the list (of criminals) is revealed

[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.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by 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.

And then when he got caught lying about why he shilled, he ran away with his tail between his legs and refused to post anymore.

[UnVme7]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's really nothing new. Prob is a shady shill bidding fool. Has been for years, which is why I don't participate in his auctions.

[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!

[botn]

Over, at least, the last 4 years I was advised and urged to not make a post like this so this comes as a great relief to me that I can finally write this. There is nothing noble in my decision to do this since my name is out there as a consignor with Mastro and associated with items which were identified as shilled but I feel I owe an explanation to those who were harmed and to those who call me a hobby friend. I made a mess so I have to clean it up.
During roughly 2005 to 2009 we consigned a few hundred thousand dollars worth of material to Mastro. Our consignments generally consisted of our more expensive inventory since that type of material did not seem to do as well on eBay—our only other outlet for retail sales AND auction houses like Mastro seemed to be setting record prices. At some point after less than stellar auction results and being completely incensed and frustrated, we decided to protect items rather than allowing them to sell below what we felt were fair values.

At no point did we ever conspire with anyone at Mastro on those bids. We never knew who was bidding on our items or what their bids were. I have no recollection which of our consignments I was the one to place a bid and which my former business partner bid on but since he is no longer here I have to take responsibility for our actions. Sometimes a top all would be placed and other times we would bid incrementally so as to not open ourselves up to being shill bid, as ironic as that might sound. In each instance our bids were made with the intent to buy back the item and a willingness to pay the buyer’s premium, as we did each time we bought back a lot. It did not feel right doing this but I never thought of it as being illegal.

Not to make excuses but the practice described above, of protecting a lot, was very prevalent at that time even among collectors. I will not call out anyone by name but some are current posters here who would frequently ask me to bid up their auction listings on eBay. I now understand why the government considers this shill bidding however our intent with Mastro was never to defraud anyone but to simply protect what was ours. Obviously we should not have consigned if we were not willing to accept that our items might fall far short of our expectations. I cannot take back what I was a part of but I can be a better person going forward. I am sorry to those I harmed and to those who I have disappointed.

As a side note the list may not be as accurate as the government might think. There are a couple errors that I know of in regards to items identified as my consignments according to my records.

Greg

[Rich Klein]

Some very random thoughts here

1) Kudos to Leon for keeping this thread going. I know many of the names on the list are advertisers and he's willing to let this be noted. You can disagree with him on many things -- sometimes just to be a contrarian (Marquard) but instead of hiding this information he ensured it came out.

2) I see named like Brian Bigelow on the list. I've known Brian for more than 25 years and he may be the finest hobby writer around. Brian was working for Mastro at the time and I would wager he had an account that was used for various purposes.

3) I always say, if you bid in an auction, Bid up to whatever level you are comfortable at. Period end of sentence. Even if your bid gets pushed up, you are still at a good level. What's not good is when we all get excited and then push ourselves up in the spirit of competition. The last time I checked: "It's only cardboard"

4) And everyone who accepts monies from people on this list for advertising if they have evolved and moved over or moved on. I understand totally. One has to stay in business and advertising money is how they do that. Sounds hypocritical but just a realty

Regards
Rich

PS I think I'll go back to my vg-ex cards now

[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.