The "auction" (for lack of a better word) is over. Look at what happened.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Exactly...to the point that I'd guess lots of cards values are artificially inflated.

Wait a minute, you're saying these tiny cardboard cutouts that we're paying thousands of dollars for may be artificially inflated? No way.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

wait a minute, you're saying these tiny cardboard cutouts that we're paying thousands of dollars for may be artificially inflated? No way.

lol!

[MattyC]

If I found it bothersome that any price paid may be artificially inflated (due to a shilled auction in the recent or distant past), to the point where I couldn't get past it, then I would just stop buying cards. We waste hundreds if not thousands on bar tabs, hands of blackjack, bottles of wine at a dinner, and so much other stuff that paying a potentially inflated price on a card to the tune of a few hundo because of a shilled auction in the past just doesn't make my blood boil or stomach turn. If the card is beautiful, smokes other ugly examples, I want it, and can pay a price I can afford, I'm making it happen. Nice and simple. This is just one dude's view, riffing with others, not trying to proselytize.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by MattyC

If I found it bothersome that any price paid may be artificially inflated (due to a shilled auction in the recent or distant past), to the point where I couldn't get past it, then I would just stop buying cards. We waste hundreds if not thousands on bar tabs, hands of blackjack, bottles of wine at a dinner, and so much other stuff that paying a potentially inflated price on a card to the tune of a few hundo because of a shilled auction in the past just doesn't make my blood boil or stomach turn. If the card is beautiful, smokes other ugly examples, I want it, and can pay a price I can afford, I'm making it happen. Nice and simple. This is just one dude's view, riffing with others, not trying to proselytize.

And that's exactly what criminals like Bill Mastro think when they're engaging in their fraud: 'they want the card anyway, why is shilling it up a problem?' Hell, Bill still thinks that and he's cooperating with the Feds against other criminals in our hobby.

[Runscott]

I can't believe what I read in these threads about shilling.

Seriously - do you take the attitude that because you personally can't stop all crime, that crime is okay and we should ignore it, as long as it doesn't affect us personally?

[chernieto]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I can't believe what I read in these threads about shilling.

Seriously - do you take the attitude that because you personally can't stop all crime, that crime is okay and we should ignore it, as long as it doesn't affect us personally?

I hope nobody believes that!
shilling is wrong and a crime

[glchen]

Originally Posted by chernieto

I hope nobody believes that!
shilling is wrong and a crime

I think most people, myself include, believe that shilling is wrong, and is a crime. However, some people are arguing that they will try to find those auctions that they don't believe are shilled and try to bid on those. However, Peter and others, are advocating the higher road, in that they believe that since PWCC may be encouraging shilling or at the minimum not doing anything about it, they should be boycotted for all of their listings even the ones that don't seem to be shilled. I mean if you take this further, you shouldn't buy or sell on ebay at all since ebay isn't doing diddly either, and making it even harder to determine shilling these days by making the ebay usernames who win or bid on auctions even more anonymous than before.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by calvindog

And that's exactly what criminals like Bill Mastro think when they're engaging in their fraud: 'they want the card anyway, why is shilling it up a problem?' Hell, Bill still thinks that and he's cooperating with the Feds against other criminals in our hobby.

So is the answer, by that logic, to stop collecting? I agree the criminals are out there, that we have to be able to identify and steer around shilled auctions, but one can't let awareness of the fraud paralyze them from enjoyment, or from obtaining the items they love. There has to be a balance within the collector.

No Scott, I'm not saying that at all. But I also don't give up my current life to be a policeman or vigilante by night. If you want to stop collecting because there are shillers out there, go for it. Willingness to bid in unshilled auctions does not mean someone condones shilling. Willingness to buy cards when prices in general may be inflated here and there due to past shilling is also not condoning shilling. If I see it I will report it. If I see it I will abstain. If I have a friend pursuing a card I see is being shilled, I will put him onto it. But I won't let the existence of shilling stop me from collecting, or dominate my mind to the point where I spend more time talking about shilling on a website than I do enjoying cards. It's about balance and enjoyment, and not crossing the line from cautious, educated collector into paralyzed collector/crusader.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So is the answer, by that logic, to stop collecting? I agree the criminals are out there, that we have to be able to identify and steer around shilled auctions, but one can't let awareness of the fraud paralyze them from enjoyment, of from obtaining the items they love. There has to be a balance within the collector.

Where did you come up with such logic? From 'avoid known cheats' to 'avoid everyone'? The balance you speak of is achieved by avoiding dishonest sellers. Many of us do so, and our collections are not bad.

I have not studied PWCC or Probstein's auctions and bidding history, and I have ignored most of the posts that do so, but it's hard to ignore the responses in these discussions that advocate complacency when shilling is discovered.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Where did you come up with such logic? From 'avoid known cheats' to 'avoid everyone'? The balance you speak of is achieved by avoiding dishonest sellers. Many of us do so, and our collections are not bad.

I have not studied PWCC or Probstein's auctions and bidding history, and I have ignored most of the posts that do so, but it's hard to ignore the responses in these discussions that advocate complacency when shilling is discovered.

Scott, that logic is just an attempt to address the notion that all or many prices are inflated because of past shilling. And therefore, if one doesn't want to be a victim of shilling, and yet many prices even in unshilled auctions are in effect "retroactively shilled," if you will, then it becomes a slippery slope.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So is the answer, by that logic, to stop collecting? I agree the criminals are out there, that we have to be able to identify and steer around shilled auctions, but one can't let awareness of the fraud paralyze them from enjoyment, or from obtaining the items they love. There has to be a balance within the collector.

No Scott, I'm not saying that at all. But I also don't give up my current life to be a policeman or vigilante by night. If you want to stop collecting because there are shillers out there, go for it. Willingness to bid in unshilled auctions does not mean someone condones shilling. Willingness to buy cards when prices in general may be inflated here and there due to past shilling is also not condoning shilling. If I see it I will report it. If I see it I will abstain. If I have a friend pursuing a card I see is being shilled, I will put him onto it. But I won't let the existence of shilling stop me from collecting, or dominate my mind to the point where I spend more time talking about shilling on a website than I do enjoying cards. It's about balance and enjoyment, and not crossing the line from cautious, educated collector into paralyzed collector/crusader.

Who said anyone should stop collecting because of the fraud? I'd just like to see the end of the covering up for the crooks as well as those who claim that fraud isn't a big deal and "just put in a bid you're comfortable with and if you're shilled you'll still be ok." That would be a nice start. Because if we can't even describe fraud for what it is then we obviously have a problem of stupidity in the hobby which at least rivals that of the fraud.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

And that's exactly what criminals like Bill Mastro think when they're engaging in their fraud: 'they want the card anyway, why is shilling it up a problem?' Hell, Bill still thinks that and he's cooperating with the Feds against other criminals in our hobby.

Jeff- I went back and re-read a statement I made in this thread and want to amend it here. I said to "just put a bid/snipe in and be done with it." I think that is still the case but it doesn't mean I WANT to pay that much if I don't need to, in a legal auction setting. I am not condoning, what looks to be, the fraud that we see going on with the bidding patterns and id's. I am not OK with getting ripped off. If I inadvertently stated otherwise then that was a mistake. If we see fraud going on then it is for the good of the hobby to expose it. Please keep doing what you are doing, but be nice .

[Sean1125]

[drcy]

I don't think there are easy answers, especially when applying to the real world. I think there can be compromise and things are rarely black and white and the real world situations can be complex. If all pants makers are unethical, I don't expect you to walk around without pants. Realize I grew up in the Northern Midwest and it can get chilly here in Seattle too. I don't rank every misdemeanor as a felony, nor do I expect people to be Saints (Though, to be candid, I expect people to be good people. Sorry, but I don't give excuses for stealing money from honest people or lying in auction descriptions. Use your rationalizations on someone else).

But, while I think one's ethics can sometimes justifiably be compromised on occasion ("All food makers are unethical in some way, but I actually have to eat and already have a full time job and can't start my own farm. I have to make some sort of practical compromise"), if all it takes to toss out one's ethics is to get a kid's baseball card, that's pretty sad. If there is a is god as commonly described, I would imagine he doesn't forgive your sins because they were done in the pursuit of gathering baseball cards.

And I'm not telling you what your ethics should be. I'm not saying I have the universal definition and here is what the are. But, for a starting point, you should know what are your ethical beliefs. And you know what is right and wrong by your definitions and you should be aware when you are breaking your rules in the of baseball cards. You know when you are really just rationalizing, if to yourself more even than to others. You know when you are manipulating definitions to meet your card collecting aims.

You don't have to argue to me your points. You don't have to convince me of anything. You don't have to convince me that this or that offense is really just an ethical parking ticket not a felony, and you more than make up for it by being good to your family and giving to charity. But you should have the discussion with yourself. And, in the end, if you are breaking your personal ethical rules but honestly believe it's justifiable in the pursuit of baseball cards, that's the way it is. The discussion was with yourself, and my and others' opinions and belief systems are neither here nor there. We weren't even in the room to hear your points, much less offer opinions on them.

P.s. Don't call me holier than thou after I said my personal belief system was neither here nor there.

P.s.s. Or at least have the decency to say it behind my back and not to my face.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Steve yes you could by Socratic method push even the most ethical person to the point where he would have to admit that he is not being completely pure or consistent. But so what? That doesn't undercut the legitimacy of taking the obvious step of foregoing card purchases from known or strongly suspected fraudsters. It's like Robert Bork allegedly said -- just because there is a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Wait a minute, you're saying these tiny cardboard cutouts that we're paying thousands of dollars for may be artificially inflated? No way.

Right, seriously. If the card market ever crashed to pennies, no noncollector would have any sympathy. They would be thinking what were these idiots thinking spending thousands of dollars on pieces of cardboard. At least with art, it is studied in school, and shown in world class museums. Coins and stamps have a country's history. Even comic books can be made into movies that make hundreds of millions of dollars. Baseball movies are lucky to get close to $100 million during their entire run.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by glchen

Right, seriously. If the card market ever crashed to pennies, no noncollector would have any sympathy. They would be thinking what were these idiots thinking spending thousands of dollars on pieces of cardboard. At least with art, it is studied in school, and shown in world class museums. Coins and stamps have a country's history. Even comic books can be made into movies that make hundreds of millions of dollars. Baseball movies are lucky to get close to $100 million during their entire run.

I respectfully couldn't disagree with this more. So comics are somehow inherently more valuable than cards because they can be made into terrible yet high grossing films? Coins and stamps have a country's history, and cards are part of sports history-- and sports are deeply woven into America's cultural fabric. Art is studied in school, but what makes a Basquiat worth millions and some other brilliant but unhyped artists never makes it big in the art world? There are politics and shadiness at play in the art collecting world, from authentic pieces that an estate doesn't want to dub legit, to the hype that certain influential players can give, which in turn blows up an artists' prices. Look at how attention from the Shafrazis and Gagosians of the art world can affect an artists' prices. And art is the zenith of subjectivity; in contrast a card's rarity, popularity, and the stature of the player depicted are pretty quantifiable, at least relative to justifying why one artist or art work is worth X and another worth Y.

[glchen]

Matt, I can see where you're coming from for comic books, but baseball cards are just pieces of cardboard. It's like the ultimate non-gold standard currency. There's nothing behind it but pure faith. And they were mass produced. And how about non sports cards like Pokémon cards. People can say it's the same thing, entertainment, sports, etc... Art is very subjective, true, but it's always going to be studied in schools, and always going to be considered a "higher" form of culture than sports. I'm not saying that I would be any of these pieces of art that sell for millions which look like my two year old could have done or even if some Monet is really worth $100+ million. However, those collectibles seem to be more a fabric of society than cards are. If Van Gogh's starting selling for $10, it would be headline news, and people would start thinking it's like another Cultural Revolution in China, which wasn't a good thing. The same reaction wouldn't happen for cards.

[MattyC]

One could just as easily say a Warhol is merely some canvas and paint. It's all so subjective. I personally don't believe in comparing one realm of collectible to another. Some cards were mass produced, others are in incredibly low supply relative to demand. One cannot underestimate people's love of sport, sports icons, and all the nostalgia as well.

Art being considered "higher" troubles me. To be clear, not saying you are saying that. But for those who would, it's kind of a pretentious, condescending attitude. There is room in a society for for both fine art and for sport. And one could contend sport is far more popular than art in society. I'm not someone who's big into prognostications but I don't see high end art or high end baseball cards becoming worthless in my lifetime.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by MattyC

One could just as easily say a Warhol is merely some canvas and paint. It's all so subjective. I personally don't believe in comparing one realm of collectible to another. Some cards were mass produced, others are in incredibly low supply relative to demand. One cannot underestimate people's love of sport, sports icons, and all the nostalgia as well.

Art being considered "higher" troubles me. To be clear, not saying you are saying that. But for those who would, it's kind of a pretentious, condescending attitude. There is room in a society for for both fine art and for sport. And one could contend sport is far more popular than art in society. I'm not someone who's big into prognostications but I don't see high end art or high end baseball cards becoming worthless in my lifetime.

Matt, I think you would understand this because you're a screenwriter. There are some movies that are just pure entertainment. However, there are some movies that attempt to give society something different in the world, to make a point. Sports are just pure entertainment, and collecting cards of sports heroes are just an extension of that. However, some art tries to show the world in a different way, and bring the audience with them. That's why I think it's a different type of collectible.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by glchen

Matt, I think you would understand this because you're a screenwriter. There are some movies that are just pure entertainment. However, there are some movies that attempt to give society something different in the world, to make a point. Sports are just pure entertainment, and collecting cards of sports heroes are just an extension of that. However, some art tries to show the world in a different way, and bring the audience with them. That's why I think it's a different type of collectible.

I agree completely that it's a different type. I would just fall short of calling one "higher" or not. Both thought-provoking films/art and sport have merit in society, IMO, is all I'm saying.

[the 'stache]

Not meaning to be argumentative here, Gary, but when was the last time a work of art had the impact that Jackie Robinson's breaking of the color barrier did upon not only baseball, but America itself? After 9/11 happened, did you see thousands of New Yorkers huddled around a Van Gogh at the Met? Nope, the only Met that was lifting people's spirits was Mike Piazza when he hit the game winning home run on 9/21 at Shea. Baseball, not some Degas painting of a bunch of ballerinas, helped heal this country. The history of baseball, and the history of this nation, are intertwined. Baseball cards are valued, and will always be valued, because they help us celebrate the history of our country. To dismiss baseball cards as "only pieces of cardboard", and say they are not the fabric of society is puzzling. I would say that baseball cards are in fact more a part of the fabric of society than a piece of art is.

You mentioned old coins. What intrinsic value do they have? Show me a 1920 nickel, and I'll tell you it's worth 5 cents because there's an active government backing the value of that coin. It's only worth more in certain circles because people have determined old coins have more value. What about coins from ancient civilizations? Again, they have value, and are collectible, because somebody is willing to pay more money to acquire it. If I melted those coins down, what would they be worth? Nothing, unless the coins were gold or silver. Then, they would have value as a commodity anywhere in the world. But nobody would care that that gold or silver came from an old coin.

Art? I can get a canvas, and throw a bunch of paint at it, and try to sell it on Ebay, I won't get a single bid. But, if I were to take that exact same piece of "art", throw it on Ebay with the title "Jackson Pollock masterpiece", you'd get the snobs of the art world tripping over themselves to acquire it. Why? Because people have placed value on paintings from the masters. Van Gogh died penniless. Nobody cared about his paintings while he was alive. It was only later when people identified the tortured genius in his work that they also deemed it had value. Nobody cares about where Van Gogh studied art. If you ask the average person bidding on a painting by Jan Van Eyck, or Rembrandt, or Monet, they're not going to have a clue under which master they might have studied.

Anything can have value. The Star Wars figures I played with as a child are highly collectible. Original, mint on card copies of the "twelve back" figures sell for thousands of dollars.

Originally Posted by glchen

Matt, I can see where you're coming from for comic books, but baseball cards are just pieces of cardboard. It's like the ultimate non-gold standard currency. There's nothing behind it but pure faith. And they were mass produced. And how about non sports cards like Pokémon cards. People can say it's the same thing, entertainment, sports, etc... Art is very subjective, true, but it's always going to be studied in schools, and always going to be considered a "higher" form of culture than sports. I'm not saying that I would be any of these pieces of art that sell for millions which look like my two year old could have done or even if some Monet is really worth $100+ million. However, those collectibles seem to be more a fabric of society than cards are. If Van Gogh's starting selling for $10, it would be headline news, and people would start thinking it's like another Cultural Revolution in China, which wasn't a good thing. The same reaction wouldn't happen for cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't understand the whole modern art thing. The decisions of the cognoscenti as to who is a master and who isn't seem, for the most part, highly arbitrary and capricious.

[DerekMichael]

I love that last post Mr. Gregory.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Not meaning to be argumentative here, Gary, but when was the last time a work of art had the impact that Jackie Robinson's breaking of the color barrier did upon not only baseball, but America itself? After 9/11 happened, did you see thousands of New Yorkers huddled around a Van Gogh at the Met? Nope, the only Met that was lifting people's spirits was Mike Piazza when he hit the game winning home run on 9/21 at Shea. Baseball, not some Degas painting of a bunch of ballerinas, helped heal this country. The history of baseball, and the history of this nation, are intertwined. Baseball cards are valued, and will always be valued, because they help us celebrate the history of our country. To dismiss baseball cards as "only pieces of cardboard", and say they are not the fabric of society is puzzling. I would say that baseball cards are in fact more a part of the fabric of society than a piece of art is.

You mentioned old coins. What intrinsic value do they have? Show me a 1920 nickel, and I'll tell you it's worth 5 cents because there's an active government backing the value of that coin. It's only worth more in certain circles because people have determined old coins have more value. What about coins from ancient civilizations? Again, they have value, and are collectible, because somebody is willing to pay more money to acquire it. If I melted those coins down, what would they be worth? Nothing, unless the coins were gold or silver. Then, they would have value as a commodity anywhere in the world. But nobody would care that that gold or silver came from an old coin.

Art? I can get a canvas, and throw a bunch of paint at it, and try to sell it on Ebay, I won't get a single bid. But, if I were to take that exact same piece of "art", throw it on Ebay with the title "Jackson Pollock masterpiece", you'd get the snobs of the art world tripping over themselves to acquire it. Why? Because people have placed value on paintings from the masters. Van Gogh died penniless. Nobody cared about his paintings while he was alive. It was only later when people identified the tortured genius in his work that they also deemed it had value. Nobody cares about where Van Gogh studied art. If you ask the average person bidding on a painting by Jan Van Eyck, or Rembrandt, or Monet, they're not going to have a clue under which master they might have studied.

Anything can have value. The Star Wars figures I played with as a child are highly collectible. Original, mint on card copies of the "twelve back" figures sell for thousands of dollars.

Bill, it is good to read about your love of cardboard and baseball. Please don't get me wrong. I love collecting baseball cards also. I collected when I was a kid, and I had a lot of fun buying packs at the local drugstore in town or before a Little League game. I exchanged cards with my friends in school, and I really enjoyed it. I still have many of my cards from back then, and although they are worthless in value, there is still a lot sentimental value there. I enjoy collecting today to somewhat relive those times during my childhood, and also to obtain some of the cards I could never dream of obtaining when I was a kid. In addition, it's very enjoyable learning the history of the different baseball cards, and it's a different type of experience in collecting the cards in of itself than when I was a kid.

Moreover, I could never collect art. Most of it's bulky, and I can't understand 99% of it. I much prefer to hang pictures of my family on the walls of our house than any painting or print of a noteworthy painting. However, I still believe that art is a different level of collectible than baseball cards.

So, I will reply to your argument this way. If you could only save one of these, your ten favorite or what you consider most important baseball cards ever, or this one painting of George Washington painted in 1796 by Gilbert Stuart (the Lansdowne portrait), which I’ve attached, and currently hanging in the Smithsonian Museum, which would you choose? A description of this painting is here (Link), and in brief the painting shows Washington refusing a third term as President. Note that there are copies of it painted by the same artist, but this would be the original. You could save only one, and the other would be incinerated and lost forever. Which would you choose?

[MattyC]

I think it's just far too reductive an analysis, to create an Art vs.
Sports collectible debate, and then boil it down to George Washington versus Babe Ruth, so to speak. Again, I'd urge an embracing of both art and sport in any balanced culture.

For every portrait of a Founding Father in a critical historical moment, there is a Jeff Koons sculpture that sells for a head-scratching sum. This type of Internet debate can quickly devolve because there are myriad examples anyone can select to stress either point. Let's resist the impulse to pit these two important realms against one another. There is room for both and collectors of both, and one need not occupy a "higher" level than another. Neither is on the societal chopping block.

After all, one can easily argue that an athlete at the pinnacle of human physical perfection and achievement, be it Jesse Owens or Michael Jordan or a young Mantle, winds up inspiring more people, and occupying a dearer place in more hearts, than many a fine art piece.

Thankfully, the hypothetical choice to sacrifice art or sport is one that our culture will not have to face.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by glchen

Bill, it is good to read about your love of cardboard and baseball. Please don't get me wrong. I love collecting baseball cards also. I collected when I was a kid, and I had a lot of fun buying packs at the local drugstore in town or before a Little League game. I exchanged cards with my friends in school, and I really enjoyed it. I still have many of my cards from back then, and although they are worthless in value, there is still a lot sentimental value there. I enjoy collecting today to somewhat relive those times during my childhood, and also to obtain some of the cards I could never dream of obtaining when I was a kid. In addition, it's very enjoyable learning the history of the different baseball cards, and it's a different type of experience in collecting the cards in of itself than when I was a kid.

Moreover, I could never collect art. Most of it's bulky, and I can't understand 99% of it. I much prefer to hang pictures of my family on the walls of our house than any painting or print of a noteworthy painting. However, I still believe that art is a different level of collectible than baseball cards.

So, I will reply to your argument this way. If you could only save one of these, your ten favorite or what you consider most important baseball cards ever, or this one painting of George Washington painted in 1796 by Gilbert Stuart (the Lansdowne portrait), which I’ve attached, and currently hanging in the Smithsonian Museum, which would you choose? A description of this painting is here (Link), and in brief the painting shows Washington refusing a third term as President. Note that there are copies of it painted by the same artist, but this would be the original. You could save only one, and the other would be incinerated and lost forever. Which would you choose?

Well..................

To follow the stated hobby logic, I'd save the cards. Because just like Broders, the painting can't have any value because the painter could always paint more. (And actually did)

The comparison is a good one in some ways. if I were to pick a handful of cards, the similarities would be that they and the painting would represent events and actions that altered out country in some way and that the alteration was one that remained.
Washington refusing a second term became a tradition that wasn't made law until 17 years after it was broken in 1940.

Obviously something that affected the countries politics and still does over 200 years later.

But an early card of Jackie Robinson? - a 49 leaf to make it easy. Also represents an act that represented a huge change in the US. And while it was less of a solitary act then one involving several people I would make the stretch that as a milestone in a movement that eventually had worldwide influence decades later it could be seen as equivalent historically.

Steve B