This looks interesting indeed

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Every time they bid and don't win it is no different than a shill bid, and how would anyone here know that they were bid up essentially by the house? They wouldn't. I don't care what their intent was if the auctioneer is bidding it is illegal, and I don't really care for the legal technicality that HOC and H&S are separate businesses, they are owned by the same person.

Peter, I think you are in a bigger minority than you think you are...what would keep anyone from speaking up for H&S if they thought it was okay? I actually think more people are not speaking up who believe that it was shill bidding because they don't want to lose their bidding privileges...if H&S is as thin skinned as the folks from Heritage that's a real possibility.

Dan -- fear of backlash. I know this from private communications. EDIT TO ADD If H&S were really "shilling" HOC wouldn't be winning anything -- it would just be a house account used to bump other bidders to their max bids.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dan -- fear of backlash. I know this from private communications. EDIT TO ADD If H&S were really "shilling" HOC wouldn't be winning anything -- it would just be a house account used to bump other bidders to their max bids.

I disagree with you Peter. You are basically saying if someone is shilling auctions, the shill account never wins. That is just simply not true. As for the change in bidding rules now, IMO they basically had no choice, So i guess I am in the boat of they didn't do anything so great by changing to this.

I feel like what they did in the beginning was wrong. I believe H&S and HOC are the same company, and for them to have been bidding on items was running bids up against loyal customers who have been doing business with them for years.

Call me old school, but I am also in the camp that when someone owns a business and there is a problem with a customer, the business owner should apologize to the customer, there was never an apology for this or really an explanation as to why they felt this was right, other than HOC pays the buyers premium as well.

I had what I felt like was a major issue with H&S once, when I called to voice my concern, there was no apology from the person who answered the phone, to me, he didn't seem to care about the issue at all, he did allow me to send the item back for a refund and when I asked if they could cover what it would cost to ship it back, the person helping me seemed irritated that I would even ask that because as he said, it only costs $15 to ship.

Well, that didn't exactly make me feel like a valued customer. Not only did I feel like I had irritated this person for bringing this issue up, but there was never any explanation for how this could have happened in the first place and no assurance was made to me to make me believe it couldn't or wouldn't happen again.

In all fairness, it was not Josh or Bill that handled this issue, maybe they would have handled it better. I don't know if they ever even knew of the issue. I would think they would have been informed of it. To me, it just seemed like no one there really cared too much that there was what I felt was a major issue and to me it had a feel of being swept under the rug.

Chr....s S-hr.. e--ve

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dan -- fear of backlash. I know this from private communications. EDIT TO ADD If H&S were really "shilling" HOC wouldn't be winning anything -- it would just be a house account used to bump other bidders to their max bids.

That's not true..their software is set up to not show max bids, but it may not be anonymous and they may know the bidding patterns of their customers..some guys are win at all cost, and others are cautious, and wait until extended bidding to do their work. They IMO were looking at lots that they believed they could make money on with their ebay account..they may have been bidding to win, but in the process the house was running up bids...which is illegal regardless of intent.

At first I couldn't tell if you were playing Devil's Advocate or looking for work. But now I think you're being serious that you see nothing wrong with what they were doing. I just don't understand how anyone could look at the situation and be okay with this.

[ullmandds]

Yes Dan...agreed?! WTF is wrong with everyone?!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am being serious. I don't consider placing a bid with the hope of winning the lot to be running anyone up. It's a different issue if you don't believe that's what H&S was really up to, but that's more a factual than a philosophical question.

Dan, do you object to hidden reserves also? Or consignors buying back their own cards? Just curious.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dan, do you object to hidden reserves also? Or consignors buying back their own cards? Just curious.

A hidden reserve is a static target placed on a lot before the auction opens, which is very different than the scenario with H&S.

Owners bidding on their own lots is also shill bidding. Are you ok with owners bidding on their own items?

[Peter_Spaeth]

My instinct is against consignors bidding on their own lots, but on the other hand what is the difference I wonder between a hidden reserve of X on a lot and the consignor placing a bid of X-1 increment? Either way, you can't win the card for less than X, and the consignor gets it back if the bidding doesn't go that high.

Of course in a sense none of these things we are debating matter much. If an auction house wants to, it can ask a friendly third-party to do its bidding, and if a consignor wants to, he can ask a friend.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My instinct is against consignors bidding on their own lots, but on the other hand what is the difference I wonder between a hidden reserve of X on a lot and the consignor placing a bid of X-1 increment? Either way, you can't win the card for less than X, and the consignor gets it back if the bidding doesn't go that high.

Of course in a sense none of these things we are debating matter much. If an auction house wants to, it can ask a friendly third-party to do its bidding, and if a consignor wants to, he can ask a friend.

I have to agree with all of that. My thought is that it boils down to the principle. One is a static target placed at the outset while the other is a bit more arbitrary in that it can be adjusted as the auction unfolds (at least my understanding is the hidden reserve is not adjusted after an auction has begun). In the end, I'm not sure it matters much because the hammer price can be manipulated in many ways. Discussing principle is one thing, but policing reality is completely another.

[mordecaibrown]

Personally, I always assumed that auction houses (or employees of the house) were not allowed to bid on the items due to a potential conflict of interest. This whole thread got me thinking, is Huggins and Scott the only auction house that WAS allowing employees to bid on items.

I know many on here often mention REA as the gold standard of auctions and on their website they clearly state that, "The auction house should not own any of the material, set any secret hidden reserves, permit its employees and executives to bid in the auction, provide inaccurate descriptions, make undisclosed restorations to the material, or intentionally not disclose any conflicts of interest."

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/about/index.html

I did a real basic search of some other auction house rules and I had a hard time finding any statements concerning the topic of employee bidding - either way, allowed or not. I was surprised by this - only one auction house (that my admittedly caveman search found) addresses this topic...

Does anyone on here know factually where some of the other auction houses stand on this topic? If so, I think it would be good information to share with everyone.

A.ndy K.en.n.edy