ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If someone had access to bidders' secret maximum bids and manipulated them upwards, that would be a completely different scenario than what we have been discussing, and that would certainly result in artificially inflated prices.

Why? They paid voluntarily. Nobody made them leave a ceiling bid.
But beyond that, that describes only a small part of the transactions identified in Mastro. Most were people placing bids with the intention of driving up the price and, allegedly, as a result the winners paid more, just like my example where you said I manipulated myself.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why? They paid voluntarily. Nobody made them leave a ceiling bid.

You can defend Mastro if you want, but I think driving up someones' bid when you have access to their ceiling bid is very, very wrong and would result in artificially high prices.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You can defend Mastro if you want, but I think driving up someones' bid when you have access to their ceiling bid is very, very wrong and would result in artificially high prices.

LOL now who is mischaracterizing? Defending Mastro? I am simply trying to understand your position using the Socractic method. I am not defending ANY of it, I think it's all manipulation in case you didn't notice. A comment really not worthy of you, Mark. Surely you're a better debater than that.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL now who is mischaracterizing? Defending Mastro? I am simply trying to understand your position using the Socractic method. I am not defending ANY of it, I think it's all manipulation in case you didn't notice. A comment really not worthy of you, Mark. Surely you're a better debater than that.

Yes I know. But your invoking the name of a convicted criminal and then trying to put me on the defensive with it was the first salvo.

I've stated my opinion; to restate would be redundant. And I agree with what Bob said too. If people will pay a certain price for something, then that is what the price is that people will pay.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Yes I know. But your invoking the name of a convicted criminal and then trying to put me on the defensive with it was the first salvo.

I've stated my opinion; to restate would be redundant. And I agree with what Bob said too. If people will pay a certain price for something, then that is what the price is that people will pay.

OK I think we've had a good discussion, but if you want to have the last word, my final point would be your reasoning is circular or maybe just tautological.

[FrankWakefield]

Maybe take all of this who can argue best, misuse of logic, and Maestro stuff to a new thread... Argument Digression might be an apt name.

Please... back to PWCC. THAT is some news. I've bought a few cards from them (maybe I should say got tricked into overpaying for a few cards). Getting this out there was good for the board and everyone, thank you Peter. To a slight extent I'd usually be conservative in my bidding with them because of that crap where they were "protecting" us bidders by not disclosing identifying info (I can't recall how that eBay label read...). I thought that was a bit of BS that invited or masked shilling, and that was before the "Vault" crap. Only two steps remaining for PWCC was their own auction house and their in house grading company. Golly, a fella could buy a card and pay them a commission, then get it graded and pay for that, then 'Vault' the card and pay for that. What a deal!!!

[kailes2872]

Peter,
I ask this as an honest question - no snarkiness, I promise, just curious...

You have an awesome PSA 6 53 Bowman Ford for sale on the BST page. You have had several very nice examples of cards over the years that tend to be at the top of their grade. Your 54 Bowman Williams comes to mind. I don't tend to buy fixed priced items because I am convinced that I am usually the fool overpaying. Therefore, I buy through auctions. In some cases, I end up paying more for the auction item (versus the fixed priced item) - or pay a tad less for a copy that is not as nice. Hopefully I am not shilled, but more than likely, I have been victim over time.

But I digress...

When you determine prices for your items, do you pull out PWCC comps? Do you have a general formula? Again, no offense meant. It just seems that it would be impossible to price an item without taking the PWCC prices into consideration and not have it immediately purchased and be considered a bargain for the purchaser.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

Peter,
I ask this as an honest question - no snarkiness, I promise, just curious...

You have an awesome PSA 6 53 Bowman Ford for sale on the BST page. You have had several very nice examples of cards over the years that tend to be at the top of their grade. Your 54 Bowman Williams comes to mind. I don't tend to buy fixed priced items because I am convinced that I am usually the fool overpaying. Therefore, I buy through auctions. In some cases, I end up paying more for the auction item (versus the fixed priced item) - or pay a tad less for a copy that is not as nice. Hopefully I am not shilled, but more than likely, I have been victim over time.

But I digress...

When you determine prices for your items, do you pull out PWCC comps? Do you have a general formula? Again, no offense meant. It just seems that it would be impossible to price an item without taking the PWCC prices into consideration and not have it immediately purchased and be considered a bargain for the purchaser.

No set formula. Case by case and some is by feel, but if I didn't have a good feel I would typically look at past sales to get an idea, if PWCC prices were obvious outliers I would not give them any weight. Sometimes though I go more by my general perception of how much the market for a certain type of card has gone up or down since I bought it rather than relying on direct comps.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I've stated my opinion; to restate would be redundant. And I agree with what Bob said too. If people will pay a certain price for something, then that is what the price is that people will pay.

Except that after that sale occurs, that buyer is no longer in the market and the “price” becomes what the next person will pay. And now we are back to the auction scenario of second highest bidder plus one increment

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Except that after that sale occurs, that buyer is no longer in the market and the “price” becomes what the next person will pay. And now we are back to the auction scenario of second highest bidder plus one increment

I see your point. In theory, replay that auction with the high bidder out of the picture and the top guy left is the under bidder.

Now, I have something else to consider regarding market "price" vs. market "value." Suppose you consign a card to an AH, they charge you 10% commission. High bid is $100, so the bidder pays $120 with the 20% BP. The price to the buyer is $120, but the net value to the seller is $90. So what is the value of the card? According to this auction result, you can get $90 for it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I see your point. In theory, replay that auction with the high bidder out of the picture and the top guy left is the under bidder.

Now, I have something else to consider regarding market "price" vs. market "value." Suppose you consign a card to an AH, they charge you 10% commission. High bid is $100, so the bidder pays $120 with the 20% BP. The price to the buyer is $120, but the net value to the seller is $90. So what is the value of the card? According to this auction result, you can get $90 for it.

Except maybe not every potential buyer was aware of or participating in that first auction. Or other bidders in that first auction were focused on other cards then and next time would focus on the particular card in your example. Or who says that first buyer didn't feel they got a bargain and goes after the same card again in the next auction (lots of collectors have multiples of the same card). And so on and so on...........

I think typically people consider the value of something as what they pay for it, not what they net from selling it. Market value and market price are kind of the same thing. You're talking more market price/value versus net price/value. In your example the value of the card would probably be defined as what was paid for it......$120.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You can defend Mastro if you want, but I think driving up someones' bid when you have access to their ceiling bid is very, very wrong and would result in artificially high prices.

I would agree. That would be one of the most egregious acts an AH could commit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I would agree. That would be one of the most egregious acts an AH could commit.

Could and did at least in some cases.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why? They paid voluntarily. Nobody made them leave a ceiling bid.
But beyond that, that describes only a small part of the transactions identified in Mastro. Most were people placing bids with the intention of driving up the price and, allegedly, as a result the winners paid more, just like my example where you said I manipulated myself.

Frank, sorry for one more response to Peter.

Peter, you and Mark going back and forth about running up bids, and what difference it makes if a person's max bids are known are i think very different issues as well. The idea of bidding someone up is a little like playing poker where I'm trying to bluff to win the pot. I assume you'll eventually get scared off and fold, and I win the pot. But if you have a decent hand and don't take my bluff and end up calling me, I'll likely lose, and it will end up costing me what I had put into the pot. That is simply considered gamesmanship and an accepted part of poker. Kind of like if you try bidding someone up, and they suddenly stop bidding. You now end up overpaying for a card you never really wanted.

Now assume in that same hand I somehow knew exactly what cards you had, and even though I had a nothing hand myself, I knew your hand was even worse. So I again go to bluff you out of the pot, all the while knowing that whatever you do, I'll still end up winning the hand regardless. So now I have no fear of chickening out and letting you bluff me out of the pot, or of losing it should you end up calling me. Now that is outright cheating and illegal. And to me that would be the same as shill bidding in an auction where I know your max bid. I'd bid right up to your max amount, and then stop. I'd never have to worry about winning the auction by accident, and you'd end up paying the max amount possible. Again, cheating and illegal.

To me, that is a huge night and day difference between the act of shill bidding someone up.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Frank, sorry for one more response to Peter.

Peter, you and Mark going back and forth about running up bids, and what difference it makes if a person's max bids are known are i think very different issues as well. The idea of bidding someone up is a little like playing poker where I'm trying to bluff to win the pot. I assume you'll eventually get scared off and fold, and I win the pot. But if you have a decent hand and don't take my bluff and end up calling me, I'll likely lose, and it will end up costing me what I had put into the pot. That is simply considered gamesmanship and an accepted part of poker. Kind of like if you try bidding someone up, and they suddenly stop bidding. You now end up overpaying for a card you never really wanted.

Now assume in that same hand I somehow knew exactly what cards you had, and even though I had a nothing hand myself, I knew your hand was even worse. So I again go to bluff you out of the pot, all the while knowing that whatever you do, I'll still end up winning the hand regardless. So now I have no fear of chickening out and letting you bluff me out of the pot, or of losing it should you end up calling me. Now that is outright cheating and illegal. And to me that would be the same as shill bidding in an auction where I know your max bid. I'd bid right up to your max amount, and then stop. I'd never have to worry about winning the auction by accident, and you'd end up paying the max amount possible. Again, cheating and illegal.

To me, that is a huge night and day difference between the act of shill bidding someone up.

Good analogy. I definitely agree. While both are illegal, there's a big difference in my eyes too between someone who shill bids their consignment with what is effectively a 'reserve price' and a seller like 'aj_wag' who shills people up to find out what their max bid is, then cancels his shill bid and then with 1 second remaining, shill bids again just below the other person's max bid to extract maximum value from them. He's basically looking at his opponent's hole cards. The fact that this behavior is even possible, let alone repeatable across hundreds of listings by the same 2 accounts on ebay is either mind-blowing incompetence or intentional enablement/looking the other way by eBay. And the fact that this behavior is allowed to continue despite people repeatedly reporting them for it (everyone here should report 'aj_wag' and his 'rywag123' account BTW) tells me that it's much more likely to be the latter than the former.