Culture of "not outing" auctions

[Snapolit1]

3 or 4 times in recent years I've purchased something at an auction (including Sotherbys) and someone has come to me after the fact and expressed reservations about the authenticity of the item or whether someone had done work to it. Each time I've wanted to say 'gee. . . . thanks, but would have been cool if someone had expressed that to me before I shelled out hard earned bucks for it." Of course none of them knew what was running through my mind. But all heeded the unwritten rule about not drawing attention to running auctions, lest you might accidentally crap on some friend or loyal board member who is trying to maximize how much he makes in a sale. No need to share the fruits of your labors with others kind of thinking,

Funny now reading all the posts about Mile High. Is this unwritten rule repealed or modified? What about the next time you see something on BST that doesn't look right? Do you say something or opt for caveat emptor and turn your head?

[MVSNYC]

Steve-

There's a difference between bringing up a potentially problematic card (which may be fake or altered), as opposed to someone just outing an auction and saying- "Let's see how much this rare card goes for!"

The former is very helpful, the latter is just annoying.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

3 or 4 times in recent years I've purchased something at an auction (including Sotherbys) and someone has come to me after the fact and expressed reservations about the authenticity of the item or whether someone had done work to it. Each time I've wanted to say 'gee. . . . thanks, but would have been cool if someone had expressed that to me before I shelled out hard earned bucks for it." Of course none of them knew what was running through my mind. But all heeded the unwritten rule about not drawing attention to running auctions, lest you might accidentally crap on some friend or loyal board member who is trying to maximize how much he makes in a sale. No need to share the fruits of your labors with others kind of thinking,

Funny now reading all the posts about Mile High. Is this unwritten rule repealed or modified? What about the next time you see something on BST that doesn't look right? Do you say something or opt for caveat emptor and turn your head?

One reason is that "friends" of the seller come on and attack the people calling out bad items.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Also was a little more than just conjecture in this case. Often it's "something doesn't seem right." this case is "Yeah this is definitely wrong." You do stick your neck out if you start sharing conjecture.

[JeremyW]

Seems like if an item could slide under the radar, it shouldn't be outed. If an item is tainted it's 50/50 to be outed.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

3 or 4 times in recent years I've purchased something at an auction (including Sotherbys) and someone has come to me after the fact and expressed reservations about the authenticity of the item or whether someone had done work to it. Each time I've wanted to say 'gee. . . . thanks, but would have been cool if someone had expressed that to me before I shelled out hard earned bucks for it." Of course none of them knew what was running through my mind. But all heeded the unwritten rule about not drawing attention to running auctions, lest you might accidentally crap on some friend or loyal board member who is trying to maximize how much he makes in a sale. No need to share the fruits of your labors with others kind of thinking,

Funny now reading all the posts about Mile High. Is this unwritten rule repealed or modified? What about the next time you see something on BST that doesn't look right? Do you say something or opt for caveat emptor and turn your head?

I have grappled with this issue, but look at it a bit differently. My hesitation to go public is not to protect a friend but something entirely different -- what if I am wrong? The last thing I want to do is adversely impact the sale of an item that in fact is authentic/unaltered.

So if I have questions that something might not be what the AH says it is, but my concern has not reached the level where I can feel confident that what I know is material information a bidder has a right to know, rather than go public I would instead express my concerns to the AH. I recognize the AH might choose to bury the info, but feel despite this I have made the better of two imperfect choices. If though what I know I believe to be material information that a bidder reasonably would regard as such, I would be certain it is made public. I might choose to do it by first revealing the info to the AH and giving them the opportunity to act on it. If they do not, then at that point I would go public.

In the current instance with Mile High, based on what has been revealed about Moser cards, the likelihood of alteration has reached the level that identifying a card as a Moser card IMO has crossed the threshold to be material information a bidder reasonably would want to know.

[Bpm0014]

Seems like if an item could slide under the radar, it shouldn't be outed. If an item is tainted it's 50/50 to be outed.

The latter should 100% be outed...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I have grappled with this issue, but look at it a bit differently. My hesitation to go public is not to protect a friend but something entirely different -- what if I am wrong? The last thing I want to do is adversely impact the sale of an item that in fact is authentic/unaltered.

So if I have questions that something might not be what the AH says it is, but my concern has not reached the level where I can feel confident that what I know is material information a bidder has a right to know, rather than go public I would instead express my concerns to the AH. I recognize the AH might choose to bury the info, but feel despite this I have made the better of two imperfect choices. If though what I know I believe to material information that a bidder reasonably would regard as such, I would be certain it is made public. I might choose to do it by first revealing the info to the AH and giving them the opportunity to act on it. If they do not, then at that point I would go public.

In the current instance with Mile High, based on what has been revealed about Moser cards, the likelihood of alteration has reached the level that identifying a card as a Moser card has crossed the threshold to be material information a bidder reasonably would want to know.

The initial post on Blowout states that the cards were first brought to the attention of the AH before being posted.

[Snapolit1]

I’m not a fan of the outing auction rule. And have said as much before. I think the board would be a better place with a free flow of all comments and opinions on pending auctions. I would be fine with someone saying “That Mantle card in Scott’s or Al’s or Hunt’s current auction is pretty cool. I’d bid on it if the upper right corner didn’t look so lousy”. I realize other views exist. The consignor and auction house clearly isn’t in favor of people knocking things down I get that.

I agree with the sentiment that you raise a concern with the AH first, and only out an auction of you are sure or nearly sure that someone is being deceptive. That seems reasonable.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I’m not a fan of the outing auction rule. And have said as much before. I think the board would be a better place with a free flow of all comments and opinions on pending auctions. I would be fine with someone saying “That Mantle card in Scott’s or Al’s or Hunt’s current auction is pretty cool. I’d bid on it if the upper right corner didn’t look so lousy”. I realize other views exist. The consignor and auction house clearly isn’t in favor of people knocking things down I get that.

I agree with the sentiment that you raise a concern with the AH first, and only out an auction of you are sure or nearly sure that someone is being deceptive. That seems reasonable.

There isn't a forum rule concerning outing a card or item. Go for it.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Leon

There isn't a forum rule concerning outing a card or item. Go for it.

I'm sure I've already pissed off enough people to satisfy my yearly quota. Don't need to go overboard.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'm sure I've already pissed off enough people to satisfy my yearly quota. Don't need to go overboard.

Don't worry about it, I usually hit that quota by January 3rd.

The only outing that bothers me is when someone posts how a card that just sold went super cheap. I would hope people would wait a few days to help insure the buyer really gets the card they legitimately won.

[packs]

I think people only get upset if you out an eBay auction or some small time local auction. In those cases people are upset because they had the good fortune of stumbling upon something poorly listed and get upset when there are more eyes on it. I don't think anyone would be upset if there was a discussion about an item in a major auction; mostly because it's not hiding anywhere.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

Seems like if an item could slide under the radar, it shouldn't be outed. If an item is tainted it's 50/50 to be outed.

The latter should 100% be outed...

And so should the former. I'm not a seller, but why is it OK to suppress competition so that a seller does not receive fair market value?

Dead horse beaten, again.

[keithsky]

I think telling others about a bad experience with an auction house or a guy on Ebay and outing them to me is fine and let others make there own choice on whether to use them. To me an auction house is like a store or restaurant and if you have a bad experience don't you usually tell others about it and tell them when it's a good experience. So why should an auction house be any different. Why always just tell the good experiences. As long as the problem is justified and not making false accusations. A little criticism might make them better. We don't have to be politically correct all the time.

[drcy]

They are unwritten rules held by some, not all.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

And so should the former. I'm not a seller, but why is it OK to suppress competition so that a seller does not receive fair market value?

Dead horse beaten, again.

No, not really. The seller has the responsibility of making sure they are listing the item properly. Plus, allowing any and all discussion on open auctions would clog up the board with shill discussions just to generate extra bids. You think the number of threads about PWCC/PSA/SGC/BGS/Mile High is large, the board would be unreadable if the majority of posters didn't agree with the unwritten "don't out an auction" rule.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The only outing that bothers me is when someone posts how a card that just sold went super cheap. I would hope people would wait a few days to help insure the buyer really gets the card they legitimately won.

I agree. A no-outing norm makes a lot of sense for eBay sales given how willing many people are to interfere with someone's eBay sale (a shmucky thing to do in any event and not something friends or gentlemen should do to one another). But an item in Heritage or REA? Really? Aren't those all basically at the fingertips of everyone here regardless?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

And so should the former. I'm not a seller, but why is it OK to suppress competition so that a seller does not receive fair market value?

Dead horse beaten, again.

Really? And how does outing and auction for something going under the radar actually promote competition among auction houses? You're providing an unfair advantage to the lazy ones that do poor promotion of their items over the ones that do their due diligence.

I'm not sure suppressing competition is really a good argument (either way) as it depends on which ox you're goring.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The only outing that bothers me is when someone posts how a card that just sold went super cheap. I would hope people would wait a few days to help insure the buyer really gets the card they legitimately won.

Yes, this happened a couple of years ago with that Lenox backed T206 that Battersbox sold on Ebay, and then refused to honor the sale.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Sean

Yes, this happened a couple of years ago with that Lenox backed T206 that Battersbox sold on Ebay, and then refused to honor the sale.

We have all had this happen, with many sellers, and it sucks.