Shanus-REA suit

[bsuttonosu]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

If you know an auction house has engaged in this activity, why are you looking for suggestions about how to modify your bidding activity? My suggestion would be that you NEVER USE THAT AUCTION HOUSE AGAIN. They stole from you.

The truth is, this is the real problem. Everyone gives example after example of unethical behavior and then continues to bid. It seems there are very few (though I do know some) that are willing to boycott these unethical practices when it comes down to a card they really want. Until we stop accepting it as buyers and put these places out of business, it will continue...and it will continue to be our fault.

Ben Sutton.

[ls7plus]

That's all well and good in theory, Ben, and I agree with you completely "in theory." If you're looking for an item that comes up regularly (which is almost always not what I'm looking for; I much prefer rare and significant, in the best condition available or that I can afford), then there is no problem. With regard to such fungible items, you're right; you simply avoid those auction houses whose ethics are not what they should be.

But if what you're bidding on is an item you've been after for perhaps a decade or more without success, and/or is very, very rarely seen in auction catalogues at all, has a pop report of less than ten, all of which tends to indicate that the examples that do exist have been gathered into private collectors' hands and are intended to be kept that way for many, many years (what is referred to as "strong hands" with regard to great rarities in the realm of coin collecting), then you've got a far tougher choice. As Adam (Exhibitman) has said with regard to '50's cards, it is no great chore to find virtually any example in NMt-Mt or better at almost any time, and one can afford to be choosy with regard to who the seller is. Try doing the same thing with a 1923-1924 Exhibit Ruth, the 1931-32 Exhibit Ruth (beautiful portrait!) from the movie stars set (PSA has graded 3; I have the highest, a "5"), or even a more recent acquisition, the 1907 Dietsche Cobb Fielding Position.

The simple, inescapable fact of the matter is that there are certain cards that many of the members of this board will never have the wherewithal to acquire unless they are purchased when they are available within a certain price range (including me--I don't know about your finances, and that's absolutely none of my business in any event!). These are those cards that come up so rarely, that are so significant to the history of baseball and have such a significant upside in value, that they are best snatched up if you want them in your collection badly enough when they are available. One prime example would be when my wife and I were attending the Strongsville, Ohio show in the early '90's. One of the dealers there had a NMt-Mt M101 Ruth rookie. He wouldn't budge on it for less than $7,000. I had only $5,000 to spend, and couldn't make the deal (I ended up later settling for one in poor to fair condition for $1700, if memory serves correctly). The last (only?) sale I am aware of for that card in that grade was not so long ago (2009?) for $140,000. I highly doubt that I'll ever be in that market for a card (now the wife says she would have come up with the additional $2,000, but hindsight is 20/20--she's not a Babe Ruth fan, but she most definitely is a fan of $140,000!). The fact is, if I wanted that card in that grade in my lifetime, then was the time. And almost certainly the only time.

It depends upon your perspective, I guess. Mine is that sometimes you simply have to bite the bullet. If you feel that there is no room for compromise in your stance under any circumstances, I tip my hat to you.

Best wishes to you in your collecting endeavors!

Larry

[ElCabron]

Ben is exactly right. Larry is part of the problem that allows these criminals to continue to rip people off. Larry and just about every other member of this board who continues to bid with an auction house they know is ripping people off. The "bite the bullet" theory certainly contributes to the fraud that is so prevalent in the hobby. Bullet-biters are not nearly as responsible as the criminals themselves. But they do have some culpability. It's more like they're helping fugitives hide from justice in their house.

It's called greed, plain and simple. Not for money, exactly, but for that great item you just can't live without.

I had an item like that, one that I NEEDED, come up for auction a few years ago. But it was being offered by a fraudulent auction house. I don't want to name names, but it rhymes with "Mastro." Anyway, I was asked by someone if I'd be bidding on it. I told them that I, of course, would not be bidding with scumbag thieves who had stolen from me and many other collectors I know. So this person bid on and won the item for $1,500. Then they sold it to me for $3,500.

The moral of this story is, there's money to be made in the business of selling out your integrity. If you're willing to abandon your principles and any moral compass you may have had, there is profit to be made in this "hobby." If you're not after profits, you can always build a world-class collection of must-have items that you would have missed out on it had you not found a way to silence that pesky conscience.

Happy bidding.

-Ryan Christoff

[ls7plus]

Dear Ryan:

See the last two paragraphs of post #87. Let's set the record straight: beyond any rational, reasonable dispute, there's absolutely nothing amoral or greedy, let alone criminal, in sometimes biting that bullet--the key is simply in knowing enough to make an informed choice, and being able to consider all relevant factors in pursuing our collecting endeavors.

Good luck in your collecting!

Larry

[ElCabron]

Hi Larry,

I re-read the last two paragraphs and wasn't sure what you wanted me see. I wasn't trying to single you out. Many people agree with you. Actually, I think MOST people on this board probably agree with you. I happen to disagree and am of the opinion that it actually causes harm to the hobby, albeit unintentional. But more importantly, I think it would really HELP the hobby if everyone stopped bidding with and supporting scumbags who are stealing their money.

You know how if you feed a stray cat, it will keep coming to your house and scratch at your door until you feed it again? I'm saying, stop feeding Doug Allen.

-Ryan

[ls7plus]

Hi, Ryan. No offense taken to your comments. As a lawyer, I'm more than used to dealing with different points of view (I always prefer the judges to share mine, however), and wouldn't even begin to suggest you are not absolutely entitled to yours. One of the greatest values of this forum is the opportunity to not only share information, but discuss such different approaches.

As to the stray cats, I'm a confirmed cat lover (have two, and have had as many as four at one time through two distinct periods of time), and I probably would not only feed a stray cat, but endeavor to find out if it had a home, and if not, take it in!

I sincerely wish you the best in your collecting! Thanks for the discussion,

Larry

[ElCabron]

Steve,

A sensible bidder can absolutely be stolen from. In fact that's exactly what has been happening. It doesn't matter what you're willing to pay for something. If you are willing to pay $3,500 for an item in an auction and you wind up paying that exact amount for it, you're saying you should be happy, right? Well, what if the next highest legitimate bid was $1,000. That means you should have gotten the item for the next bid over $1,000. We'll say $1,100. Are you still happy that you had to pay an extra $2,400? Will you be happy when you try to sell your item and find out that you can't seem to get more than $1,000 for the item you paid $3,500 for? Surely, if you paid $3,500, that means at least one other bidder was willing to pay somewhere close to that amount, right? No, you just had $2,400 stolen from you. STOLEN. S-T-O-L-E-N.

It's not ebay where you can put in a snipe at the last minute. On ebay, I've often won items for 10% of what my snipe was. Other times, I've won them very close to what my max was. Either way, I'm happy. I think that's the kind of example you were trying to make, but it simply doesn't apply to these auction houses. It just doesn't.

I think part of the problem is that most people are generally good and it's hard to imagine that there are so many shady people in a hobby that is also filled with a lot nice people who you wind up becoming good friends with. There are many people that I've met over the years in this hobby that I would remain friends with regardless of whether or not either of us collected anything. That's one of the great things about this board.

But people who steal from you are not your friends.

-Ryan

[steve B]

I guess this is the part I don't get.
A sensible bidder can't really be "stolen from" because a sensible bidder bids what the item is worth to them and no more. If everyone bid that way shilling would be pointless Because all the bids would be nearly the same and a shill would end up buying the item or only making a small difference.

But the way some people bid in a competitive manner is foolish. I might go a bid or two beyond my max at a live auction if the opposing bidder seemed weak and I really wanted something. But I wouldn't be the guy hanging on the phone raising any bid till I won. (Ok, maybe on a couple items, but I can't afford any of them) The other danger is thinking "it's worth 500 but I'll bid 1000 so I'll be sure to win" In any case shilling or not that sort of bid is a sure fire way to overpay and/or be unhappy with the price.

In the example you gave, obviously you'd have been happy to win it for 3500 since you eventually bought it for that. What's the difference between bidding 3500 and paying that or close to it, and paying that in a private sale?

Steve B

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

Ben is exactly right. Larry is part of the problem that allows these criminals to continue to rip people off. Larry and just about every other member of this board who continues to bid with an auction house they know is ripping people off. The "bite the bullet" theory certainly contributes to the fraud that is so prevalent in the hobby. Bullet-biters are not nearly as responsible as the criminals themselves. But they do have some culpability. It's more like they're helping fugitives hide from justice in their house.

It's called greed, plain and simple. Not for money, exactly, but for that great item you just can't live without.

I had an item like that, one that I NEEDED, come up for auction a few years ago. But it was being offered by a fraudulent auction house. I don't want to name names, but it rhymes with "Mastro." Anyway, I was asked by someone if I'd be bidding on it. I told them that I, of course, would not be bidding with scumbag thieves who had stolen from me and many other collectors I know. So this person bid on and won the item for $1,500. Then they sold it to me for $3,500.

The moral of this story is, there's money to be made in the business of selling out your integrity. If you're willing to abandon your principles and any moral compass you may have had, there is profit to be made in this "hobby." If you're not after profits, you can always build a world-class collection of must-have items that you would have missed out on it had you not found a way to silence that pesky conscience.

Happy bidding.

-Ryan Christoff

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by steve B

I guess this is the part I don't get.
A sensible bidder can't really be "stolen from" because a sensible bidder bids what the item is worth to them and no more. If everyone bid that way shilling would be pointless Because all the bids would be nearly the same and a shill would end up buying the item or only making a small difference.

Steve B

I really don't quite understand what you're saying here. A sensible bidder CAN be stolen from, even while paying no more than what they were "willing" to pay. Auctions aren't set up for the winner to pay what he was "willing to pay". Auctions are set up for the winner to pay just more than the next highest bidder was willing to pay. Anything above that IS stealing, no matter how sensible a person's high bid was.