It's Closing Night of a Great Vintage Auction

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by raulus

Is it really collusion though?

For example, if I know that my buddy absolutely has to have something to complete his collection. It's an obscure item, and there aren't many other bidders. For the sake of argument, it's something that I am mildly interested in acquiring, but not really willing to spend very much. I know that my buddy is going to be willing to go nuts to get it, far more than I ever will.

Would it really rise to collusion if I decide to sit that item out?

Let's assume for a moment that all of this goes on without us actually discussing this item specifically, simply because I know my buddy and his collection, and because we're such good friends that I'm not going to be that guy.

Conversely, am I colluding with the seller to increase the price when I tell my buddy that a card he wants for his collection is available at XYZ auction house that he is not aware of?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Conversely, am I colluding with the seller to increase the price when I tell my buddy that a card he wants for his collection is available at XYZ auction house that he is not aware of?

Of course not. There's no agreement between potential competitors in that case.

[G1911]

If it is fine to run fake auctions for items the auction house doesn't even have control of anymore then I can decide not to run up the price on a card I know a friend wants more and will mean more to than it will to me.


I mean, I use this hobby-approved path

A) If item is being sold by a corporation people with a vested interest in prices escalating like, even if that corporation is run by convicted fraudsters or people with long histories of ethically dubious conduct, anything is fine.

If condition A is not met, then proceed with:

1) If it increases card values and is legal and ethical = it is fine
2) If it increases card values and is unethical = it is fine
3) If it increases card values and is unethical and also illegal = it is fine
4) If it decreases card values and is legal and ethical = it is debatable
5) If it decreases card values and is unethical = it is not okay
6) If it decreases card values and is unethical and also illegal = it is not okay

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

If it is fine to run fake auctions for items the auction house doesn't even have control of anymore then I can decide not to run up the price on a card I know a friend wants more and will mean more to than it will to me.


I mean, I use this hobby-approved path

A) If item is being sold by a corporation people with a vested interest in prices escalating like, even if that corporation is run by convicted fraudsters or people with long histories of ethically dubious conduct, anything is fine.

If condition A is not met, then proceed with:

1) If it increases card values and is legal and ethical = it is fine
2) If it increases card values and is unethical = it is fine
3) If it increases card values and is unethical and also illegal = it is fine
4) If it decreases card values and is legal and ethical = it is debatable
5) If it decreases card values and is unethical = it is not okay
6) If it decreases card values and is unethical and also illegal = it is not okay

Thanks Greg!

I've been waiting for just such a handy decision tree to help me to navigate these sticky situations.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by raulus

Thanks Greg!

I've been waiting for just such a handy decision tree to help me to navigate these sticky situations.

Straw man of all straw men

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course not. There's no agreement between potential competitors in that case.

I'm not sure I understand the ethical argument here, technically yes, talking to any other person about a listing would be considered collusion.

In reality, it happens more like this.

"Hey, did you see that E-card in XYZ auction?"

"I did, are you interested in it? I know we both collect cards like that."

"Yes, I'd probably be at 2K on it, I have my eye on that T-card in the same auction so that would be my priority".

"I'd probably go 2.5K since I need it for my collection."

"Okay, good luck, I hope you get it."

And the results are usually my buddy overpaying for the E-card and me overpaying for the T-card since there are always other bidders involved, and more often than not neither one of us wins.

Now I could see if all of the potential bidders got together and chose one guy to win like Scott's example link, that would definitely qualify has collusion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you think there's no chance of influencing the outcome why are you even having the conversation?

[BioCRN]

Closing night? If they're not already in at that point, nah.

Early on, shared many times. "Hey, ____ have some ____ if you haven't checked it out."

I'm not afraid of missing out. The longer I have to search for things, the longer the hobby keeps me from creating a new (and therefore expensive) hobby focus.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I don't tell others about auctions. As someone else pointed out, most auctions are so known, anyway. People are bound to see what they see.

I employ an easier approach with auctions. I refuse to stay up until the wee hours; it's just memorabilia. I'll plug in my highest bid and go to bed. Bidding enough with the various companies in this fashion also usually makes it easy to discern which AHs aren't running me up. There was one infamous AH we all know very well who got themselves into trouble for such antics. I knew full well that my max bid would ALWAYS be what I paid if I won. Always. But my philosophy to bidding is to view it as just paying my top price and being OK with that. If I get it for my max bid, I'm good with that; anything less is just icing on the cake. There's been a time or two where my max bid was huge as compared to where it stood where I went to bed for the night. Imagine my surprise at winning the pieces for almost nothing. Kudos to those AHs.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you think there's no chance of influencing the outcome why are you even having the conversation?

We've already established the outcome regarding the two of us, either he is willing to pay more than me or he isn't. That would have no material effect on the ultimate sales price the seller receives.

Am I the only one who has hobby conversations with friends like this?

Because I certainly don't feel like some criminal mastermind who is having any effect on the outcome of prices except when I do win I usually have to overpay for the honor of adding a card to my meager collection on a limited budget.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

We've already established the outcome regarding the two of us, either he is willing to pay more than me or he isn't. That would have no material effect on the ultimate sales price the seller receives.

Am I the only one who has hobby conversations with friends like this?

Because I certainly don't feel like some criminal mastermind who is having any effect on the outcome of prices except when I do win I usually have to overpay for the honor of adding a card to my meager collection on a limited budget.

If your friend bids $2,500 and you were willing to pay $2,000 but don’t bid, and it sells for $1,500, your decision cost the seller $500. That’s how it could cost the seller.

The real crime is not a collusive conspiracy but the chance that this could lower a price. Can’t have anything happen, regardless of tiny insignificance, that goes against investors profiting

[JollyElm]

694. Circumbenevolent
Showing kindness toward a like-minded fellow collector by purposely not bidding in an auction he’s keen on winning, to avoid unnecessarily running up the price in a bidding war and affecting his chance of carrying the day.

See also: Collegial Collusion - a more cynical term for this type of regular occurrence.

See also: Bro-Codependency - the unwritten courtesy of stepping aside, because you know if the roles were reversed, your collecting buddy would do the same for you.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by G1911

If your friend bids $2,500 and you were willing to pay $2,000 but don’t bid, and it sells for $1,500, your decision cost the seller $500. That’s how it could cost the seller.

The real crime is not a collusive conspiracy but the chance that this could lower a price. Can’t have anything happen, regardless of tiny insignificance, that goes against investors profiting

Except my friend and I are communicating on auction night, the card wouldn't sell for 1500 because I would jump in up to 2000, now if my friend wanted to bid 2100 then I'm out. Also, auction nights are very organic and multiple things affect prices night of. Perhaps I overpay on my T-card and can't afford to bid 2k on the E-card, in that case the Seller isn't going to get my 2k bid, or maybe I'm in low on the T-card and am willing to go 2500 on the E-card, then I'll have that discussion with my friend at the time. Or maybe the seller is listing an obscure set that only six guys collect and he or the AH decided to flood the market that night. I guarantee the only people happy when that happens are the 6 guys who collect those cards.

A lot can happen night of, I've sold lots of cards at auction and been very happy with the results, some good some bad but that's how auctions work. I've also had miscommunication with fellow hobbyists which can be awkward but you try to make the best of those situations.

Also the seller can put a floor bid in if he wants a minimum.

Maybe I'm living in a parallel universe here, do you guys never discuss auctions with each other?

Maybe I'm the outlier but that just seems strange to me, half the fun of this hobby is making friends, discussing cards, and the anticipation of adding to our collections. I can't imagine sitting isolated in a self imposed cubicle with head phones on for 3 weeks because I can't discuss cards in auction with hobby friends.

IMHO if that's the case, you're doing it wrong, or maybe I am, but I guarantee I'm having more enjoyment of our hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

We've already established the outcome regarding the two of us, either he is willing to pay more than me or he isn't. That would have no material effect on the ultimate sales price the seller receives.

Am I the only one who has hobby conversations with friends like this?

Because I certainly don't feel like some criminal mastermind who is having any effect on the outcome of prices except when I do win I usually have to overpay for the honor of adding a card to my meager collection on a limited budget.

Then why in post 2 were you saying how bad it was for friends to bid against each other, if now you're saying it wouldn't matter?

As you put it, Nothing worse than two friends running each other up if it can be avoided.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then why in post 2 were you saying how bad it was for friends to bid against each other, if now you're saying it wouldn't matter?

Quite frankly I wouldn't want to cost my hobby friends one penny more than the already outrageous prices we are paying for little pictures of men on cardboard.

So if there's an item that you and I like but you want it more I'm going to stand aside out of respect for our friendship, unless I want it more than you and am willing to pay the freight.

You call it collusion, I get that your lawyer brain is kicking in, but I don't see it that way. I've been on the other side and enjoyed auction night where a rare card I owned went for dirt cheap and congratulated the winner in my mind. I've also had cards sell for more than I ever expected and thought how lucky I was that two drunk guys had a bidding war late at night. To me that's the fun of our hobby. Yes, this stuff is expensive but at the end of the day, to me, it's just a vehicle to meet some pretty awesome people and have some fun putting collections together.

[Kco]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I'm not sure I understand the ethical argument here, technically yes, talking to any other person about a listing would be considered collusion.

In reality, it happens more like this.

"Hey, did you see that E-card in XYZ auction?"

"I did, are you interested in it? I know we both collect cards like that."

"Yes, I'd probably be at 2K on it, I have my eye on that T-card in the same auction so that would be my priority".

"I'd probably go 2.5K since I need it for my collection."

"Okay, good luck, I hope you get it."

And the results are usually my buddy overpaying for the E-card and me overpaying for the T-card since there are always other bidders involved, and more often than not neither one of us wins.

Now I could see if all of the potential bidders got together and chose one guy to win like Scott's example link, that would definitely qualify has collusion.

Exactly my point, acting like 2 buddies deciding to prioritize which item they are going for the hardest has ANY material change on the auction final price is funny, as if there aren't 20 others bidding on most desirable items.