An Open Letter to Bill Mastro

[sports-rings]

I just want to be clear, I am not accusing Hunt of shill bidding. They have a process where they bid for the consigner until the minimum is met (it's in their auction rules).

if you are a phone bidder during a live auction, you have no idea if you are bidding against a live bidder or Hunt on behalf of their consigner.

I call this Phantom bidding and I no longer wish to bid in their live auctions

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I just want to be clear, I am not accusing Hunt of shill bidding. They have a process where they bid for the consigner until the minimum is met (it's in their auction rules).

if you are a phone bidder during a live auction, you have no idea if you are bidding against a live bidder or Hunt on behalf of their consigner.

I call this Phantom bidding and I no longer wish to bid in their live auctions

I don't like phantom bidding either, though I am sure it's legal when clearly stated in the rules. If you want to do that, just have a reserve and state it. To me, having bidding that is not intended to win the item seems deceiving.

[HRBAKER]

The deceit comes in if you actually think you are engaged in bidding with another party who wants to win it as opposed to say, already owns it. Disclosed or not, slimy. Just say you are having as sale as opposed to an auction.

[perezfan]

Hunt's is simply exercising a hidden reserve. Since the auctions are live, the "phantom bidding" is the only way to get the item to meet the consignor's minimum. I can see how it is frustrating for the "real bidder", but it is just an alternate way of establishing a minimum bid amount.

[Runscott]

I have never complained to an auction house about strange bids, until I recently paid my ceiling for every single item in a Hunts auction. It was just way too much of a coincidence.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Hunt's is simply exercising a hidden reserve. Since the auctions are live, the "phantom bidding" is the only way to get the item to meet the consignor's minimum. I can see how it is frustrating for the "real bidder", but it is just an alternate way of establishing a minimum bid amount.

Isn't an alternative way of establishing a minimum amount to set the reserve from the outset? As opposed to having an illusory auction process taking place up to the minimum.

[Giants00]

Also, lets remember what Mastro has plead guilty to doing (vs maintaining a minimum bid). He has said he altered materials and lied about it, he has admitting to shill bidding (when there was no minimum and he just felt like the item was too low), and he admited to mail fraud. What he did (particularly on high pieces) was to control the authentication, the pricing and supply. It was done clearly in a way which has violated the law. What you saw early on was that he was contrite and that he was religious. What has come out in the comments to the thread I have posted and in his defense, is that he is defiant and not contrite. He has now claimed his crimes were victimless because everyone made money.
While we may not like the practice of having hidden reserves, it is commonplace in auctions and fully disclosed. What Mastro has confessed to is staggering. The fact that he is posting in comments sections claiming no remorse and that the collectors made money so his crimes are excused is frankly lurid.
I think the major auction houses no longer think like this. My sense is that if there is a hidden reserve it is set at the beginning of the auction. I think most auctions no longer look at the highest price bid and thus remove temptation. We now have disclosure when an auction is selling its own stuff. In general, in most auctions, authentication is separated from the auctioneer. Is it perfect, no. But it is much better than being in a rigged system.

[Giants00]

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...ts-sentencing/
Another good story. Mastro's justification is that he was bidding for himself, yah right. He also destroyed records.
Again, if he was contrite I shut up. He is not contrite. He is still justifying his crimes and trying to berate the victims. Way to go Bill.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Isn't an alternative way of establishing a minimum amount to set the reserve from the outset? As opposed to having an illusory auction process taking place up to the minimum.

Yes, you are correct. But I think Hunt's thought process is to get more bidders involved by starting the lots low. I think they believe this method will ultimately drive the price higher. I don't love it either...

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Hunt's is simply exercising a hidden reserve. Since the auctions are live, the "phantom bidding" is the only way to get the item to meet the consignor's minimum. I can see how it is frustrating for the "real bidder", but it is just an alternate way of establishing a minimum bid amount.

Mark,

You and I usually see eye-to-eye on most things, but if you're saying that an auction house bidding on an item to exercise a hidden reserve is the same (or even similar) as having a stated, transparent reserve, I disagree. The first practice can falsely imply another "real" bidder is increasing the price of an item, whereas the second practice clearly defines that the auction house/consignor has determined the minimum for which an item will sell.

Big difference, in my opinion.

Rob

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Mark,

You and I usually see eye-to-eye on most things, but if you're saying that an auction house bidding on an item to exercise a hidden reserve is the same (or even similar) as having a stated, transparent reserve, I disagree. The first practice can falsely imply another "real" bidder is increasing the price of an item, whereas the second practice clearly defines that the auction house/consignor has determined the minimum for which an item will sell.

Big difference, in my opinion.

Rob

Big difference IMO as well

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Mark,

You and I usually see eye-to-eye on most things, but if you're saying that an auction house bidding on an item to exercise a hidden reserve is the same (or even similar) as having a stated, transparent reserve, I disagree. The first practice can falsely imply another "real" bidder is increasing the price of an item, whereas the second practice clearly defines that the auction house/consignor has determined the minimum for which an item will sell.

Big difference, in my opinion.

Rob

Yeah, I guess you are right. As a bidder, it does seem a bit sleazy. On the filpside, I've really liked it as a consignor, because it's ensured that I won't get killed on my consignments. I would rather have the lackluster winning bid result in a "no sale" than lose a bunch of money on my consignment.

That said, I agree with you both, that it would be more straight-forward just to just start the item at the lowest acceptable level to the consignor. Heritage does the hidden reserve thing as well (in their own way).

I guess the FBI has a very fine line, in terms of what's "acceptable shilling" and what's criminal.

[sports-rings]

We now have disclosure when an auction is selling its own stuff.

I see many advertisements for various auction houses in our hobby proclaiming "Now Buying", yet I rarely if ever see disclaimers in their auctions that they own the item.

Am I missing something?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I guess the FBI has a very fine line, in terms of what's "acceptable shilling" and what's criminal.

What about when Mastro looked at the ceiling bids of his customers and then put in a bid, from his own computer, right below it, ensuring that the bidder lost thousands of dollars (and he made money)?