the list (of criminals) is revealed

[bcornell]

Originally Posted by sago

Lerner and Reznikoff; I am not that surprised. Kevin Keating and Pete Calderon; definitely shockers.

D@v1d D@v1s

There are several people with connections to the auction house who are listed as shill bidders. That includes their Silk Road investor (Filipowski), their receptionist (Henny Steinbach), and their IT guy (Boehm), among others. Mastro was just 'spreading the wealth' there, I suspect, using other people's accounts to do his bidding (pun intended). Just because Peter C's name is in this list doesn't mean he was actually shill bidding.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bcornell

Just because Peter C's name is in this list doesn't mean he was actually shill bidding.

That's true. I know I'm registered at every auction house as Buck Naked.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by bcornell

There are several people with connections to the auction house who are listed as shill bidders. That includes their Silk Road investor (Filipowski), their receptionist (Henny Steinbach), and their IT guy (Boehm), among others. Mastro was just 'spreading the wealth' there, I suspect, using other people's accounts to do his bidding (pun intended). Just because Peter C's name is in this list doesn't mean he was actually shill bidding.

There is quite a stretch from inferring phantom accounts were used to shill lots, to truly believing that the AH would actually use active accounts from established customers to bid. I'd think some eyebrows would be raised by someone getting an Email confirmation that they've bid on a lot.... that they didn't bid on. I don't buy it for a second.

[bcornell]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

There is quite a stretch from inferring phantom accounts were used to shill lots, to truly believing that the AH would actually use active accounts from established customers to bid. I'd think some eyebrows would be raised by someone getting an Email confirmation that they've bid on a lot.... that they didn't bid on. I don't buy it for a second.

I get what you're saying, but when you have access to a database as Mastro and Allen did, you can do anything you want with it. There's no guarantee emails were sent to high bidders to notify them.

Put another way, do we think their receptionist was part of the shill bidding conspiracy? That seems unlikely.

Bill

[drcy]

Why can't a secretary place shill bids for her boss? I'd buy it if all the bids were the in the names of the receptionist and the janitor, but it's not as if the bosses were shy about bidding under their own names.

If others' accounts were surreptitiously 'borrowed' to place illegal bids, perhaps there should have been charges for identity theft.

Thus ultimate salt in the wound would be when someone sees he was bid up by Spot.

[vintagetoppsguy]

What's the over/under on thread views here?

[nsaddict]

There are 3 shillers listed that currently sit on the board of experts at PSA. If someone were to post this on the CU boards, how long would it last?

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's the over/under on thread views here?

And how about this being a Net54 exclusive???? Not a peep about this across the pond!

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

And how about this being a Net54 exclusive???? Not a peep about this across the pond!

Someone started a thread, but it just refers people over here

[Yoda]

Just when I thought that the Mastro Mess was beginning to move slowly to the back burner, with Bill inside and Doug soon to go, but now we have more sordid details and, horror of horrors, actual names on both sides of the equation. The Dark Side rules tonight. Yoda

[MattyC]

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards?

Would also be great to know if any of the names involved have since become affiliated with/employed by other Auction Houses?

[ullmandds]

this is quite the shit storm that's just getting started!

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

this is quite the shit storm that's just getting started!

I have contacted 2 auction houses of which I currently have high bids. I respectively asked, that if the consignor of these lots appears on this list, to please retract my bids. I offered my understanding that this may exclude me from participating in further auctions. This list is a tiny tip of a huge iceberg. I hope it tips over, irregardless of what may happen to the current valuation of our collectibles.

[bunst]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards?

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bunst

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

Yes, Dave Forman is the owner of SGC, he may also be President but I am not sure. He and his brother Steve are identified on the list in several places.

ADDED I have not looked up the lots so I don't know the answer to the second part of your question.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by bunst

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

Yes, according to the document, Dave Forman (SGC owner) and his brother Steve Forman shilled each other's auctions on many occasions, including high grade SGC cards. The example below was consigned by Dave, shilled by Steve, and actually won by Steve... looks like he got stuck with it.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=70524

Here's one that was consigned by Steve, and shilled by Dave, and won by Greg Bussineau.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=74170

There are many, many other examples.


JEFF PR|ZNER

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards? ?

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

Just means he is an equal opportunity profiteer.

[Shoebox]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

The head of SGC is involved in nearly 30 lots that were shill bid with approximately 2/3 of the card graded by his own company.

PSA has members of its Board of Experts appear as shill bidders.

Maybe no one else goes to jail after Bill and Doug but there are certainly a lot more than just one auction house getting sh#t on them over this.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's the over/under on thread views here?

>25k

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by conor912

>25k

Here's 25001.

I'm surprised so many folks are surprised. In-house proprietary auction houses make little sense from a financial perspective and can be easily manipulated by the AH. Shilling is probably still rampant on the ones that are left. You can't even see the bidders, which is the first clue as to what is going on there.

E-bay has already spent billions building this software platform; and they do all the maintenance, upgrading, hardware, security, power, cooling, etc; for pennies. Does E-bay have shilling? of course. But at least I have some information to review in bid history to make my own assessment.

Lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

[martyp]

Originally Posted by Beastmode

Lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

I totally disagree with this statement. I bid within my budget and I am on the list as a victim of shilling. Just because you do not pay more than you are willing to does not mean that you will not pay more than you should have if the auction was run fairly.

[SteveMitchell]

Beastmode offers some good advice (see boldface and enlarged type for added emphasis). Perhaps not "never" but certainly "rarely" will one be a victim of shilling, if followed.

Originally Posted by beastmode

here's 25001.

I'm surprised so many folks are surprised. In-house proprietary auction houses make little sense from a financial perspective and can be easily manipulated by the ah. Shilling is probably still rampant on the ones that are left. You can't even see the bidders, which is the first clue as to what is going on there.

E-bay has already spent billions building this software platform; and they do all the maintenance, upgrading, hardware, security, power, cooling, etc; for pennies. Does e-bay have shilling? Of course. But at least i have some information to review in bid history to make my own assessment.

lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by conor912

>25k

in 1 day

[Peter_Spaeth]

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would let him bid using my ID. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if the bid from my account won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and the bid from my account was high bid, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction., particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron expected the set to go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Thanks for posting the explanation Peter. I understand, and see how things can happen. That was 2007. I think you'll agree that everyone now is edgey and ready for zero tolerance

[buymycards]

Peter, the only reason that no one was "run up" is because it happened that there were no bidders. If there had been bidders, you would have run them up.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron expected the set to go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

yeah that's pretty bad that you would bid and there was some collusion that if you won, the consignor would pay the BP to get the card back to the consignor..why not at least make you pay it to them (and then you get reimbursed by the consignor with sweaty palms)...yeah I understand the end game..no one was hurt because he wouldn't of consigned the card in the first place without assurances he would get a certain amount or get the card back..but when there was no agreement to a reserve and he still consigned the card anyway, that's an easy sign to know that the auction house is corrupt (and tip of the iceberg stuff) I don't know why you would be a part of it....maybe for this item no one got hurt but this sort of collusion probably occurred on other items with other shillers and people were victimized....but allowing to be used as pawns gave incentive to the auction house to look for other pawns out there..

again i understand no one got hurt this time..but sometimes bad things are done many times but only one time they get caught for it....though you always hear it on 'to catch a predator' it was their first time they ever did this...

I don't think you are part of the hobby problem at all..i think personally you are a great asset for the hobby and i am sure everyone would agree....i would bid on any of your ebay auctions if you had any with no hesitation.. you also are a great resource on knowledge on cards...i hope its doesn't look like i am bashing you...i just commenting.....also you are mentioned like the very very least out of the 100s of other names on there

[AGuinness]

Garth Guibord

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim.

Actually, no. When a reserve is included, the bidders are aware of it. In this case, it's clearly deceptive. It's doesn't take a degree in ethics to see that.

Not to mention the data point each shill auction, including that one, provides the industry, but is also deceptive.

I would hope people would be smart and decent enough that when they engage with somebody with shady practices, in this case an auction house who doesn't provide a specific service but encourages a deceptive alternative, they would simply walk away and find a more respectable auction house. Not offering a reserve, but suggesting this type of bidding as a proxy is a big red flag.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

There are a lot of catty, snarky comments that would be fun to post, but really, reading this just makes me sad. You still don't get it. There are only two sides to this: right and wrong. You are on the wrong side. You did a bad thing. At least have the decency to admit it without the song and dance. People forgive most stuff, but not hypocrisy.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Peter, this is an argument that anyone on the list could make. As another poster mentioned, this is counted as a sale, so one way shillers drive the price of items up is that they show demand for that price (e.g., VCP). If you dot VCP with fake sales, then buyers think there is actual demand for the item at that price, where there isn't. I definitely respect practically all of your posts, so I hope you can come around your thinking on this one.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Question will be coming.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would let him bid using my ID. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if the bid from my account won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and the bid from my account was high bid, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

I agree with Pete on this one--thanks for the explanation, Pete!

Larry

[conor912]

Originally Posted by conor912

>25k

In the first 24 hours, that is.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

what's the over/under on thread views here? :d

22,222

[autograf]

I agree with Bills take that you can't just assume because someone is in the shill column they did it...especially names like Calderon and Lucas and Henny Steinbach. There are some really aggredious instances on this spreadsheet though. Wow. Where does this go from here? Being outed like this, do people have any recourse on their situation? I was hit for $350 on a nonsports lot. I'm sure a lot of winners aren't jazzed about having the lots they won outed like this either. Many of these people play close to the best with their buying habits and collections.

[autograf]

Agree with the sentiment above me. My budget may have been pushed by unrealistic prices set as a result of shilling even on lots that weren't shilled.

[sago]

Originally Posted by bcornell

I get what you're saying, but when you have access to a database as Mastro and Allen did, you can do anything you want with it. There's no guarantee emails were sent to high bidders to notify them.

Put another way, do we think their receptionist was part of the shill bidding conspiracy? That seems unlikely.

Bill

Mastro was close with Don Steinbach IIRC. Figure Henny is related. Not accusing her of anything, but it is possible.

D@v1d D@v1s

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by bcornell

I get what you're saying, but when you have access to a database as Mastro and Allen did, you can do anything you want with it. There's no guarantee emails were sent to high bidders to notify them.

Put another way, do we think their receptionist was part of the shill bidding conspiracy? That seems unlikely.

Bill

Is that receptionist related to Mastro's former business partner back in the 90s who passed away?

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by bcornell

I get what you're saying, but when you have access to a database as Mastro and Allen did, you can do anything you want with it. There's no guarantee emails were sent to high bidders to notify them.

Put another way, do we think their receptionist was part of the shill bidding conspiracy? That seems unlikely.

Bill

Exactly. It's pretty easy to remove emails from a database, for inactive, dormant accounts... or whatever qualification you'd want to put on the selection criteria. As an IT guy, we do it all the time when refreshing non-Production data from a Production database. This is so people don't receive emails from Test (non-Prod) environments and think the emails they receive are real.

[Iron Horse]

Wonder what if any affect this will have on auction houses from here on out?
Most likely none, but lets see.

[Rich Klein]

I have had some email conversations with Rob and I agree with him that I probably should have phrased differently

I do want to say I pointed out in his case that 2002 is far away from 2016 and the split with Mastro may not have occurred year. I don't remember off the top of my head when it did, But there has been an evolution in Rob since the split. It was just interesting he was mentioned but that was 15 years ago and REA did pioneer must of the updated auction software to prevent things like this from occurring.

There is also the matter of who released this information and how and why it was released. *Note -- not the government releasing*.

I will continue to disagree with him that his retirement is not a hobby news story. Look, when you are the head of the most esteemed auction house (look at the REA threads on this board) and the auction carries your name, yeah it's kind of important when you pass the baton. I know Brian, I bought stuff from Brian when he ran Sterling and he was great to deal with. Brian will do fine and I wish Rob all the best in his retirement.

This whole sequence of events is probably just coincidental but an interesting way to start 2016

Rich

PS Peter Spaeth emailed me and asked about why I did not mention Dave Forman -- I pointed out I glanced at this list and did not cover every name.

[butcher354435]

Someone asked if the victims have been contacted...

I'm on the victim list and have never been contacted.