the list (of criminals) is revealed

[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.

[asoriano]

...you gotta love this dirty hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

As I thought of it, if Ron had not consigned the set at all, or if there had been a reserve or an opening bid at the reserve level, nobody could have won it for less than one bid above mine anyhow. So your hypothetical is not real, as I see it. But as I said, I do understand there are other ways to look at it.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I thought of it, if Ron had not consigned the set at all, or if there had been a reserve or an opening bid at the reserve level, nobody could have won it for less than one bid above mine anyhow. So your hypothetical is not real, as I see it. But as I said, I do understand there are other ways to look at it.

Here's my take:

If there had been, say, a $2,000 reserve on the lot, and the highest bidder bid $1,500, everyone would see that the set did not meet the reserve. This could be attributed to either the reserve being set too high, or there just being low interest in the set at that particular time. As it happened, a "shill bid" was placed for $2,000, to match the "unstated" reserve. This led people to believe the set had sold at that price. This is the lie, that the set sold, when it actually did not; and this is where, in my opinion, the main problem lies. It results in false price information being released to the public, and a false value being placed on the item. The set may later exceed the value that was falsely reported at that time, but there is really no way of knowing what effect the false info had, even if there are years between the auction in question, and the actual later sale.

The safest and best way to proceed is to set a reserve (if desired), and let the bidding determine if the reserve is realistic (at that particular moment in time). Then at least, if the item does not sell, the public has accurate information to use, in later placing a value on it.

Steve

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Here's my take:

If there had been, say, a $2,000 reserve on the lot, and the highest bidder bid $1,500, everyone would see that the set did not meet the reserve. This could be attributed to either the reserve being set too high, or there just being low interest in the set at that particular time. As it happened, a "shill bid" was placed for $2,000, to match the "unstated" reserve. This led people to believe the set had sold at that price. This is the lie, that the set sold, when it actually did not; and this is where, in my opinion, the main problem lies. It results in false price information being released to the public, and a false value being placed on the item. The set may later exceed the value that was falsely reported at that time, but there is really no way of knowing what effect the false info had, even if there are years between the auction in question, and the actual later sale.

The safest and best way to proceed is to set a reserve (if desired), and let the bidding determine if the reserve is realistic (at that particular moment in time). Then at least, if the item does not sell, the public has accurate information to use, in later placing a value on it.

Steve

The consignor obviously would have preferred a reserve, as it would not have cost him thousands of dollars not to sell his set, as it turned out, but he was told the option was not available. So he took the instruction of what was then still a mostly highly respected auction house as to an alternative. Sure everyone can sit in judgment now. Whatever.

[Rich Klein]

Peter Nash must be smiling, rubbing his hands and getting his next column ready

Did anyone notice in the 2002 auction Rob Lifson's name was posted. Now I know that things have evolved since then but that was fascinating. I repeat something I was thinking after Rob's Friday night announcement in his blog about retiring. I just found it strange a story broke on a Friday night. Usually in politics, if you want to bury a story, release the news on Friday Night.

If it's good news, release the story on Monday Morning about 9 AM

TJ Schwartz's name is posted as well as well -- he writes a column for SCD called on your side. HMMM

Peter Calderon (now at Heritage) is also listed as a shill bidder.

These are just some of the quick highlights as I don't have the eyes to read through every name.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Peter Nash must be smiling, rubbing his hands and getting his next column ready

Did anyone notice in the 2002 auction Rob Lifson's name was posted. Now I know that things have evolved since then but that was fascinating. I repeat something I was thinking after Rob's Friday night announcement in his blog about retiring. I just found it strange a story broke on a Friday night. Usually in politics, if you want to bury a story, release the news on Friday Night.

If it's good news, release the story on Monday Morning about 9 AM

TJ Schwartz's name is posted as well as well -- he writes a column for SCD called on your side. HMMM

Peter Calderon (now at Heritage) is also listed as a shill bidder.

These are just some of the quick highlights as I don't have the eyes to read through every name.

meh never mind

[swarmee]

In similar news:
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/m...ardsniper.html

Arizona Diamondbacks closer Brad Ziegler recounts how and why he shill bid auctions through Probstein on eBay.

[ullmandds]

And what about Dave Forman's involvment...the thread about PSA or SGC going under doesnt seem all that implausible any more??

I mean with beckett owning their own auction house and grading company...Tpg'ers are printing money and double dipping in the profits...this is scary!

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The consignor obviously would have preferred a reserve, as it would not have cost him thousands of dollars not to sell his set, as it turned out, but he was told the option was not available. So he took the instruction of what was then still a mostly highly respected auction house as to an alternative. Sure everyone can sit in judgment now. Whatever.

Point taken Peter; and that is where Doug Allen's feet need to be held to the fire. At least in your case, Doug appears to be the one spearheading the illicit activities. It, perhaps, does not fully eliminate the consigner's or your culpability, but it would serve to mitigate it.

Steve

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The consignor obviously would have preferred a reserve, as it would not have cost him thousands of dollars not to sell his set, as it turned out, but he was told the option was not available. So he took the instruction of what was then still a mostly highly respected auction house as to an alternative. Sure everyone can sit in judgment now. Whatever.

Peter, I guess that's the point I made earlier: this type of practice is not just reflected on as shady now, it was shady then. As evidenced by its appearance in the court documents.

If ANY auction house offers this type of shady practice, it should have been a big red flag and clearly was not worth the respect people were giving it. Just because a person or auction house compels someone to do something illegal/unethical, doesn't mean they have to do it.

Parsing it for people sitting in judgement now is a cop out. It was wrong then - that's the point.

[Vintagefun]

CU Thread...Poof. Not sure why. Disappointing.

[ALR-bishop]

....in two shakes of a lamb's tail

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

....in two shakes of a lamb's tail

nah was more than 5 nanoseconds

[Jeff1970Red]

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I have owned it, unlike anyone else so far who is on that list. I disagree with your opinion, as I see it this was not at anyone else's expense, please see my response to Rick.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I have owned it, unlike anyone else so far who is on that list. I disagree with your opinion, as I see it this was not at anyone else's expense, please see my response to Rick.

yeah I agree he has owned it...it over now...we can take the pitchforks to the other villages now. (the other guys on the list)....there may be frankenstein out there to grab but peter would barely be a reprint of part of a shoelace on Frankenstein,, if that..

[Bruinsfan94]

Yea I'm not seeing any gray area. Should just admit you made a mistake and move on. Everyone does something they regret once in a while.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Bruinsfan94

Everyone does something they regret once in a while.

My son's mother What the hell was I thinking

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

Per forum rules, your name please

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

For the moment I am not saying anything except that your full name, and everyone posting in this thread who makes any comment per the rules, needs to put their name in their post (if not easily found by your sig line etc)....per the rule in bold letters at the top of every page. It's not that important though. If anyone doesn't want their full name in their post then they can edit their comments out. Otherwise I will be putting names in posts per the rules at my leisure .......thanks to all

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

He did.

I'm not a big baller in the card world, but I do follow the story.

Peter, I disagree 100% of what you did. But you did step up and tell your story. I do applaud your for that. Thanks.

[Shoebox]

Have been looking over the information in this document a lot through the day and while I was not directly affected by this I have a lot of thoughts I want to express.

1. Peter, seeing your name appear as a shill bidder was disappointing to me as I genuinely appreciate the knowledge, experience, and opinions you contribute to this community. However, I thank you for being willing to acknowledge your actions and face fallout from them. I respect you for doing that even if I think your actions were wrong. There are others that have much more to answer for but so far remain silent.

2.This is only a tiny portion of the fraud. 2 years worth of auctions by only one AH and this is only the transactions that someone with direct knowledge squealed on or confessed to having direct knowledge of the conspiracy. We know about Peter's because of conversations between the consignor and Maestro. How many agreements like that might have been reached that the AH didn't know about. I don't have to tell the AH that I am going to have a proxy place a protection bid on my consignment to keep from losing it at too low a price.

3. If a name appears as a shill bidder you placed a shill bid or one was placed under your name. The only way your name appears in that column was if there is direct evidence or testimony that the bid in question was part of the conspiracy. Some of the theories that some in that list may not be directly involved is in my opinion likely just wishful thinking.

4. The AH has an incentive to shill if there is a high max bid so it is possible for a consignor to have his lots shill bid without his involvement. However, when I see a board member appear as a consignor for 30 lots in this list and the names of the shill bidders only appears on their lots then I can make a pretty safe inference they were a willing participant in the fraud. If there is some other explanation for that JC Clarke I welcome you to offer it.

5. The occurrences I mention in 4 are present for Ken Goldin as well. So, there is a strong likelihood that he was involved in arranging shill bidding of several consignments to Maestro. If he is willing to participate in such actions in other auctions why should I have any confidence that he doesn't allow or even facilitate it in the auctions his AH runs? I hope Leon is already considering whether Goldin Auctions should continue to be allowed to advertise on this forum. I know I am unlikely to ever bid in one of their auctions.

I know I am just a bottom level collector and I don't have a spit's worth of significance in the collecting world but even a novice nobody like me can see that there are a whole lot more people than just the ones on this list that have dirt on their hands.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Shoebox

Have been looking over the information in this document a lot through the day and while I was not directly affected by this I have a lot of thoughts I want to express.

1. Peter, seeing your name appear as a shill bidder was disappointing to me as I genuinely appreciate the knowledge, experience, and opinions you contribute to this community. However, I thank you for being willing to acknowledge your actions and face fallout from them. I respect you for doing that even if I think your actions were wrong. There are others that have much more to answer for but so far remain silent.

2.This is only a tiny portion of the fraud. 2 years worth of auctions by only one AH and this is only the transactions that someone with direct knowledge squealed on or confessed to having direct knowledge of the conspiracy. We know about Peter's because of conversations between the consignor and Maestro. How many agreements like that might have been reached that the AH didn't know about. I don't have to tell the AH that I am going to have a proxy place a protection bid on my consignment to keep from losing it at too low a price.

3. If a name appears as a shill bidder you placed a shill bid or one was placed under your name. The only way your name appears in that column was if there is direct evidence or testimony that the bid in question was part of the conspiracy. Some of the theories that some in that list may not be directly involved is in my opinion likely just wishful thinking.

4. The AH has an incentive to shill if there is a high max bid so it is possible for a consignor to have his lots shill bid without his involvement. However, when I see a board member appear as a consignor for 30 lots in this list and the names of the shill bidders only appears on their lots then I can make a pretty safe inference they were a willing participant in the fraud. If there is some other explanation for that JC Clarke I welcome you to offer it.

5. The occurrences I mention in 4 are present for Ken Goldin as well. So, there is a strong likelihood that he was involved in arranging shill bidding of several consignments to Maestro. If he is willing to participate in such actions in other auctions why should I have any confidence that he doesn't allow or even facilitate it in the auctions his AH runs? I hope Leon is already considering whether Goldin Auctions should continue to be allowed to advertise on this forum. I know I am unlikely to ever bid in one of their auctions.

I know I am just a bottom level collector and I don't have a spit's worth of significance in the collecting world but even a novice nobody like me can see that there are a whole lot more people than just the ones on this list that have dirt on their hands.

I agree
I'm going to unsubscribe to Goldin Auctions
Do I have to start a thread to ban myself?

[Jeffrompa]

Makes me want to open a pizza shop . It's kind of disturbing to the soul .

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

I agree
I'm going to unsubscribe to Goldin Auctions
Do I have to start a thread to ban myself?