the list (of criminals) is revealed

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

Gary that was not the intent here, but I do understand that aspect of it and I had not thought about it back at the time.

[ullmandds]

Based on Peter S's history on here...I am a little surprised as well that you do not see this type of behavior as wrong...a little shocking...but I respect u for coming forward.

On another note...apparently this type of behavior routinely occurs in other areas of collecting...fine arts, etc...where the "house" will "bid up" an item to a "hidden reserve" or such...and this is accepted. While I dont like this...I dont like most things...so go figure!!!!

Many here consider these pieces of cardboard "Art"...is it time for the hobby rules to change?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Based on Peter S's history on here...I am a little surprised as well that you do not see this type of behavior as wrong...a little shocking...but I respect u for coming forward.

On another note...apparently this type of behavior routinely occurs in other areas of collecting...fine arts, etc...where the "house" will "bid up" an item to a "hidden reserve" or such...and this is accepted. While I dont like this...I dont like most things...so go figure!!!!

Many here consider these pieces of cardboard "Art"...is it time for the hobby rules to change?

Pete, for better or worse, and I have said this before many times in debates here so this is nothing new, I think running someone up knowing they have a top all is not the same thing as bidding a lot up to a reserve, especially with the willingness to pay the premium. I get the argument on the other side. As for coming forward, that's just my choice. Hopefully some others will offer their own explanations and perspectives, but if not, well I will surely take the heat for them as it's a lot easier to dump on an actual poster than people who aren't willing to engage.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Based on Peter S's history on here...I am a little surprised as well that you do not see this type of behavior as wrong...a little shocking...but I respect u for coming forward.

+1 I also know what Peter done was wrong but respect him for coming forward.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

+1 I also know what Peter done was wrong but respect him for coming forward.

I appreciate that. I much prefer to be slammed by people who disagree with me than to appear to be cowardly and not confront the issue.

[ElCabron]

As heroic as it was to "come forward" AFTER he'd been publicly outed for shill bidding, which he actually did do, maybe every board member doesn't still need to come forward and congratulate Peter. I think we all get it. He did a wonderful thing and has received plenty of kudos and validation for it. Hopefully Peter will serve as inspiration for others to come forward and admit their guilt, which will certainly be received with thunderous applause while board members sing "For he's a jolly good fellow" before each one individually praises the shill bidder in a brand new post for being such a stand up guy.

-Ryan

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

As heroic as it was to "come forward" AFTER he'd been publicly outed for shill bidding, which he actually did do, maybe every board member doesn't still need to come forward and congratulate Peter. I think we all get it. He did a wonderful thing and has received plenty of kudos and validation for it. Hopefully Peter will serve as inspiration for others to come forward and admit their guilt, which will certainly be received with thunderous applause while board members sing "For he's a jolly good fellow" before each one individually praises the shill bidder in a brand new post for being such a stand up guy.

-Ryan

Nobody does sarcasm quite like Ryan. I should have let those posts stand where Adam and Ullman originally thought I was a victim, I guess.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

As heroic as it was to "come forward" AFTER he'd been publicly outed for shill bidding, which he actually did do, maybe every board member doesn't still need to come forward and congratulate Peter. I think we all get it. He did a wonderful thing and has received plenty of kudos and validation for it. Hopefully Peter will serve as inspiration for others to come forward and admit their guilt, which will certainly be received with thunderous applause while board members sing "For he's a jolly good fellow" before each one individually praises the shill bidder in a brand new post for being such a stand up guy.

-Ryan

Ryan,
I really don't know Peter, except posting on here. But he stepped up and told what he did. I think you are going over board on the praise thing.

I, and others, have said what he did was wrong, but thank you for stepping up and telling us your story.

Others haven't responded at all. And probably won't.

Peter told what he did. Everyone, except him, have said it was wrong. He'll come around.

No one has supported his action or position.

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I appreciate that. I much prefer to be slammed by people who disagree with me than to appear to be cowardly and not confront the issue.

I don't know Peter, and I'm not a piling-on type of poster, and I generally don't cast stones, and I'm not without my own faults, but that was a duesch bag move in 2007.

It appears you haven't gone through the 10-step shiller program. Your are now a recovering shiller, which means stop digging.

But I do commend you for having the balls to post. In 12 months, no-one will remember this.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by bnorth

+1 I also know what Peter done was wrong but respect him for coming forward.

Yeah, that is what I meant with my post. Agree Ben.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gary that was not the intent here, but I do understand that aspect of it and I had not thought about it back at the time.

Thanks for your response, Peter. Obviously, you did not gain from this transaction, and frankly, although you are defending him, I think your friend put you in a bad spot. If you had not accepted that request out of friendship, you would not be having to defend yourself now.