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?"
|