the list (of criminals) is revealed

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by conor912

You can rest assured that if I ever sleep with any of your wives, I won't be able to explain and it'll be exactly what it looks like

"Wives"? You mean there's no limit??

[RGold]

I was the consignor of a 1955 Red Man set in the August, 2007 Mastro Auctions which appears on the list being discussed. It is the only item where my name is listed as consignor and Peter Spaeth as the bidder.

Peter has already related the facts and expressed views as I see them. People may question my ethics but I ask that they at least acknowledge that this was the lone entry on a very long list, and that this one transaction was much different than many of those listed. I have had many private transactions with people on this board and as a seller and buyer on eBay, and I hope my past dealings are at least considered before passing judgment.

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots. At that time I believe Mastro Auctions was considered the premier auction house in our hobby.

I have been a member on this board for about 8 years, and have read the many discussions regarding shill bidding. My understanding and views have evolved over that time like I am sure it has for many other members. I understand and agree that using a hidden reserve in the way Mastro Auctions suggested is wrong. I only ask that the members here consider that this was done in 2007, that it was recommended by the leading auction house, that it was done once, that the hidden reserve was a fraction of the value of the lot, and that the buyer's premium was paid by me.

There was no intent to deceive anyone. This set was #1 on the PSA Registry by a very large margin. Every card was the highest graded at that time and almost half of the 50 cards were the only ones graded at that level. Any one interested in Red Man cards could see that I retired the set before the auction and then re-registered the set after the auction showing that the set had not changed hands.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to clarify the record. Peter is a good friend and wrote his explanation in such a way as not to distance himself from me, but the fact of the matter is that he did not place these bids, I did. He did know what I was doing because we discussed how I had been instructed to proceed by Doug Allen, and he does not deny that, but he was not an active participant in the bidding. The worst part of this whole affair is that an honest, good guy is being hurt for doing me a favor.

[AGuinness]

I appreciate the fact that people named on the list have stepped up and offered their side of the story for all this.

I believe it was wrong and that people should have known better, but I still appreciate their contributions to the conversation and that this board has welcomed a difficult topic.

If there's any lesson reinforced for me, it's that there are shady people out there and when I encounter somebody like that or a deal that I'm uncomfortable with, walk away. There's always tomorrow.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by RGold

I was the consignor of a 1955 Red Man set in the August, 2007 Mastro Auctions which appears on the list being discussed. It is the only item where my name is listed as consignor and Peter Spaeth as the bidder.

Peter has already related the facts and expressed views as I see them. People may question my ethics but I ask that they at least acknowledge that this was the lone entry on a very long list, and that this one transaction was much different than many of those listed. I have had many private transactions with people on this board and as a seller and buyer on eBay, and I hope my past dealings are at least considered before passing judgment.

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots. At that time I believe Mastro Auctions was considered the premier auction house in our hobby.

I have been a member on this board for about 8 years, and have read the many discussions regarding shill bidding. My understanding and views have evolved over that time like I am sure it has for many other members. I understand and agree that using a hidden reserve in the way Mastro Auctions suggested is wrong. I only ask that the members here consider that this was done in 2007, that it was recommended by the leading auction house, that it was done once, that the hidden reserve was a fraction of the value of the lot, and that the buyer's premium was paid by me.

There was no intent to deceive anyone. This set was #1 on the PSA Registry by a very large margin. Every card was the highest graded at that time and almost half of the 50 cards were the only ones graded at that level. Any one interested in Red Man cards could see that I retired the set before the auction and then re-registered the set after the auction showing that the set had not changed hands.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to clarify the record. Peter is a good friend and wrote his explanation in such a way as not to distance himself from me, but the fact of the matter is that he did not place these bids, I did. He did know what I was doing because we discussed how I had been instructed to proceed by Doug Allen, and he does not deny that, but he was not an active participant in the bidding. The worst part of this whole affair is that an honest, good guy is being hurt for doing me a favor.

I don't know this individual but do want to ask one question.
When Mastro refused to take the set with a high minimum or reserve why would you not search for another auction house that would take it. The competition among auction houses is fierce and I am sure you could have found one of the leading auction houses who would have taken it under your terms.

[MRSPORTSCARDCOLLECTOR]

As a newbie a few questions I like to ask is does anybody think this news will affect the market for Topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card or other similar much sought after cards?
Do some of these high sought after cards have artificial higher value because of this?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by BASEBALLCARDGURU

As a newbie a few questions I like to ask is does anybody think this news will affect the market for Topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card or other similar much sought after cards?
Do some of these high sought after cards have artificial higher value because of this?

So that is a great question. But you won't get a good answer until three years down the road and see how it affects future bidding. If the next three high grade '52T Mantles all go for $400-500K, then that's the "true value" of the card in that grade. If it sells for $370, then $340, then $300, then people bidding are showing that they've been affected by this news and are no longer willing to set records with that card.

[drcy]

I never considered a single sale a determination of market value anyway. The $3 million for the Mark McGwire ball was just what one idiot with money to burn was willing to pay. Even though someone paid $3 million, the ball was never worth $3 million. Didn't matter what it sold for. Prices often go down drastically when one big spender leaves the market or the two people who want the card the most get theirs. Good statistical analysis usually starts by throwing out the highest and lowest numbers.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by BASEBALLCARDGURU

As a newbie a few questions I like to ask is does anybody think this news will affect the market for Topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card or other similar much sought after cards?
Do some of these high sought after cards have artificial higher value because of this?

uh......yah!

[Kenny Cole]

I have tried to stay out thus far. I am now unsuccessful. I am not on either list simply because I didn't' win one of those auctions. I was probably one of those legitimate bidders who bid Ryan up at the same time the auction house or consignor/friend was doing that. We have similar interests. Even by losing, I screwed my friend.

I get all the stuff about altering the price point of the PSA 8 card and whatnot. Blah, blah, blah. Its wonderful to have the best card ever and I am certain that getting that 8.5 so you can drop that ratty 8 is exhilarating. Its just the shits when you find out you paid substantially more than you would have had things been honest. Yawn.

But to me, it is much more basic. Ryan won a lot we probably both bid on. It cost him more than it should have, because neither one of us knew we were both being cheated to begin with. I probably beat him on one of the other auctions that have no bidding records that was also shilled.

Peter, you were absolutely wrong. I get the reasoning though. There is a long list of people, myself included (on multiple occasions), who do things for friends while knowing that they are ... wrong. The fact that you did it for a friend doesn't make it less wrong, it just makes it more understandable. Been there, done that. Can't really shoot at you too hard.

That list makes me sick. I hope that its wrong while I know it probably isn't. What a betrayal. I'm historically an SGC guy, but probably no longer. Just a sad revelation all around.

[Shoeless Moe]

Leon, ban these son of a bitches!!!! They come back under an assumed name owe well, they wouldn't like that anyway, they have to big of egos and want the world to know them, well who gives a rats ass about them, BAN 'EM ALL!!!!!! Judge Kennesaw Mountain Luckey!!!!

[ElCabron]

Kenny,

Your bids on the particular lot I won that is on this list didn't affect the price at all. You didn't drive me up. You were probably the 3rd high bidder. Had you been the underbidder, it wouldn't list my name in the "victim" column. You bidding against me is just healthy competition. Nothing wrong with that. But after you had maxed out (if you were even bidding on this lot), I was shilled up another $2,000+ of pure shill bids that had nothing to do with you.

I'm just happy the list is now public because I should be receiving a check any day now from Doug Allen as restitution, right? Yep.

Also, the main reason all these scumbags on the list aren't responding in this thread is that they're too busy spending everyone's money they made, consequence-free, from all of this. I'm guessing quite a few of them made deals to tell the truth about Mastro and Allen that got them off the hook, but also keeps them from posting here about any of it. This is especially true of the employees of Mastro and Legendary that many of us know well and consider to be friends. They haven't posted here because they are guilty.

The real lesson here is that crime absolutely does pay, and pay very well. So, congrats to all you silent scumbags who are reading this in your huge houses bought with money you stole. Sleep well tonight, douchebags!

-Ryan

[Rickyy]

[QUOTE=Kenny Cole;1497580]I have tried to stay out thus far. I am now unsuccessful. I am not on either list simply because I didn't' win one of those auctions. I was probably one of those legitimate bidders who bid Ryan up at the same time the auction house or consignor/friend was doing that. We have similar interests. Even by losing, I screwed my friend.

I get all the stuff about altering the price point of the PSA 8 card and whatnot. Blah, blah, blah. Its wonderful to have the best card ever and I am certain that getting that 8.5 so you can drop that ratty 8 is exhilarating. Its just the shits when you find out you paid substantially more than you would have had things been honest. Yawn.

But to me, it is much more basic. Ryan won a lot we probably both bid on. It cost him more than it should have, because neither one of us knew we were both being cheated to begin with. I probably beat him on one of the other auctions that have no bidding records that was also shilled.

QUOTE]

+1 on that... it's just plain wrong to bid on something for reasons other than because you want that item...by someone coming in with nefarious intentions ends up screwing us all...

Ricky Yoneda

[RGold]

I have not consigned many items but every auction house I have talked to does not like high starting bids because it looks bad to have unsold items. Also, there were not as many auction houses in 2007. Today, I see some of the newer and smaller auction houses using high starting bids, and I agree it is a bad look to see many lots unsold.

I am not sure why more auction houses will not use reserves except most buyers do not like participating in them.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by RGold

I have not consigned many items but every auction house I have talked to does not like high starting bids because it looks bad to have unsold items. Also, there were not as many auction houses in 2007. Today, I see some of the newer and smaller auction houses using high starting bids, and I agree it is a bad look to see many lots unsold.

I am not sure why more auction houses will not use reserves except most buyers do not like participating in them.

With the advent of VCP, I don't mind a high starting bid as long as it is under what the average selling price. It is when the starting bid is higher than the average selling price, and then you have to pay an exorbitant buyer's premium is what turns bidders off. With all the info that is available, it is easy to see if you are getting ripped off or not.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I don't know this individual but do want to ask one question.
When Mastro refused to take the set with a high minimum or reserve why would you not search for another auction house that would take it. The competition among auction houses is fierce and I am sure you could have found one of the leading auction houses who would have taken it under your terms.

Especially for one that was #1 on the PSA register by a large margin...

[D.P.Johnson]

The odds must be astronomical that the one and only time two people conspire to shill at auction they both get caught...bad luck I guess...

[Prince Hal]

I don't personally know any of the folks on the "shill" list. If the information as presented is true, Ronald Goldberg and Peter Spaeth and all the others thus far identified are crooks. I'm sure you are not bad people and you're not Isis. But anyone who manipulates the market is a crook. You enter an item for the market to decide and you win or you lose. That's your gamble. Forget the shill moniker it's too misleading. You are just common, but repentant (sort of), crooks. Everyone is sorry or has an excuse when they get caught and the prisons are full of innocent people. Mia culpa all you want. You can't unring a bell. Very sad. Duncan MacKenzie

[RCMcKenzie]

Not only is 'not offering to pay more than you are willing to spend' not "dumb", it's a tautology. Be careful out there, gang.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Prince Hal

I don't personally know any of the folks on the "shill" list. If the information as presented is true, Ronald Goldberg and Peter Spaeth and all the others thus far identified are crooks. I'm sure you are not bad people and you're not Isis. But anyone who manipulates the market is a crook. You enter an item for the market to decide and you win or you lose. That's your gamble. Forget the shill moniker it's too misleading. You are just common, but repentant (sort of), crooks. Everyone is sorry or has an excuse when they get caught and the prisons are full of innocent people. Mia culpa all you want. You can't unring a bell. Very sad. Duncan MacKenzie

I disagree. Sure, they got caught, but they owned up to their mistakes. Do you remember the Joe Pankiewicz threads? He was caught multiple times shilling his own consignments with Probstein...even accused of doctoring cards to get grade bumps. Probstein was made aware of Joe's actions and did absolutely nothing. And when Joe finally responded, of course he denied everything and told us how honest he was, blah, blah, blah. Heck, he even called for an apology to Rick. All the proof was right there, but he still denied it. Peter and Ron have admitted their mistake and take responsibility for their actions. To me, that says a lot about their character as opposed to people like Joe Pankiewicz or Rick Probation.

I wonder if those with the pitchforks have bought anything from Probstein since that mess a couple years ago? I'd be willing to bet so. You'll buy from a guy that allows shill bidding, but you're so quick to condemn here. I made a vow at that point to never buy anything from Probstein again AND I HAVE NOT! And it wasn't because of the shilling in his auctions, it was because he turned a blind eye and LET IT CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. So again I ask, how many of you pointing fingers here have bought from Probstein since then? Post your eBay IDs and let's find out.

[Huck]

Originally Posted by RGold

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

Why not make the "hidden reserve" the first bid? Bidders could then decide to pay more or not bid at all. Dollar wise, you had an idea as to what the set should fetch, open the bidding with said figure, and let it ride.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by RGold

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots.

Evidently it was! :-)

[trobba]

Originally Posted by RGold

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

This to me is the heart of the "crime" of shilling in several of these Mastro lots.

Not holding the shill bidder responsible for paying for the lot, rather just the buyer's premium, truly removes most of the risk of this practice. If the shill bidders had to pay for the lot as well, I am sure there would have been a lot less of it.

While it is publicly described in this instance, I assume it was common practice for numerous other lots as well. Mastro colludes with a consignor allowing them to have a friend bid up the cards and they wont be held responsible for the final price, just the buyer's premium...extremely bad ethics and once again provides the market with completely inaccurate data and not only inflated prices, but in reality, not even prices paid at all.

Rob G$theil

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by RGold

I was the consignor of a 1955 Red Man set in the August, 2007 Mastro Auctions which appears on the list being discussed. It is the only item where my name is listed as consignor and Peter Spaeth as the bidder.

Peter has already related the facts and expressed views as I see them. People may question my ethics but I ask that they at least acknowledge that this was the lone entry on a very long list, and that this one transaction was much different than many of those listed. I have had many private transactions with people on this board and as a seller and buyer on eBay, and I hope my past dealings are at least considered before passing judgment.

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots. At that time I believe Mastro Auctions was considered the premier auction house in our hobby.

I have been a member on this board for about 8 years, and have read the many discussions regarding shill bidding. My understanding and views have evolved over that time like I am sure it has for many other members. I understand and agree that using a hidden reserve in the way Mastro Auctions suggested is wrong. I only ask that the members here consider that this was done in 2007, that it was recommended by the leading auction house, that it was done once, that the hidden reserve was a fraction of the value of the lot, and that the buyer's premium was paid by me.

There was no intent to deceive anyone. This set was #1 on the PSA Registry by a very large margin. Every card was the highest graded at that time and almost half of the 50 cards were the only ones graded at that level. Any one interested in Red Man cards could see that I retired the set before the auction and then re-registered the set after the auction showing that the set had not changed hands.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to clarify the record. Peter is a good friend and wrote his explanation in such a way as not to distance himself from me, but the fact of the matter is that he did not place these bids, I did. He did know what I was doing because we discussed how I had been instructed to proceed by Doug Allen, and he does not deny that, but he was not an active participant in the bidding. The worst part of this whole affair is that an honest, good guy is being hurt for doing me a favor.

I to usually dont like to comment anymore on these posts but felt that the comments here needed it. So if I am reading this right Doug Allen was the one who told you to use a "hidden reserve" to protect your investment. So if Doug Allen told you to shoot someone with a BB gun instead of a 45 that the hole would be smaller would you do that? Bottom line is what you did was a shill weather it was in 2002 2005 2007 or 2016. Also if Im reading it correctly you say your friend (Peter) didnt bid so does that mean you took his account and his password from your own computer went in and placed the bid where you wanted it? Dont you think there is something wrong with that? So in other words if you say what is true (Peter your friend) didnt bid so that would mean you my friend shilled your own auction. So then lets ask another question suppose there was another bid placed on your item and someone won it, would you have told him ? As for Peter (A Lawyer) Im sorry and yes he fessed up but I really wonder if either of you would have come clean if this docuement hadnt come to light with your names there. As for Peter Im also sorry but you are a lawyer sir , you are held to a higher standard than others and you of all people should know what was done either by you or Ron was wrong. I to have been on this board for a long time so my comments arenot just off the cuff. Sorry but I probably would never deal with either of you and Im sure others would feel the same way. Also as was pointed out by another board member you did have an option to use another AU but you elected to stay with a thief! So in my eyes you sir are no better than they were.
Al S!m@on@

[ullmandds]

the fact that there are a number of lawyers on the list is a bit disconcerting to me...but again...not too shocking.

sorry if this comment offended any of the "other" lawyers on the board...as I know there are a bunch.

you'd never see dentists doing this kinda shit!

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

the fact that there are a number of lawyers on the list is a bit disconcerting to me...but again...not too shocking.

Sorry if this comment offended any of the "other" lawyers on the board...as i know there are a bunch.

You'd never see dentists doing this kinda shit!

lmao!!

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

the fact that there are a number of lawyers on the list is a bit disconcerting to me...but again...not too shocking.

sorry if this comment offended any of the "other" lawyers on the board...as I know there are a bunch.

you'd never see dentists doing this kinda shit!

Peter,
Dentists drill deeper to get to the root of the problem Lawyers just touch the surface trying to cover the surface with Fluff...

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Peter,
Dentists drill deeper to get to the root of the problem Lawyers just touch the surface trying to cover the surface with Fluff...

I like that Al!!!!

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

the fact that there are a number of lawyers on the list is a bit disconcerting to me...but again...not too shocking.

sorry if this comment offended any of the "other" lawyers on the board...as I know there are a bunch.

you'd never see dentists doing this kinda shit!

Dentists are masochists...they like to kill things. Especially big game in Africa.

Minnesota dentists are the worst at this...or so I've heard.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Dentists are masochists...they like to kill things. Especially big game in Africa.

Minnesota dentists are the worst at this...or so I've heard.

Dan,
That comment might be the shot heard round the world!!

[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.

Originally Posted by RGold

I was the consignor of a 1955 Red Man set in the August, 2007 Mastro Auctions which appears on the list being discussed. It is the only item where my name is listed as consignor and Peter Spaeth as the bidder.

Peter has already related the facts and expressed views as I see them. People may question my ethics but I ask that they at least acknowledge that this was the lone entry on a very long list, and that this one transaction was much different than many of those listed. I have had many private transactions with people on this board and as a seller and buyer on eBay, and I hope my past dealings are at least considered before passing judgment.

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots. At that time I believe Mastro Auctions was considered the premier auction house in our hobby.

I have been a member on this board for about 8 years, and have read the many discussions regarding shill bidding. My understanding and views have evolved over that time like I am sure it has for many other members. I understand and agree that using a hidden reserve in the way Mastro Auctions suggested is wrong. I only ask that the members here consider that this was done in 2007, that it was recommended by the leading auction house, that it was done once, that the hidden reserve was a fraction of the value of the lot, and that the buyer's premium was paid by me.

There was no intent to deceive anyone. This set was #1 on the PSA Registry by a very large margin. Every card was the highest graded at that time and almost half of the 50 cards were the only ones graded at that level. Any one interested in Red Man cards could see that I retired the set before the auction and then re-registered the set after the auction showing that the set had not changed hands.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to clarify the record. Peter is a good friend and wrote his explanation in such a way as not to distance himself from me, but the fact of the matter is that he did not place these bids, I did. He did know what I was doing because we discussed how I had been instructed to proceed by Doug Allen, and he does not deny that, but he was not an active participant in the bidding. The worst part of this whole affair is that an honest, good guy is being hurt for doing me a favor.

Im a little confused here Peter and I wanted to maybe see if YOU could clarify this. I posted up your response from post 143 and your friend ron from post 403.
You say "Ron then asked "ME" if I would bid for him after thinking it over "I"agreed. Then a little further on you say "No one out bid me"

Then as Ron Goldberg says in his post " but the fact of the matter is that he didnot place these bids I did" "he didnot know what I was doing. He wasnot an active participant in the bidding"

So my question is this WHO BID?
It is clear that one of you is lying. Or as a lawyer might put it not telling the truth.
So again just to clear this up WHO BID? Very simple to answer.
If it was you than you shilled your friends auction, If it was Ron than he shilled his own auction. Just curious Peter to the response.

[Beastmode]

"The speed of light is faster that the speed of sound that is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak"

I've read every post in this thread, some twice. There's everything in here from a$$ raping to accusations of racism; but in between is a wealth of good knowledge and educated rants.

However, this signature line from Al, is funniest sh** I've seen in a while.