win-at-all-costs mode. It is more beneficial than hurtful 100% of the time. In a very small number of instances where 2 people equally want something then it's good ole fashioned who's willing to pay what mode and thats just fair market.

Buyer collusion technically is unlawful.

Then No, I never do.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

:D

Driving 56mph in a 55mph zone in unlawful too.

.

Glad you said it, I was biting my tongue. :)

Of course it's not the intent of the law to penalize a couple of buddies, but it has been prosecuted and recently when it is a true matter of collusion intended to depress the bidding artificially.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nine-...osure-auctions

and there are others.

Is it really collusion though?

For example, if I know that my buddy absolutely has to have something to complete his collection. It's an obscure item, and there aren't many other bidders. For the sake of argument, it's something that I am mildly interested in acquiring, but not really willing to spend very much. I know that my buddy is going to be willing to go nuts to get it, far more than I ever will.

Would it really rise to collusion if I decide to sit that item out?

Let's assume for a moment that all of this goes on without us actually discussing this item specifically, simply because I know my buddy and his collection, and because we're such good friends that I'm not going to be that guy.

So is smoothing out a crease on a card. Wait, no it's actually not. The hypocrisy of what ethics people here choose to embrace is...errrrr...something.



.

Conversely, am I colluding with the seller to increase the price when I tell my buddy that a card he wants for his collection is available at XYZ auction house that he is not aware of?

Structurally it's the same thing as bid rigging. Of course it's de minimus in this case, but still not the best look ethically either IMO. And people who think it's cool might feel differently if it was on a pricey card THEY had consigned.

Of course not. There's no agreement between potential competitors in that case.

If it is fine to run fake auctions for items the auction house doesn't even have control of anymore then I can decide not to run up the price on a card I know a friend wants more and will mean more to than it will to me.


I mean, I use this hobby-approved path

A) If item is being sold by a corporation people with a vested interest in prices escalating like, even if that corporation is run by convicted fraudsters or people with long histories of ethically dubious conduct, anything is fine.

If condition A is not met, then proceed with:

1) If it increases card values and is legal and ethical = it is fine
2) If it increases card values and is unethical = it is fine
3) If it increases card values and is unethical and also illegal = it is fine
4) If it decreases card values and is legal and ethical = it is debatable
5) If it decreases card values and is unethical = it is not okay
6) If it decreases card values and is unethical and also illegal = it is not okay

Thanks Greg!

I've been waiting for just such a handy decision tree to help me to navigate these sticky situations.

I'm not sure I understand the ethical argument here, technically yes, talking to any other person about a listing would be considered collusion.

In reality, it happens more like this.

"Hey, did you see that E-card in XYZ auction?"

"I did, are you interested in it? I know we both collect cards like that."

"Yes, I'd probably be at 2K on it, I have my eye on that T-card in the same auction so that would be my priority".

"I'd probably go 2.5K since I need it for my collection."

"Okay, good luck, I hope you get it."

And the results are usually my buddy overpaying for the E-card and me overpaying for the T-card since there are always other bidders involved, and more often than not neither one of us wins.

Now I could see if all of the potential bidders got together and chose one guy to win like Scott's example link, that would definitely qualify has collusion.

If you think there's no chance of influencing the outcome why are you even having the conversation?

Closing night? If they're not already in at that point, nah.

Early on, shared many times. "Hey, ____ have some ____ if you haven't checked it out."

I'm not afraid of missing out. The longer I have to search for things, the longer the hobby keeps me from creating a new (and therefore expensive) hobby focus.

I don't tell others about auctions. As someone else pointed out, most auctions are so known, anyway. People are bound to see what they see.

I employ an easier approach with auctions. I refuse to stay up until the wee hours; it's just memorabilia. I'll plug in my highest bid and go to bed. Bidding enough with the various companies in this fashion also usually makes it easy to discern which AHs aren't running me up. There was one infamous AH we all know very well who got themselves into trouble for such antics. I knew full well that my max bid would ALWAYS be what I paid if I won. Always. But my philosophy to bidding is to view it as just paying my top price and being OK with that. If I get it for my max bid, I'm good with that; anything less is just icing on the cake. There's been a time or two where my max bid was huge as compared to where it stood where I went to bed for the night. Imagine my surprise at winning the pieces for almost nothing. Kudos to those AHs.

We've already established the outcome regarding the two of us, either he is willing to pay more than me or he isn't. That would have no material effect on the ultimate sales price the seller receives.

Am I the only one who has hobby conversations with friends like this?

Because I certainly don't feel like some criminal mastermind who is having any effect on the outcome of prices except when I do win I usually have to overpay for the honor of adding a card to my meager collection on a limited budget.

If your friend bids $2,500 and you were willing to pay $2,000 but don’t bid, and it sells for $1,500, your decision cost the seller $500. That’s how it could cost the seller.

The real crime is not a collusive conspiracy but the chance that this could lower a price. Can’t have anything happen, regardless of tiny insignificance, that goes against investors profiting

694. Circumbenevolent
Showing kindness toward a like-minded fellow collector by purposely not bidding in an auction he’s keen on winning, to avoid unnecessarily running up the price in a bidding war and affecting his chance of carrying the day.

See also: Collegial Collusion - a more cynical term for this type of regular occurrence.

See also: Bro-Codependency - the unwritten courtesy of stepping aside, because you know if the roles were reversed, your collecting buddy would do the same for you.

Except my friend and I are communicating on auction night, the card wouldn't sell for 1500 because I would jump in up to 2000, now if my friend wanted to bid 2100 then I'm out. Also, auction nights are very organic and multiple things affect prices night of. Perhaps I overpay on my T-card and can't afford to bid 2k on the E-card, in that case the Seller isn't going to get my 2k bid, or maybe I'm in low on the T-card and am willing to go 2500 on the E-card, then I'll have that discussion with my friend at the time. Or maybe the seller is listing an obscure set that only six guys collect and he or the AH decided to flood the market that night. I guarantee the only people happy when that happens are the 6 guys who collect those cards.

A lot can happen night of, I've sold lots of cards at auction and been very happy with the results, some good some bad but that's how auctions work. I've also had miscommunication with fellow hobbyists which can be awkward but you try to make the best of those situations.

Also the seller can put a floor bid in if he wants a minimum.

Maybe I'm living in a parallel universe here, do you guys never discuss auctions with each other?

Maybe I'm the outlier but that just seems strange to me, half the fun of this hobby is making friends, discussing cards, and the anticipation of adding to our collections. I can't imagine sitting isolated in a self imposed cubicle with head phones on for 3 weeks because I can't discuss cards in auction with hobby friends.

IMHO if that's the case, you're doing it wrong, or maybe I am, but I guarantee I'm having more enjoyment of our hobby.

I said in post 15 I talk about them and “yes” is the majority vote in the poll right now.

Then why in post 2 were you saying how bad it was for friends to bid against each other, if now you're saying it wouldn't matter?

As you put it, Nothing worse than two friends running each other up if it can be avoided.

Quite frankly I wouldn't want to cost my hobby friends one penny more than the already outrageous prices we are paying for little pictures of men on cardboard.

So if there's an item that you and I like but you want it more I'm going to stand aside out of respect for our friendship, unless I want it more than you and am willing to pay the freight.

You call it collusion, I get that your lawyer brain is kicking in, but I don't see it that way. I've been on the other side and enjoyed auction night where a rare card I owned went for dirt cheap and congratulated the winner in my mind. I've also had cards sell for more than I ever expected and thought how lucky I was that two drunk guys had a bidding war late at night. To me that's the fun of our hobby. Yes, this stuff is expensive but at the end of the day, to me, it's just a vehicle to meet some pretty awesome people and have some fun putting collections together.

This is a contradiction to your claim in 24 that you do NOT mean this and that you WOULD bid.

Yes, I completely reserve the right to change my mind on auction night while I'm comunicating with my auction friends.
I'm curious what your protocol is on auction night with your friends. No judgement, everybody does it different, I just thought more folks did it like me but maybe I'm mistaken.

My lawyer brain is only kicking in because you changed your tune from it's a good thing and bidding against a friend is the worst thing in the world to it has no consequence, after it was pointed out it could be considered problematic. Anyhow, in the scheme of things it's a blip. Carry on.

As I said in 15 and 25, I talk about them. As I said in 25, "Yes" is a majority in the poll right now. You do not have a minority view.

I am saying you are clearly contradicting yourself and not being honest in one of the directly contradictory claims. If a friend wants a card more than I do I'll just let them have it and not bid, but don't claim directly opposite things to refute different people's arguments.

Not at all, I wouldn't want to run you up out of respect for our relationship, if, on auction night with all the extenuating circumstances that happen on auction nights and I communicated with you that I was going higher I would expect the same respect.

I have to admit I'm a little befuddled here, what this thread has taught me is to be grateful for the hobby friends that I enjoy interacting with.

Okay, but what do you do if you and your friend want the same card? How does that conversation go?

How do you think the consignor would view it, if two friends deciding which one should bid out of "respect" kept his realized price down?

Like I said previously, I've been that consignor and have been happy someone got a good deal.

Do you buy at auction?

Sometimes, but not as often as most people here I don't think. I generally don't trust them with certain exceptions.

You and I have more in common than not but if my behavior constitutes collusion then Al, Scott, Lee, etc can look up my Consignment/purchase and ban me if they think my "collusion" had any bearing on results.

Let me give you a realistic scenario though. Suppose auction house X has 4 cards up for auction from the same set that the top two registry guys need and would kill for. These two guys are going to go much higher than anyone else. Suppose they get together and decide, rather than killing each other, you take two, I'll take two, and we won't bid on the other two. Legit?

100 percent legit. Do you think the seller won't be happy with the results?
After all these guys are registry whores and will pay 100k for a 1969 Jackson 10.

But the whole point is they won't have to pay it if their principal competitor is not participating. Do you not see that? My example is absolutely collusion/price fixing. It has cost the consignor, almost certainly, huge amounts of money.

I'll give you an example from my world..
Johnny Evers Red Croft back in a 6.

Everybody on this sub knows DJ is making a Red Crofts run, I would love to add a Red Crofts back to my collection.

Ryan consigned his to an AH and that gave DJ an opportunity to add to his run.
Now I've only interacted with DJ a few times but I laid off that card because it belongs in his collection. I never contacted him but in my mind it was the right thing to do and I'm happy he got the card.

Was Ryan happy with the results , don't know you'd have to ask him.

Did I collude with DJ or did I stand down for a fellow Net54 collector who I respect and know how important that card was to him?

It's not that complicated.

If you had no interaction with him then of course you did not collude. If you and he agreed that you would not bid against him, that would be collusion. Collusion takes two.

I don't think its that complicated either.

I guess that's the difference, I care more about the collectors here and their hobby aspirations.

Nothing wrong with that. In antitrust cases the critical question often is whether conduct is unilateral or the product of an agreement.

And I would posit that my conduct produces greater happiness for our collecting community.

we split the lot
 

Flash back to a live auction at a show in the early 80s..... another guy and I were both bidding on a stack of Wide Pens/Fine Pens (about 150 cards).... we went back and forth, no other bidders, he turned to me and said Split the Lot? I said OK if I get the DiMaggio. He won with the next bid and we split it by each of us just taking about half the pile and me with the DiMag. Didnt even go card by card! Just made 2 close to even piles. So I guess it was collusion. But the statute of limitations has probably run out by now so I can tell the tale. Pile went for around $200 as I recall. It was a fun time when we had those live auctions at the shows.

[changed my mind]

I love auction nights when there's something I covet. There's a guy I've known for 20 years who also collects Twins flannels. Several times I've given him a heads-up when there were things I wasn't interested in, that he subsequently won.

But if there are shirts I'm going after, then no, obviously not. In fact, I hope he's on vacation, or is somehow unaware of the auction. These auctions are competitive, in a fun way. If I'm trying to win, why bring a formidable opponent into the game?