Cards that CAN and CANNOT be soaked?!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mikehealer

Well spoken.
Shilling is stealing and is against the law. It doesn't matter what a person is willing to pay for an item, when if not shilled that person would have gotten the item for less. Shilling also creates a false market value. Did I mention that shilling is stealing!
I'm not saying soaking is an accepted practice by all. Some think it is altering a card and some don't. I understand both sides.
I'll bet that if you ask anyone that has soaked a card, if they have soaked they would tell you yes. On the other hand if you asked someone that has shilled if they have shilled, you will not get such a truthful answer.
So I will stick to my earlier statement, to even suggest soaking is worse than shilling is ridiculous.
Merry Christmas to all.

I like this post much better than you made...I like the discussion and thanks for the good response...


I think a reserve is the same thing as shilling..the item doesn't sell if it doesn't go over the reserve......I know there are problems with shilling...I can tell you when I have bid on used cars and I have felt I was bidding against the soda machine in the back of the auction

the issue why I think shilling is not so bad is I cant see it being prevalent...let the seller keep eating a buyers premium every time he 'wins' a card....I would never want to risk losing 10%..i know there are some extreme examples out there where it could make sense in theory but time after time I just do see it taking place in the real auction houses..

I do see old threads on the soaking that I had not seen till today. They make the same points about if you don't disclose it for fear the item will go down then there is something wrong with that..

can we agree that if there are two identical cards in every way (except whatever happens to the paper if one of them was soaked ) and if one was soaked and the other wasn't and they are being sold raw, that you will prefer the unsoaked card?

however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

the issue why I think shilling is not so bad is I cant see it being prevalent...let the seller keep eating a buyers premium every time he 'wins' a card....I would never want to risk losing 10%..i know there are some extreme examples out there where it could make sense in theory but time after time I just do see it taking place in the real auction houses..

What if the auction house is doing the shilling? All shilling is illegal, unethical, and downright evil. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of how much collectors have overpaid because of it.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

can we agree that if there are two identical cards in every way (except whatever happens to the paper if one of them was soaked ) and if one was soaked and the other wasn't and they are being sold raw, that you will prefer the unsoaked card?

I would, but I'm one of the few who is against all altering: soaking, erasing, etc.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?

Are you really asking this?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Are you really asking this? [/QUOTE]


I assume there is always puffed out prices up there..thats why I don't care what the winning bid is..i just look for price points where there were many unique bidders involved.

If an auction was a 'silent' auction..they just go by the highest bid right? no matter how much higher the winning bidder is....maybe auctions should just do that to avoid shilling ....

shilling is also not so black and white...a friend of a friend knows you have an item on ebay and bids to an amount that he would buy if no one else buys the item but if he was not your friend he would not of bid on the item at all.......if that friend of a friend ended up winning the item he would absolutely pay.is that shilling?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I like this post much better than you made...I like the discussion and thanks for the good response...


I think a reserve is the same thing as shilling..the item doesn't sell if it doesn't go over the reserve......I know there are problems with shilling...I can tell you when I have bid on used cars and I have felt I was bidding against the soda machine in the back of the auction

the issue why I think shilling is not so bad is I cant see it being prevalent...let the seller keep eating a buyers premium every time he 'wins' a card....I would never want to risk losing 10%..i know there are some extreme examples out there where it could make sense in theory but time after time I just do see it taking place in the real auction houses..

I do see old threads on the soaking that I had not seen till today. They make the same points about if you don't disclose it for fear the item will go down then there is something wrong with that..

can we agree that if there are two identical cards in every way (except whatever happens to the paper if one of them was soaked ) and if one was soaked and the other wasn't and they are being sold raw, that you will prefer the unsoaked card?

however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?

A few more points on shilling and soaking.

Why do you think that a shiller is paying 10%? Most just cancel the transaction so there are no fees.

Shilling is stealing even if the shill bidder was not the under bidder. More bids bring more interest to a card.

Card soaking. I would pay the exact same price for 2 cards that look exactly the same even if I knew 1 was soaked. Now if they done a bad job of soaking that is a different story. I personally see nothing wrong with soaking if done properly.

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=bnorth;1358365]A few more points on shilling and soaking.

Why do you think that a shiller is paying 10%? Most just cancel the transaction so there are no fees.


--I don't thinks its a quick easy way out all the time if you 'win' your own item for a lot of reasons....

if you win an item on mile high they let you just cancel the transaction if you win..that easy? no headaches at all?


ebay I thought chargeds you a final value fee, if you keep canceling a transaction among the same bidder I would think you will get charged a final value fee eventually...

if you yourself or your friend on your behest won your item at mile high, heritage etc. ..you lose 20% don't you as buyers premium? how do you cancel a transaction at heritage, mile high etc...I just don't think its as easy as 'canceling the transaction'..if you win....

now if you own the auction house and its your item...now that's a real problem.....

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?

Yes, shill bidding impacts the value of cards.

Leaving aside the particular auction you cite, please allow me to explain.

- Card X (could be a '52 Mantle, could be something different) is up for auction
- There are a number of bids on the card, all of which are legitimate
- Bidder Y is currently winning the auction at $10,000
- Bidder Y has placed a max bid of $12,500
- Bidder Z (who actually owns the card and is selling it in this auction) places a shill bid of $12,000
- Bidder Y wins the auction at $12,100

In the example above, Bidder Z stole $2,100 from Bidder Y. Additionally, to answer your question, Bidder Z has impacted the entire market for Card X.

Because of his unethical shill bidding, the card's market value is now perceived to be $12,100. Had he not placed the shill bid, the market value would have been perceived to be $10,000.

So, Bidder Z has not only robbed someone, he also caused future buyers (in the short term, at least) of Card X to overpay.

Hope this makes sense. And please know this isn't an attack.

Best regards,

Eric

[1952boyntoncollector]

understood but the underbidder was willing to pay $12,500 for it so the card is worth as much as someone is willing to pay $12,500 so its still market value..

also on big auction houses there are big gaps in bidding slots...especially once you get to $12,000

20% on 12,000 is $2400..i don't think a shiller would want to win the card at $12,000 to 'win' an extra $500......there could be shilling at $8000 but to me its more like a reserve..especially when there are people willing to pay over $11,000.....

as long as theres a 10-20% penalty of loss for shilling and 'winning' can we agree that the problem isn't that big of a deal...its when they don't have to pay a penalty would be the problem.....the penalty polices itself..now of course there will be extreme examples..like in everything....

...if you set a reserve to $12,500 and its bid to $12,000....the bidder will be forced to big against themselves to get it to $12,500..same outcome...

[nolemmings]

There are times when shilling is used to form an undisclosed reserve, and while I find it irksome, I don't lose sleep over it. If that Mantle card mentioned typically sells in the $25-30K range and people are prop bidding (shilling) it to 15-16K, I'm not all that bothered. Yes it shows an artificial interest in the card that may spur activity, and I wish it didn't happen, but I don't get all bent when I know there are 3-4 guys that are going to be there in the end making legit bids in the FMV range.

I am among the minority that doesn't soak and would prefer to not have soaked cards. That being said I don't look so negatively at soaking that if it is a card I really want and is seldom found, I would turn my back if the Seller told me it had been soaked. Don't know how I'd feel if they developed a soak-o-meter that could tell me which of my cards had been soaked--I think I would try and replace them but can't say for sure.