Lesson learned; Max bid on eBay

[glchen]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Come on, Gary. Are you for real?

If someone wanted to shill Dan up, they obviously could have because his proxy bid was exposed with the bid cancellation.

Did you even look at the bidding history? Did you notice that the user that had his bid cancelled is no longer a registered user? Did you also notice that he bid on several other items from 6 other sellers too?

Read before you post.

David, I don't know if you're just being naïve, but I did look at the bidding history. I don't see how that proves anything. People who shill often bid in other auctions to try to mask their shilling activities. The fact that he's no longer a registered bidder doesn't mean anything. Please read my post completely also. As I stated, it may not be shilling, but I don't think that the bidding history proves this.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Yes, Gary, I'm being naive.

Clearly I don't get it.

[glchen]

Don't worry, David. At least you have no peer in being able to detect altered cards.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I have two questions for you, Gary.

1) If the auction was shilled (which you clearly infer), why didn't the shiller run Dan's bid up to the max? After all, nothing was stopping him.

2) The only bidder that could have shilled that auction would have been n***i (593). So, here is another auction with the same NARU'd user. Who is the shiller on this one since obviously n***i (593) didn't bid in this one?

I would love to hear some more of your wisdom.

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...p2047675.l2565

[glchen]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I have two questions for you, Gary.

1) If the auction was shilled (which you clearly infer), why didn't the shiller run Dan's bid up to the max? After all, nothing was stopping him.

2) The only bidder that could have shilled that auction would have been n***i (593). So, here is another auction with the same NARU'd user. Who is the shiller on this one since obviously n***i (593) didn't bid in this one?

I would love to hear some more of your wisdom.

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...p2047675.l2565

David, clearly we are working off of different definitions of shill bidding. For you, it looks like shilling only means when artificial bids are created that run the winning bid up to their max bid. For me, shilling is any artificial bids created by the seller/consignor (or someone related) with the intention of increasing the final price of the item.

As I said in my initial post in this thread (#24), the consignor may have had a hidden reserve that he wanted to be met. Therefore, he shilled to drive the price up to his reserve price. He may have stopped at that point because he thought that price was sufficient for him, or he may have stopped because he had seen this thread so didn't want to bring additional attention to himself.

For the second auction that you are showing, the consignor may have decided that no additional shilling was necessary because the price at that point already surpassed his hidden reserve.

Again, my point here is that unless you know who the consignor and bidders are, you really do not know if you are being shilled or not. Once ebay started masking bidder id's, it made it significantly more difficult to determine if there is shilling going on. I remember a while back, Jeff believed that he was shilled in a PWCC auction for a Cobb card. However, in that instance, I was the consignor to PWCC for that item. I asked PWCC who the underbidder in that auction was, and I sent that ebay id over to Jeff to try to prove to him that no shilling occurred in that auction. So unless the consignor for these items speaks up, and then provides the identities for the bidders in question, we really won't know what really happened in these auctions.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by glchen

As I said in my initial post in this thread (#24), the consignor may have had a hidden reserve that he wanted to be met.

As you ALSO said in your initial post, "that bidder was a 0 feedback bidder so it could have just been a new account created to see what the max bid was."

Come one, Gary, if your going to make ridiculous comments, back them up. You clearly inferred that n***i (593) created the 0 feedback bidder to see what the max bid was. So, where is n***i (593) in the second auction? Where is the shill in this auction?

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...565&rmvSB=true

In other words, what was the 0 feedback user's motivation for bidding on it?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

As you ALSO said in your initial post, "that bidder was a 0 feedback bidder so it could have just been a new account created to see what the max bid was."

Come one, Gary, if your going to make ridiculous comments, back them up. You clearly inferred that n***i (593) created the 0 feedback bidder to see what the max bid was. So, where is n***i (593) in the second auction? Where is the shill in this auction?

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...565&rmvSB=true

In other words, what was the 0 feedback user's motivation for bidding on it?

David, why does every action need to be linked with the same id's in both? Couldn't n***i (593) not bid in that auction or instead use a different account just to throw you off?