the list (of criminals) is revealed

[tiger8mush]

So much shilling and scam, from ONE auction house during a small window in time. Imagine if that window were opened up a little wider, and threw a few more auction houses into the mix? I bet a lot of people are hoping that doesn't happen ...

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

So much shilling and scam, from ONE auction house during a small window in time. Imagine if that window were opened up a little wider, and threw a few more auction houses into the mix? I bet a lot of people are hoping that doesn't happen ...

I think it will. It's the very reason the silence from some board members is deafening.

[rdwyer]

If Peter Calderon for example shill bidded, does that mean Heritage Auctions shill bids in their auctions?

[1880nonsports]

although that never stopped anybody. Unless I'm mistaken they have a rule that allows a consignor to bid on their own items as long as they pay the hammer.
The more I look into this mess and despite knowing this was likely going on, I'm quite sad about some of the people who will look you in the eye and tell you they have your best interests in mind - and are cheating the hell out of you behind your back. Complicity is equally distasteful.
Certainly a part of me hopes this whole debacle hopefully isn't over - as shining a bright light on the subject might lead to some oversight (although a witch hunt is unpalatable and not productive) - outfits like roaches corner are obvious bad guys - but when the "good guys" start to behave like bad guys something should be done - maybe now the fuse has been lit.
That Dave Forman has been exposed for allegedly shilling his own stuff - such a breach of trust is truly freaking vile. Along the way I think my TPG of choice has made some bad business decisions. This perhaps a game changer. It will certainly devalue the brand as trust is an important concept when farming out one's cards. Much sadness.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

although that never stopped anybody. Unless I'm mistaken they have a rule that allows a consignor to bid on their own items as long as they pay the hammer.
The more I look into this mess and despite knowing this was likely going on, I'm quite sad about some of the people who will look you in the eye and tell you they have your best interests in mind - and are cheating the hell out of you behind your back. Complicity is equally distasteful.
Certainly a part of me hopes this whole debacle hopefully isn't over - as shining a bright light on the subject might lead to some oversight (although a witch hunt is unpalatable and not productive) - outfits like roaches corner are obvious bad guys - but when the "good guys" start to behave like bad guys something should be done.
That Joe Orlando and Dave Forman have been exposed for shilling their own stuff - such a breach of trust is truly freaking vile.

Not the PSA Joe Orlando. This has been discussed already in this thread.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

If Peter Calderon for example shill bidded, does that mean Heritage Auctions shill bids in their auctions?

Heaven forbid.
I would think that an auction house that bars me from bidding, and from their website, for having my autograph opinions quoted in Nash's HOS (they said I worked for him, did not know giving opinions would be called working) would not also be a shill bidder.
fyi - I never bid with them on anything.

[packs]

Is the only tactic available to bidders to counter act this stuff placing straight bids only?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by packs

Is the only tactic available to bidders to counter act this stuff placing straight bids only?

Unfortunately, I think the only tactic to counter this shilling going on is to only bid in the Net54 Live Auctions where you know all of the bidder names for every auction.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by glchen

Unfortunately, I think the only tactic to counter this shilling going on is to only bid in the Net54 Live Auctions where you know all of the bidder names for every auction.

gonna be some slim pickins!

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Heaven forbid.
I would think that an auction house that bars me from bidding, and from their website, for having my autograph opinions quoted in Nash's HOS (they said I worked for him, did not know giving opinions would be called working) would not also be a shill bidder.

Heritage has a Hall of Fame Library thief working for them...doubt they even care about this.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Heritage has a Hall of Fame Library thief working for them...doubt they even care about this.

I didn't know library thieves had a hall of fame. Is it in Ohio and if so anywhere near the IX Center?

Sorry...resume witch hunt.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I didn't know library thieves had a hall of fame. Is it in Ohio and if so anywhere near the IX Center?

Sorry...resume witch hunt.

???

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

If Peter Calderon for example shill bidded, does that mean Heritage Auctions shill bids in their auctions?

Remember, HA has clearly stated that they reserve the right to bid up auctions if they feel the price isn't high enough. They may even just win the item themselves if they feel they can sell it directly for more. This was per Chris Ivy.

Ken

[ElCabron]

Can we please put an end to this stupid "stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again." argument? It's complete BS.

If there's an item that you are willing to pay $5,000 for (with that being within your budget) but legitimate bidding goes no higher than $2,000, you should win the item at he next increment above that. Just over $2,000. If you are shilled (and I'm not talking about placing a max bid) up to or near your max, you will still win the item for an amount that was within your budget. But the market has determined that it's a $2,000 item. You'll find that out when you go try to sell it and lose $3,000. Because you were a "victim" of dirtbags who got rich by stealing from many of us in the hobby.

If that situation happens in a private sale or at a show, it's on the buyer. If someone is selling a $2,000 item for $5,000 and you buy it, it's your own fault. In an auction, it shouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you are bidding against a legitimate buyer. Unfortunately, we all know that with very few exceptions, that is not a safe assumption.

It's stupid and incorrect to assume that anyone who was shilled was desperate or caught up in the moment with no self-control. It's equally false to assume that you can only be shilled if you set a max bid. I do not set max bids because I've always believed it was an invitation to be shilled. Which it clearly is, with certain auction houses. So there are plenty of us on that list that were victims in spite of your guarantee that we couldn't be shilled in those circumstances. So let's stop with that, k?

-Ryan

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Can we please put an end to this stupid "stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again." argument? It's complete BS.

If there's an item that you are willing to pay $5,000 for (with that being within your budget) but legitimate bidding goes no higher than $2,000, you should win the item at he next increment above that. Just over $2,000. If you are shilled (and I'm not talking about placing a max bid) up to or near your max, you will still win the item for an amount that was within your budget. But the market has determined that it's a $2,000 item. You'll find that out when you go try to sell it and lose $3,000. Because you were a "victim" of dirtbags who got rich by stealing from many of us in the hobby.

If that situation happens in a private sale or at a show, it's on the buyer. If someone is selling a $2,000 item for $5,000 and you buy it, it's your own fault. In an auction, it shouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you are bidding against a legitimate buyer. Unfortunately, we all know that with very few exceptions, that is not a safe assumption.

It's stupid and incorrect to assume that anyone who was shilled was desperate or caught up in the moment with no self-control. It's equally false to assume that you can only be shilled if you set a max bid. I do not set max bids because I've always believed it was an invitation to be shilled. Which it clearly is, with certain auction houses. So there are plenty of us on that list that were victims in spite of your guarantee that we couldn't be shilled in those circumstances. So let's stop with that, k?

-Ryan

So, you are on the list too? Victims, that is.

[ElCabron]

Originally Posted by xplainer

So, you are on the list too? Victims, that is.

I've known for years. But yes, on the list. Not the Douchebag side of it. The other side.

-Ryan

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Can we please put an end to this stupid "stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again." argument? It's complete BS.

If there's an item that you are willing to pay $5,000 for (with that being within your budget) but legitimate bidding goes no higher than $2,000, you should win the item at he next increment above that. Just over $2,000. If you are shilled (and I'm not talking about placing a max bid) up to or near your max, you will still win the item for an amount that was within your budget. But the market has determined that it's a $2,000 item. You'll find that out when you go try to sell it and lose $3,000. Because you were a "victim" of dirtbags who got rich by stealing from many of us in the hobby.

If that situation happens in a private sale or at a show, it's on the buyer. If someone is selling a $2,000 item for $5,000 and you buy it, it's your own fault. In an auction, it shouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you are bidding against a legitimate buyer. Unfortunately, we all know that with very few exceptions, that is not a safe assumption.

It's stupid and incorrect to assume that anyone who was shilled was desperate or caught up in the moment with no self-control. It's equally false to assume that you can only be shilled if you set a max bid. I do not set max bids because I've always believed it was an invitation to be shilled. Which it clearly is, with certain auction houses. So there are plenty of us on that list that were victims in spite of your guarantee that we couldn't be shilled in those circumstances. So let's stop with that, k?

-Ryan

Nicely said.

Price gouging, whether it's your local gas station, a contractor or otherwise, is basically the same thing. Ripping people off. Illegal, too.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Can we please put an end to this stupid "stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again." argument? It's complete BS.

If there's an item that you are willing to pay $5,000 for (with that being within your budget) but legitimate bidding goes no higher than $2,000, you should win the item at he next increment above that. Just over $2,000. If you are shilled (and I'm not talking about placing a max bid) up to or near your max, you will still win the item for an amount that was within your budget. But the market has determined that it's a $2,000 item. You'll find that out when you go try to sell it and lose $3,000. Because you were a "victim" of dirtbags who got rich by stealing from many of us in the hobby.

If that situation happens in a private sale or at a show, it's on the buyer. If someone is selling a $2,000 item for $5,000 and you buy it, it's your own fault. In an auction, it shouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you are bidding against a legitimate buyer. Unfortunately, we all know that with very few exceptions, that is not a safe assumption.

It's stupid and incorrect to assume that anyone who was shilled was desperate or caught up in the moment with no self-control. It's equally false to assume that you can only be shilled if you set a max bid. I do not set max bids because I've always believed it was an invitation to be shilled. Which it clearly is, with certain auction houses. So there are plenty of us on that list that were victims in spite of your guarantee that we couldn't be shilled in those circumstances. So let's stop with that, k?

-Ryan

+1, I completely agree with this.

[steve_a]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Can we please put an end to this stupid "stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again." argument? It's complete BS.

If there's an item that you are willing to pay $5,000 for (with that being within your budget) but legitimate bidding goes no higher than $2,000, you should win the item at he next increment above that. Just over $2,000. If you are shilled (and I'm not talking about placing a max bid) up to or near your max, you will still win the item for an amount that was within your budget. But the market has determined that it's a $2,000 item. You'll find that out when you go try to sell it and lose $3,000. Because you were a "victim" of dirtbags who got rich by stealing from many of us in the hobby.

If that situation happens in a private sale or at a show, it's on the buyer. If someone is selling a $2,000 item for $5,000 and you buy it, it's your own fault. In an auction, it shouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you are bidding against a legitimate buyer. Unfortunately, we all know that with very few exceptions, that is not a safe assumption.

It's stupid and incorrect to assume that anyone who was shilled was desperate or caught up in the moment with no self-control. It's equally false to assume that you can only be shilled if you set a max bid. I do not set max bids because I've always believed it was an invitation to be shilled. Which it clearly is, with certain auction houses. So there are plenty of us on that list that were victims in spite of your guarantee that we couldn't be shilled in those circumstances. So let's stop with that, k?

-Ryan

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case. No problem w Peter or anyone else who bid blind on their own consignments and paid the bp. Mastro is in jail for bidding with knowledge of max bids, completely different.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by steve_a

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case. No problem w Peter or anyone else who bid blind on their own consignments and paid the bp. Mastro is in jail for bidding with knowledge of max bids, completely different.

This is foolish logic, I believe. There not need to be knowledge of max bids for a shill bid to occur. Any attempt for the purpose of inflating the price of an item is a shill bid.

Simply put, an auction is designed to let the market set the final price, and the market usually finds an appropriate one. But the market is falsified when shill bidding is introduced, pitting an unaware bidder versus the seller (or seller's proxy).

Like I noted before, it's similar to price gauging (gas, etc.). If you're fine with being gauged, then that's your prerogative. It still doesn't make it legal or morally acceptable.

And as they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by steve_a

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case.

What cash? The cash concocted through illegal activity?

The arbiter should be that it's illegal. As in against the law. That's enough for me.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by steve_a

I'll stick my hand up to disagree. In your example there is 3k of room between the underbidder and the buyers max price. The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash. I have no problem being shilled in that case. No problem w Peter or anyone else who bid blind on their own consignments and paid the bp. Mastro is in jail for bidding with knowledge of max bids, completely different.

Since you have no problem with shilling, please let me know your eBay handle so I can make sure never to bid in your auctions. Because I do have a problem with being illegally shilled, and yes, I would be entitled to every cent that I was fraudulently induced to spend.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by steve_a

The buyer isnt "entitled" to all of that cash.

Agree with Ryan and others.

The buyer is "entitled" to expect that other bidders will follow laws set by legislatures and rules set by auction houses. So if a statute and/or auction house rule forbids shill bidding, the buyer is in fact "'entitled' to all of that cash."

For example, eBay explicitly forbids shilling.

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/...l-bidding.html

I'm sure most auction houses do as well.

When a potential buyer puts in a $5000 max bid on an item, and state law and/or an auction house rule prohibit shill bidding, part of what goes into the bidding calculus is that the potential buyer may actually get the item for less. In other words, he or she is not bidding "$5000," he or she is bidding "one increment above whatever the next highest legitimate bid is, up to $5000."