its not the auction houses fault its the bidders

[teetwoohsix]

I agree with you Peter-I also felt Rob G. made a great point.
In all of the threads going about auction houses,there are a few auction houses(from what I've read) that seem to be "on the up-and-up".

I think more people who have had positive experiences should let everyone know about them,as to not let the "crooked" auction houses cast a shadow on the ones who are doing people right.

Seems as though I've read good things about B&L,REA,and Huggins & Scott--if I missed any others,it wasn't intentional.

[sflayank]

im not blaming the victim...simply stating if bidders are smart they wont become victims...if you send your account #s to someone in nigeria and expect that million $ return...whose fault is it? youve been warned and still do it...its your fault
if u suspect an auction house shill bidding dont put in a max bid
thats all im saying...if you do you have no right to complain

[DanP]

As someone who wrote software for over 20 years, here's how easy it is to see the max bid.

Let's assume that the max bid is an encrypted field (similar to passwords).
No doubt, it can be proved that virtually no one can "figure out" what the
true value in the field is. That's why if you lose your password they always
ask you to create a new one.

However, with just 1 or 2 lines of "hidden" code someone can take the value entered in the online screen and store it in another field, let's say the field is
called: User Comments. With a little more code they can move some #'s around so it's not so obvious that it is really the max bid (maybe even store it in another database).

Now if auditors come in to review the code you could easily copy the original (non-tampered with) program object code back to "production". So when they review it, everything looks perfect. The auditors I've worked with would not known how to look for stuff like this and even if they did, it's so easy to move programs around with no audit history of what happened.

I find it hard to believe that this couldn't happen in any environment. Unless the programs are stored in a 3rd party environment (i.e. the auditors) and they are responsible for releasing programs to production (even then unless they're programmers they may not know how to look for "hidden code").

I would never trust a MAX BID because I really believe if any of these companies wanted to know bad enough, they could find out what they are.

Dan

[barrysloate]

I would hope that an auction house could be held to a higher standard than some scammer from Nigeria.

[3-2-count]

Barry you beat me to it. My sentiments exact!!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I would hope that an auction house could be held to a higher standard than some scammer from Nigeria.

Um, look at some of the heads of auction houses. Their resumes indicate that they could teach classes to some of the Nigerian scammers.

[Mr. Mitt]

I think I understand what sflayank is trying to say as I've bid this way since auction houses have been online. I don't show my hand by inputting a maximum bid, in any auction, regardless of reputation. If I'm the high bid at $2k, and that's my highest bid, the auction house takes on the risk by outbidding me. They have no idea if I or any other bidder will emerge to top them. I could be willing to pay up to $5k on the item, but if I bid incimentally, on my own and not via an automatic bid, they assume the risk that I may not return to top them if they shill and outbid me.

I have nothing against any auction house, but my perception of each and every one of them is the same - they will do anything to make an extra buck, so don't trust them. Seems that the general perception of Mastro/Legendary has drastically changed over the past few years. Five years ago, no one would have dreamed to question their ethics. Who's to say that in five years time we're not having the same discussions about a currently reputable business. In the end, each bidder has to be comfortable with themselves. Some will bid with a particular auction house, others won't. Some will utilize the maximum bid feature, others (like me) won't. It's not a perfect world, gentlemen. Unfortunately you have to take precautions and look over your shoulder, even if everything appears to be on the up and up.

[barrysloate]

Jerry - your point could be well taken, but you are missing something critical.

Suppose a card has a fair market value of $2000 and it is sitting at $1400 late on the final night. The auction house then places the next bid of $1500. Sure, they run the risk of buying it, but at that level they may be glad to do so.

I think with some auction houses the policy is they will not let anything go cheap, even if they have to buy it themselves. And had they won that $2000 card for the $1500 bid, they would just hang onto it for a bit and resell it for a profit down the road. So they really risked nothing.

[Mr. Mitt]

Absolutely, Barry. I completely agree with you. Given current economic conditions, your arbitrage scenario is realistic. If the $2k value is firm, the item should not sell below $2k because whoever buys it (auction house or other collector) immediately generates a profit. Given the current state of affairs of falling prices, however, the auction house may need time to unload it at $2k. An auction, by definition, sets the price in a market economy. If the item sells for $1500, that's its true value, not $2k anymore. Sure, given time the buyer may get $2k for it, but again, they assume the risk as it may fall further in price the next time it is offered.

My argument, and I believe sflayanks' point, was more geared toward items where a premium is being bid into the price. If the item in question is valued at $2k and my current, maximum bid is $2k, the auction house runs the risk of purchasing the item above market value if they shill me. They don't know my circumstances nor what premium I place on the item. I may be willing to pay $5k for it (for whatever reason), but why show my hand? I could put in a $5k bid and it goes to that level because the auction house is unscrupulous. I truly don't know if they are or if they're not, but I'm sure as hell not going to believe them simply because they say they're honest. I'd rather bid on the item incrementally, each decision to bid above the item's perceived $2k value is mine, and mine alone. Say it goes back and forth from $2k to $2800. If they are shilling me and its supposed value is only $2k, perhaps they stop there and call it a victory. Sure, I got screwed out of $800 because of illegal shilling, but it's a lot better than paying the full $5k I was willing to spend.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Jerry - your point could be well taken, but you are missing something critical.

Suppose a card has a fair market value of $2000 and it is sitting at $1400 late on the final night. The auction house then places the next bid of $1500. Sure, they run the risk of buying it, but at that level they may be glad to do so.

I think with some auction houses the policy is they will not let anything go cheap, even if they have to buy it themselves. And had they won that $2000 card for the $1500 bid, they would just hang onto it for a bit and resell it for a profit down the road. So they really risked nothing.

I guess we can remove that last sentence. Didn't work so well for H&S.