This is the problem with grading...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I have not--ever. And I'm far from pure.

And it does make a difference to me if he shills as opposed to having a minimum bid or reserve price. Maybe the auction house scenario you described is worse, but that doesn't mean this guy didn't cheat too.

Agreed. I read somewhere in this thread where somebody wrote that the shill didn't really matter because it didn't afftect the final price. That's not the point. The point is, if people are willing to shill small items/amounts, they're also willing to shill larger items/amounts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Agreed. I read somewhere in this thread where somebody wrote that the shill didn't really matter because it didn't afftect the final price. That's not the point. The point is, if people are willing to shill small items/amounts, they're also willing to shill larger items/amounts.

If the "shill" is merely a substitute for an opening bid or a reserve -- that is, the price the consignor is willing to let the card go for -- I don't see this concern. Would you feel better if Rick just puts reserves on cards, and WHY would that make you feel any better?

[HRBAKER]

Peter,
Functionally what you say is right. My question would be why not just start the bidding at the lowest acceptable amount or install a reserve? My assumption is that the somewhere someone has determined that starting at a lower opener and creating the perception of an absolute/real auction (illusory or not) would result in more action and a higher result. If you have a "shill" then this is not what you end up with, an absolute auction that is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Peter,
Functionally what you say is right. My question would be why not just start the bidding at the lowest acceptable amount or install a reserve? My assumption is that the somewhere someone has determined that starting at a lower opener and creating the perception of an absolute/real auction (illusory or not) would result in more action and a higher result. If you have a "shill" then this is not what you end up with, an absolute auction that is.

Well I agree in my hypothetical it's not really an absolute auction, but I'm not sure why I should care, either way, the card is only available over a certain price, and so be it.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well I agree in my hypothetical it's not really an absolute auction, but I'm not sure why I should care, either way, the card is only available over a certain price, and so be it.

Peter, it's been a long thread (I have read completely) so forgive me if I'm repeating a previous question. Say you are interested in a card and you decide you are willing to pay up to $5,000 for it. In the bidding for the card all bidders drop out at $3,500. All except the owner who shill bids you up to $5,000. After the auction you learn that the seller has shilled you up another $1,500 - this really would not bother you at all? You would not call the seller to discuss the shill bids?

What I'm really getting at here is the price for any item is what the market will bear. By shill bidding the seller created an artificially strong market for the item, effectively forcing you to overpay the market cost of the item.

That would definately bother me.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by brob28

What I'm really getting at here is the price for any item is what the market will bear. By shill bidding the seller created an artificially strong market for the item, effectively forcing you to overpay the market cost of the item.

Yes!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brob28

Peter, it's been a long thread (I have read completely) so forgive me if I'm repeating a previous question. Say you are interested in a card and you decide you are willing to pay up to $5,000 for it. In the bidding for the card all bidders drop out at $3,500. All except the owner who shill bids you up to $5,000. After the auction you learn that the seller has shilled you up another $1,500 - this really would not bother you at all? You would not call the seller to discuss the shill bids?

What I'm really getting at here is the price for any item is what the market will bear. By shill bidding the seller created an artificially strong market for the item, effectively forcing you to overpay the market cost of the item.

That would definately bother me.

Your example seems different from mine where the seller has made a predetermination that he will only sell for $5000, and so in effect places a hidden reserve at that level through a shill. If someone is just encouraged by my $3500 bid to see if I will go higher, that seems different, but I haven't completely thought it through, I may be on a slippery slope myself perhaps.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your example seems different from mine where the seller has made a predetermination that he will only sell for $5000, and so in effect places a hidden reserve at that level through a shill. If someone is just encouraged by my $3500 bid to see if I will go higher, that seems different, but I haven't completely thought it through, I may be on a slippery slope myself perhaps.

Fair enough, it certainly can get slippery.

Good night, gentlemen.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the "shill" is merely a substitute for an opening bid or a reserve -- that is, the price the consignor is willing to let the card go for -- I don't see this concern. Would you feel better if Rick just puts reserves on cards, and WHY would that make you feel any better?

Here is the problem with a shill being the substitute for an opening bid or reserve. Let's say Rick has a card that the consignor wants to get $500 for. Rick starts the auction at $.99 and the consignor places a bid of $499 (substitute for a reserve) to protect his card. At this point the high bid is only $.99 because he is the first bidder. Another bidder comes along and bids $500 on the card. Immediately the price goes to $500 because the consignor's proxy was $499. No other bids are placed and bidder number 2 wins the card for $500.

Now, one could argue that bidder number 2 was willing to spend $500 on the card in the first place so there was no harm done, but without the shill (or however you want to sugar coat it), he might have won the card considerably cheaper if it were a true $.99 auction with no shills.

On the particular card in question, it wouldn't have made a difference because the other bids were much higher than the shills. But how many other cards has this happened with from this particular consignor (pank21) where his "hidden reserves" drove the price up unnecessarily?

[Peter_Spaeth]

David I don't see the difference. Case 1, there is an opening bid of 500, or a reserve of 500. You win if you bid 500, you lose if you don't. Case 2, an auction that looks absolute but is really shilled, you win if you bid 500, you don't get the card if you bid less. Same difference. Of course, IF it's an absolute auction you could win it for less without the shill, but you are fighting the hypothetical.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David I don't see the difference.

You don't?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course, IF it's an absolute auction you could win it for less without the shill.

I think you just explained the difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You don't?



I think you just explained the difference.

I was not comparing an absolute auction to a reserve auction, only pointing out that the effect of the "shill" is simply to convert it to a reserve auction.

[HRBAKER]

Peter,
I can see your point and I guess there is really no difference if you are willing to accept and operate under the principle that there may always be factors at work, market driven and otherwise that will ensure that nothing sells under a certain price. IOW all auctions are really reserve price auctions even though they may be dressed up as something else.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

On the particular card in question, it wouldn't have made a difference because the other bids were much higher than the shills. But how many other cards has this happened with from this particular consignor (pank21) where his "hidden reserves" drove the price up unnecessarily?

I question the other 2 bidders(with a very high bid % already) that started bidding it up. It just looks fishy to me to have a consigner shilling(which rick may have/haven't known about) then 2 more guys supposedly battling it out with very high bid % up to a very extreme # for a card.