hypothetical major problem with well respected board member

68Hawk · #1 01-26-2015, 02:33 PM

These cards weren't 'worth' $20000.
They were worth what they sold for - $10000.

If only one other bidder believes an item is worth double what it sells for in the majority, how is it 'worth' the higher number. At the higher number, the sale merely represents an overwhelming desire to own the item beyond logic and likely recompense, and clearly evidences over estimating the items worth.
Should the item be available for sale again, and the one other bidder who is willing to bid highly has found his itch scratched and is no longer looking.....the number at which most see value is the true worth of the item.
Everything else is sheer pride of ownership in its many guises.

Oh, and the guy who dudded you is a cad, as Adam pointed out in an earlier post.

the 'stache · #2 01-26-2015, 03:06 PM

Without commenting as to the specifics of the deal in question, here's how I feel. All you truly have in this world is your word. You are either an honorable man, or you are not. And it is in moments like these where a person's true character is shown. And to me, nothing I could ever buy, no matter how valuable, or rare, or how much I wanted it, would be worth sacrificing my integrity.

SMPEP · #3 01-26-2015, 03:30 PM

I'm surprised the obvious answer hasn't been suggested:

Pistols at 40 paces. And if you're a good shot ... a great collection full of rare wonders will be on the market.

ibuysportsephemera · #4 01-26-2015, 04:00 PM

Sorry, but I disagree with the comments about bid rigging, reverse shilling, collusion, etc. I don't think these terms apply at all to this discussion. If the 2 bidders in this discussion were the only 2 bidders then all of those descriptions might apply. However, as I read the OP's first post, he said that 2 people agreed not to compete against each other in an auction that presumably could have had many more potential bidders. They did not control the rest of the bidders so there was not guarantee that their partnership would be successful. Just my 2�.

Jeff

ullmandds · #5 01-26-2015, 04:09 PM

what'd I do? I did NOTHING wrong I say...NOTHING!!!!!!!

7nohitter · #6 01-26-2015, 04:46 PM

Name the moron you had the 'deal with' or there was no logical reason for this entire thread. Rube.

Am.D%%R&*(#$$$#e^^^&77w M99i99l09090909090le.....r

ruth-gehrig · #7 01-26-2015, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

Name the moron you had the 'deal with' or there was no logical reason for this entire thread. Rube.

Am.D%%R&*(#$$$#e^^^&77w M99i99l09090909090le.....r

Im beginning to think this "hypothetical" situation isnt real

Peter_Spaeth · #8 01-26-2015, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

Sorry, but I disagree with the comments about bid rigging, reverse shilling, collusion, etc. I don't think these terms apply at all to this discussion. If the 2 bidders in this discussion were the only 2 bidders then all of those descriptions might apply. However, as I read the OP's first post, he said that 2 people agreed not to compete against each other in an auction that presumably could have had many more potential bidders. They did not control the rest of the bidders so there was not guarantee that their partnership would be successful. Just my 2�.

Jeff

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

edhans · #9 01-26-2015, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

Exactly what is the difference between this "bid rigging" and two (or more) friends who agree to buy a lot and divide it up? If my friend an I each want a few cards in a lot, are we really obligated to bid each other up? Sorry to appear dense, but I'm obviously missing something.

Peter_Spaeth · #10 01-26-2015, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edhans

Exactly what is the difference between this "bid rigging" and two (or more) friends who agree to buy a lot and divide it up? If my friend an I each want a few cards in a lot, are we really obligated to bid each other up? Sorry to appear dense, but I'm obviously missing something.

It's a fine line, as has been mentioned, and I think it depends in part on your intent. If the intent is to pool resources to buy something you might not otherwise have been able to buy, or wouldn't have wanted to buy, it's ok; if the intent is to keep the price down by ensuring you and someone else don't independently bid, then it's not ok. Now in practice it can certainly be hard to tell the difference.

nolemmings · #11 01-26-2015, 05:42 PM

Quote:

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

Agreed, although your analogy might be a little strained in the sense that the market in your scenario is probably somewhat small and thus having a large percentage of its bidders collude would have a greater impact on price. Still, I'm not going to argue with an antitrust lawyer, at least not just yet, until Happy Hour is over

Still, partnering as described elsewhere in this thread also somewhat artificially affects the market and price. If few or no individuals can financially participate in the upper-end bidding for a lot and pooling is required, haven't you in essence manipulated the market as well? At least you've pretty much set some barriers.

Peter_Spaeth · #12 01-26-2015, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Agreed, although your analogy might be a little strained in the sense that the market in your scenario is probably somewhat small and thus having a large percentage of its bidders collude would have a greater impact on price. Still, I'm not going to argue with an antitrust lawyer, at least not just yet, until Happy Hour is over

Still, partnering as described elsewhere in this thread also somewhat artificially affects the market and price. If few or no individuals can financially participate in the upper-end bidding for a lot and pooling is required, haven't you in essence manipulated the market as well? At least you've pretty much set some barriers.

Todd price fixing is still per se illegal, before or after Happy Hour, so the specifics of my example don't really matter. Hypothetically, because as we all know this would never be prosecuted, a showing of price impact isn't necessary, it's assumed.

ibuysportsephemera · #13 01-26-2015, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for me the comparison of Ford and GM has no bearing on this discussion. Ford and GM are not participating in an auction.

In the broad sense of the definition, collusion usually relates to an illegal act (but not always) for a dishonest purpose. I don't see anything wrong with 2 parties that are familiar with each other agreeing to partnership to save themselves money. As I stated, they were not the only potential bidders and there were no guarantees that they would be the high bidders (which is why this certainly isn't bid rigging).

If the 2 parties knew that they were the only bidders, then it certainly would be collusion, bid rigging, etc. But if this was a normal auction/ auction house, there is no way for the partners to know who the other bidders are or what the outcome would be.

Jeff

ibuysportsephemera · #14 01-26-2015, 06:07 PM

People have used the term bid-rigging. It really is an incorrect usage for this discussion. Typically the term is used when parties collude and the outcome of the bid is guaranteed. Because this was an auction with anonymous participants, there was no way to guarantee the outcome.

Jeff

Exhibitman · #15 01-26-2015, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMPEP

I'm surprised the obvious answer hasn't been suggested:

Pistols at 40 paces. And if you're a good shot ... a great collection full of rare wonders will be on the market.

Bitch-slaps at three feet would be more entertaining for the rest of us...

http://youtu.be/SNbup9-yj7c

Sophiedog · #16 01-26-2015, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Without commenting as to the specifics of the deal in question, here's how I feel. All you truly have in this world is your word. You are either an honorable man, or you are not. And it is in moments like these where a person's true character is shown. And to me, nothing I could ever buy, no matter how valuable, or rare, or how much I wanted it, would be worth sacrificing my integrity.

Well said Bill....True 100%

glchen · #17 01-26-2015, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68Hawk

These cards weren't 'worth' $20000.
They were worth what they sold for - $10000.

If only one other bidder believes an item is worth double what it sells for in the majority, how is it 'worth' the higher number. At the higher number, the sale merely represents an overwhelming desire to own the item beyond logic and likely recompense, and clearly evidences over estimating the items worth.
Should the item be available for sale again, and the one other bidder who is willing to bid highly has found his itch scratched and is no longer looking.....the number at which most see value is the true worth of the item.
Everything else is sheer pride of ownership in its many guises.

Oh, and the guy who dudded you is a cad, as Adam pointed out in an earlier post.

There's often a "break" value in lots where the sum of the single items is greater than what the lot sold for. This is usually because collectors don't want to spend a whole bunch of money for a large lot where they only want 1-2 cards, and then go through the trouble of trying to sell the extras they don't want.

Here is an extreme example of a 53 card lot that went for ~12K in an REA auction: Link, and then a single card out of that lot (the M101-6 Cobb) went for nearly 20K by itself: Link. There's no picture of the card in the Goodwin auction, but it was the same card as this was discussed as it went down here: Link.

Again, this is an extreme example of a lot that obviously went under the radar, but it's fairly common where if you buy large lots, you can sell the cards individually and do quite well.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question regarding a hypothetical mail order problem for sellers and PayPal...	Baseball Rarities	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	23	12-16-2014 05:09 PM
A hypothetical thought problem	Brianruns10	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	10	05-23-2012 10:24 PM
Heads up- problem with board member Jim Rogers, jrog007	Leon	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	14	10-10-2011 11:56 AM
a major problem	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	139	06-08-2007 03:22 PM
Major problem with eBay - Help is requested!	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	24	06-24-2003 10:17 AM