hypothetical major problem with well respected board member

[drcy]

If this is a case of people making an agreement to lower the final price, the OP maybe should drop the issue. Some might call it collusion-- sort of a form of reverse shilling.

But, as earlier noted, with group lots it's not always clear cut because two bidders may want and not want different stuff from the lot and that may be an important part of the reason they make an agreement.

I'd never go in with multiple people on a lot, because it sounds too messy and confusing. Anything that requires a spreadsheet to document what goes where is something on which I'd pass.

[Jewish-collector]

Larry -

Why don't you just say what Joel Goodsen (Tom Cruise) said in the movie Risky Business. He said in one of the scenes, "Sometimes you gotta say WTF"

[ValKehl]

Larry, I like Daniel's suggestion (post #19) that you contact Leon, provide him with all the particulars, and ask him to contact this other Board member. I think this approach offers the best chance of getting this matter resolved amicably.
Val

[btcarfagno]

Reverse shilling was my first thought regarding the initial post. There seems to be a fine line between divvying up a lot (instead of of one person buying the lot and selling off the unwanted pieces) and two people conspiring not to both bid on a lot so that it goes cheaper (and then divvying up the lot). As a consignor I would feel as if I did not receive true market value either way.

If my original thoughts regarding the original post are valid, and both parties to this issue agreed not to "bid each other up", then I feel it is as bad as shilling. Justifying it by saying that it goes on all the time is just as bad as justifying shilling because " the buyer was willing to pay that much anyway so what is the big deal".

Just my worthless pair of pennies anyway.

Tom C

[JasonD08]

You are screwed. Just get over it and move on. No Val, Leon does not need to get into the middle. This is not a net54 issue. If it is a serious issue for you, you should out the member and get opinions once he pleads his case. If that does not happen you have no credibility whining about trusting some person's (we do not know) word that they would split a deal.