Live Auction: Standard Biscuit Cobb - Shill Bidding?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=270177488101>

I've been watching this card with interest since it was posted last week as there are only a handful of these known to exist (D350-3 in your Standard Catalog). The bids placed on this item of $302.76 and $349.87 are potential shill bids. The bids were placed by user ID smittys-shop who just happens to carry the exact same type of stock as the seller and just happens to be located minutes away in Eastern OH. Also, the bid amount of $349.87 throws a flag since usually to become a high bidder you would bid a little over what you assume the other bid was, say $351. If you wanted to push the other bidder to their max then you'd bid a little under, say $349.87. I just wanted to let people know since I would imagine this card interests those on the board. I have decided not to bid on this item and have put the seller on my blacklist.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Nieves

and you could not have waited 3 hours to post this?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Tom, I was thinking the same thing

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Matt meant well.

I just wish he could have meant well 3 hours later.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

First of all, you missed the point if you are asking that question. I want to let others know that the seller is shady and shill bidding is going on so they can stay away if they want to do so. What good would that information be after the auction ended?

Secondly, this auction was no secret as proven by the 2 others who already emailed me with similar sentiments. I think it's naive to think a rare card, posted in the correct ebay category, is a secret to people on this board.

Furthermore, the recognition of this information has caused me to stay away from the auction and may do the same for others; thereby benefiting you if you chose to bid on items from this questionable seller.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As much as I don't like outing an ongoing auction (there is, and will be, no rule against it) I think Matt did the right thing here. If he outed it after it was over it wouldn't be a very good warning.

Matt-although it's in the correct category please understand that when you talk about something on this board 1000 sets of eyes go look at it. Even in the correct category it draws attention that "might" not have been there before. Many times I have missed something in the correct category and saw it the first time when posted on the board. It happens more than you think. I do agree about your reasoning on the timing of mentioning this issue....though others will disagree...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

There certainly has been more bidding on this card since Matt pointed it out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Thank you Matt for the heads up! I missed that one and now can aggresively go for it! Looks like there will be plenty of competition though.


Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I guess it's a topic for after the auction closes, but based on other sales of D350-3 and the condition of this one, I'm curious why it's going for as much as it is.

By the way, is the bidder with 68 feedback who placed 3 bids a board member? Unfortunately, with ebay hiding the user IDs after the lot reached $200, I can't do any research like I did on the first bidder, but since the auction is suspect to me already, the bid amounts ($694, $673, $649) put in by the the user with 68 feedback are also odd for someone trying to win an auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

To answer your last question - my guess is people are only looking at the front and thinking it may grade out nicely. To me, the card appears to have a touch of paperloss on the reverse and wont grade much higher than a 30/40.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

I don't think the card is anywhere near its top in the bidding as it now stands. Just wait, sparks are going to fly!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

JK - I don't even see how it could get a 30, let alone a 40. I have a few vintage cards with pristine fronts (a few very difficult T205s with NM fronts) but they have a small amount of paper loss on the back and got nailed with 20s.

Steve - that's just seems odd to me; I'm certainly no expert on vintage cards, but all the auction results I've seen for D350-3 have ended less the book value for E121s (series of 80; the sister set). Even the Ruth, which has him pitching in a Red Sox uniform while being identified as a member of the Yankees in an SGC 30 went for less then $1500.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Uh, anyone think the card may be rebacked?

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

"I guess it's a topic for after the auction closes, but based on other sales of D350-3 and the condition of this one, I'm curious why it's going for as much as it is. "

I think the ending price on this one is going to be much higher than the current bid. Standard Biscuit cards in general are very tough and this is the first Standard Biscuit Cobb that I have seen in a long long time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

Wes has it right. VCP doesn't even list the Cobb. Leon's Strunk is mis-dated by SGC to 1917. So we shall see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

"Uh, anyone think the card may be rebacked?"

I don't think so, but I'd ask to see a close up scan of the other edge and its corners before bidding, for peace of mind.

I agree that if there is shilling, it probably won't impact the hammer price, as there likely will be some decent snipes set. Still, sellers who shill suck, and should be outed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Since apparently there are no listing in VCP, I have found at least 2 auctions for D350-3:

http://sports.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=702&Lot_No=19525&src=pr

and a Mastro auction that ended on 6/20/2007 where a lot titled: "1921 D350-3 Standard Biscuit Uncatalogued Trio (3) Including Baker" went for $161.00

As I mentioned above, those prices are at or below the prices of the E121 "sister set."

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt:

Each of these have paperloss on the reverse - some significantly more than that cobb.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I guess a 30 is possible then, but I think a 40 would not be. BTW, would you mind showing the backs?

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

Those prices are from a year and two years ago - IMO, completely irrelevant/outdated now.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

I will shoot you some back scans later tonight (most likely after the game) - I dont have them in photobucket so I cant send them from work (the scans are only on my home computer).

By the way, I agree a 40 is likely out of the question but its hard to tell the severity of the scuff from a scan alone.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

The one price is from 4 months ago. Granted the Ruth is from 2 years ago, but with no other sales data, you can't say that sale is irrelevant. Certainly, Ruth's cards (especially those of him pitching with the Red Sox) were at a premium 2 years ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

is a pretty common sight on ebay. Quite a few buyers seem to have a strategy of trying to scare off potential topping bids by putting 2 or more covering bids, even where they are only a few bucks apart. The thinking seems to be that if you see that same ebay id with numerous top bids, you'll think the bidder has deep pockets with high covering bids and be discouraged from even trying to outbid him/her...

Always seemed kind of lame to me, but who knows - maybe it works.

Those other bids you're questioning seem like a stretch to me to have made the out and out proclaimation of shill bidding, especially where the result can be to influence the amount of money the seller makes off it. I would try and be aware Matt that ebay has rules against interfering with the outcome of an auction, and if you're wrong the seller could look to come after you for recompense, or ebay could take their own action against you.


Edited to add: If you look at the order of bids in the timeline they were made, "s***t" (198) wasn't pushing anyone's bid up - his/her bids were the high bids at the time and the $349.87 looks like an attempt at a covering bid. Just because you'd go higher, doesn't mean he should or that he would think the natural possible bid to cover is $350. In fact, I use the exact same strategy. I'll bid to the $340's if I think the next highest bidder will just be over the $310 mark , and into the $380's if I think the next best will be around the $350's.

I really do think that apart from the location of the seller, you've made an incredible stretch with this outing and sugestion of wrongdoing, and If I was the seller - I'd be super pissed .



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

My mistake on the mastro auction - I thought it was june 2006.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

IMO The very rare D350-3 cards are related to the newly discovered 1921 Herpolsheimer cards far more than either E121 set. There are cards (Dave Davenport for example) found in the D350-3/Herpolsheimer sets that are not known in E121.

The D350-3 cards are more for the type collector, since putting together a D350-3 set would be extremely tough if not impossible.

And if you were crazy enough to try for the set...... you have to remember there are 2 different backs (different wording) in the D350-3 cards as well

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Matt,
I have delt with this person before. I won a very nice Lou Gehrig Never Forgotten stadium pin about a year ago. I believe his name is Brian I wont give the last name but he comes up with some nice items from time to time in the way of sports. Shipped fast and was easy to work with. Good luck if your thinking about going for it!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

You're back!!! Is the store open?

Edit: OK I see it...November 1, 2007.

Nice move, enjoy the weather!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Daniel:

"especially where the result can be to influence the amount of money the seller makes off it"

did you mean to say
A) "especially where the result influences the amount of money the seller makes of it"
or
B) "especially where the intent was to influence the amount of money the seller makes of it"?

If you meant A, I think the contention here is that my "interference" will end up bringing the seller more money.
If you meant B, I don't know what in my post made you think I'm trying to cause the seller a loss.
My intention was simply to help my brethren on the board.
You remind me of the guy who won't help pull someone out of a wreck for fear that they may sue you for tearing their clothes in the process.

Also, the second bid was NOT the high bid at the time. I think the confluence of the bid amount, the sellers matching unique items for sale and his close proximity should at least give pause.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Matt, as I wrote pretty clearly, I shouldn't need to restate it.

If you believe you have the right to call into question the honesty and intergrity of any auction, regardless of how weak your interpretation is, good luck to you.

I have helped plenty of people in life, on this board, and your suggestion is frankly ridiculous. I just think you got it wrong, and was letting you know.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

If anyone wants to trade me their D350-3 Standard Biscuit backs for my E121s, I'll take you up on the offer. I'll even trade you two for one.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

you have a look again at the bidding history.

"s***t" first bid of $302 is clearly higher than the opening bidder.
"s***t" second bid of $349 comes before any other bidder has placed a further bid, and then is obviously a 'topping' bid. He is in fact not pushing ANYONE else's bid up to their max.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Daniel - check the times closely; you will see the light.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

s***t - US $349.87 Oct-24-07 06:43:28 PDT

next bid comes from:

p***p - US $576.89 Oct-24-07 08:30:13 PDT


I think p***p put his bid in AFTER s***t. At least, that's how I read the atomic clock.



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Frank - I was just going on what the write-up was in the SCD Standard Catalog. I certainly welcome anyone's input with knowledge on the series (expertise, is probably impossible) and that's exactly why I asked the question about the value.

Daniel - the ordering of bids on the bid history is not ordered by time the bid was placed; it is ordered by bid amount. Read the whole thing and you will see that the bid of $349 was indeed not the high bid at the time and did push up another's bid.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Every time there is a thread about shilling on ebay I try to figure out how the poster determined it and I am always lost. There are so many different strategies people use for bidding, including illogical ones, that I wouldn't even know where to begin when I examine the bid history. But that's me.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I give up.



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I agree Barry - it's not conclusive. It's probably impossible for any user to prove shilling conclusively, and certainly just from the bid amounts it would mean nothing. My suggestion here is based on a confluence of several factors as outlines in the OP.

Tangentially, I will say, that the fact that you can even see that there is another person bidding, and how many other people are bidding against you, is a welcome transparency on ebay, not offered by any traditional auction house.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

the current high bidder placed his bid many hours before the bidder who placed the three $600 something bids.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

The current high bid was placed before the $349 bid, which is exactly the one that caught me as being questionable since it came from someone the OP almost certainly knows since they are both in the same business and their businesses are within minutes of each other.

We don't know who placed those funny looking $600 bids since ebay hid the user ID at that point, but they are funny looking.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Todd, thanks, but please help explain to me how a bid $400 less than the current high bid can be a push? If the supposed shill was going up in $10 increments until he hit a dollar less than the high bid - I'd understand. I don't get Matt's correlation at all...


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Daniel - I think at this point everyone who was intended to see the information in this post and take it into consideration when bidding has done so, so if you want to continue our discussion of why I feel it was a shill bid, I think it best if you email me off line.



I am interested, once the auction ends, in learning more about the D350-3 issue, if anyone has knowledge to impart.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I wasn't so much offering them as proof of a shill as I was noting that the three bids could not be construed as a topping bid backed by two more bids, as you alluded in your prior post. This bidder was never top dog and therefore could not "scare away" anybody by placing two unknown bids above his then "winning" bid, as you suggested.

As I said earlier, I don't think shilling will have an impact here, as there will be plenty of legitimate action at the end by people who are/were completely uninfluenced by what has happened thus far. It is possible though, that the seller of this relatively scarce piece may have had no idea what it might fetch, figure it was worth somewhere between $650 and $700, and then push the bid to get it to that point. This is conjecture for sure right now, but if true, I would out the seller even if the shill had no influnce on final price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

$ 1,691

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

And the winner is a big time collector who knows exactly what he was doing. He tuned out the background noise and won the lot.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Daniel,

The winning bid was placed at 1:55 AM Pacific time, this morning. Prior to that the leading bid was $302.76. Since then, 13 other bids pushed up his bid, but failed to top him.



Barry,

I'm with you. I rarely see what others call "shill bidding." I'm too dense, I guess. I don't see it here either. I see one guy who, apparently, wanted this card pretty bad, was up late (or really early), and put in a bid that no else could touch.




Matt,

I admit I don't see it, and if I were the seller, I'm pretty happy with you for the publicity. If I'm the winning bidder... you might have cost me some additional money here.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

This could be interesting. The winning bidder reads and occasionally posts to this board.

In the last minute of the auction, a single bidder placed four bids in what looks like an attempt to manually snipe it. That drove the winning price up aobut $900 from where it had been. The winning bid was in before this last minute flurry from one bidder - i***l.

What are the chances that i***l read this board and got onto the auction late? It's definitely possible that this was a random ebayer that saw this auction days ago and made it a point to be online at 3:30 EDT in the middle of a weekday to manually snipe it (I know it's possible because I've done it).

But is it more likely that it was someone that became aware of it by browsing by to this board, and only had to remember to camp out for a few hours?

Anyone want to fess up to being i***l?

I'll definitely be watching this thread to see if more develops.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Joann - what's the difference?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

I think her point is that Sgt Hoss may have paid more than he would have had to but for this thread. Just a guess and I don't want to put words in her mouth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

That may be so, but what value would knowing that have to her?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

The difference may be that, without the post asking about the shilling, the winner may have gotten the card for $900 less than what he paid.

I am not commenting on the merits of the original question or whether it should have been posted while the auction is live. That's not the point.

But if i***l saw it here and therefore bid - no way to know, really, but there's at least a chance that it happened that way - then it gets to the reason some people don't want live auctions outed no matter what - even if they are not mislisted or in obscure auctions.

I'm not judging either way, just saying it's interesting.

Joann

ETA: Matt - not saying it would have value, just that it would be interesting. Of course, one could argue that anything of interest is also, automatically, of value.