[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Actually, I wouldn't have that much of a problem if the owner of a card wins back his own card in an auction. Changed mind, protecting investment, whatever - he bids he wins.

Where it goes south quickly for me is when an owner bids on his own card and doesn't win it. In the case where there was only one other bidder that topped the owner, the price has been artificially and deceptively driven up.

The key issue with me is that deceptive part. The single bidder thinks he was in legitimate auction competition with another independent bidder and that that's why he ended up at the price he did. If he could have ended up at a lower price but for the owner's bids, then he has been decieved and that crosses the line.

The problem is that if an owner bids and does not win, you never know if he legitimately was trying to win his card back or if he was just trying to goose a few more dollars out of the system. For this reason, my line is no owner bidding at all b/c you can't separate the two circumstances even though I think the owner-buy-back would be okay in its own right.

As to the friend Bob, that's just as bad as the owner bidding since it is pretty much done as an attempt to avoid the rules about sellers/consignors bidding deceptively.

J