This looks interesting indeed

[mordecaibrown]

Im confused by why some people think this is an alright practice. Ill try to lay out an example to illustrate how Huggins and Scott can only win by bidding on items in their own auction.

For example, if Huggins and Scott is auctioning off an item that they determine has a "market value" of $500 from previous sales; however, the item is only currently being bid at $200.

The buyer is about to purchase the item for $200 + $39 (buyers premium - 19.5%) = $239. Huggins and Scott are going to make $39.

Huggins and Scott decide that this is below retail and decide to put a bid in for $300 (even though they do not know max bid). Here are the two scenarios that occur:

1) Huggins and Scott win auction and have bought an item at a good price (relative to determined retail) and can sell it through House of Cards for a profit. And they bought it for $300 because they are not paying buyers premium.

2) Other buyers max bid is greater than $300 and the new high bid in the auction becomes $330. Now the buyer is buying the item for $330 + $64.35 (buyers premium) = $394.35. By making a "feeler" bid Huggins and Scott just made themselves $25!

Huggins and Scott can ONLY benefit by placing bids on items in their own auction!

And they can continue to do this. They could then toss out a bid of $400 and increase their profits if the other buyer has put in a higher maximum bid.

I do not know if they are alone in this practice or if other auction companies also do this, but I do not see how it is anything other than a conflict of interest by the auction house.

Andy Ken-nedy

[seablaster]

For example, if Huggins and Scott is auctioning off an item that they determine has a "market value" of $500 from previous sales; however, the item is only currently being bid at $200.

The buyer is about to purchase the item for $200 + $39 (buyers premium - 19.5%) = $239. Huggins and Scott are going to make $39.

Huggins and Scott decide that this is below retail and decide to put a bid in for $300 (even though they do not know max bid). Here are the two scenarios that occur:

1) Huggins and Scott win auction and have bought an item at a good price (relative to determined retail) and can sell it through House of Cards for a profit. And they bought it for $300 because they are not paying buyers premium.

2) Other buyers max bid is greater than $300 and the new high bid in the auction becomes $330. Now the buyer is buying the item for $330 + $64.35 (buyers premium) = $394.35. By making a "feeler" bid Huggins and Scott just made themselves $25!

Huggins and Scott can ONLY benefit by placing bids on items in their own auction!

And they can continue to do this. They could then toss out a bid of $400 and increase their profits if the other buyer has put in a higher maximum bid.

Andy could not have stated this more eloquently.

I have bid in several H&S auctions and have been very pleased with their customer service and the manner in which they conduct their auctions, but I find this information concerning.

My thoughts drift back to all the auctions I have participated in with numerous auction houses and I think of how much more aggressively I could have bid had I had essentially what amounts to a ~20% discount on the final price of the item. I feel this gives certain bidders an unfair advantage.

I am interested in seeing what develops from this discussion.

[ScottFandango]

In the SMR H and S runs a huge one page ad..on the top it says

Huggins and Scott IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE HOUSE OF CARDS....
Clearly one company's ad, impossible to separate the two based on their own advertising...

It makes no difference if an auction house SEES the current max bids or not...
A bid by an auction house drives up the final price..simple stuff really...

Read REA's disclosure page in their auction...at first it seemed long winded, but it seems they were explaining things that go on in the auction world that they do NOT DO...they couldnt point fingers at other houses but that's what that disclosure seems to do.

[buymycards]

Hi James, thanks for putting in your view from an auctioneers standpoint. Personally, when I am at a live auction it really pisses me off when the auctioneer is bidding. If I think I am going to get something for $50 and the auctioneer runs the price up on me - I am not happy.

Whether or not it is legal doesn't matter. Don't bid against your customers. Yes, the bidders are your customers as well as your consigners.

Rick

[sports-rings]

Read REA's disclosure page in their auction...at first it seemed long winded, but it seems they were explaining things that go on in the auction world that they do NOT DO...they couldnt point fingers at other houses but that's what that disclosure seems to do.

Recently I met Rob Lifson, owner of Robert Edward Auctions when I consigned some items for his upcoming auction. He showed me some amazing items that will be in his upcoming auction. I asked him what he collects and he confessed that he no longer collects anything in our hobby. He went on to explain that no auction house company who also is a collector or seller can remain 100% impartial and objective. He's right.

[Wymers Auction]

Rick I see your point and really I cannot remember the last time I actually bid on an item it was several years ago and the item was not bringing any bidding. At my online auctions I never bid there is too much room for unethical behavior. I run on proxybid a lot and I cannot even see the high bid. I can request that information if I want to, but I think only bad things happen when the auctioneer views the high bids.

[Wymers Auction]

Rick you are right bidders are the foundation of our business.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by mordecaibrown

Im confused by why some people think this is an alright practice. Ill try to lay out an example to illustrate how Huggins and Scott can only win by bidding on items in their own auction.

For example, if Huggins and Scott is auctioning off an item that they determine has a "market value" of $500 from previous sales; however, the item is only currently being bid at $200.

The buyer is about to purchase the item for $200 + $39 (buyers premium - 19.5%) = $239. Huggins and Scott are going to make $39.

Huggins and Scott decide that this is below retail and decide to put a bid in for $300 (even though they do not know max bid). Here are the two scenarios that occur:

1) Huggins and Scott win auction and have bought an item at a good price (relative to determined retail) and can sell it through House of Cards for a profit. And they bought it for $300 because they are not paying buyers premium.

2) Other buyers max bid is greater than $300 and the new high bid in the auction becomes $330. Now the buyer is buying the item for $330 + $64.35 (buyers premium) = $394.35. By making a "feeler" bid Huggins and Scott just made themselves $25!

Huggins and Scott can ONLY benefit by placing bids on items in their own auction!

And they can continue to do this. They could then toss out a bid of $400 and increase their profits if the other buyer has put in a higher maximum bid.

I do not know if they are alone in this practice or if other auction companies also do this, but I do not see how it is anything other than a conflict of interest by the auction house.

Andy Ken-nedy

If I could Andy, I would like to fix a couple of things in your equation. Let's not forget that in addition to the buyers premium, they are also getting more commission from the seller. I don't know what they charge but let's just say 10%.

So in your example # 1 they would be getting the item for $270 instead of $300, thus giving them even more "wiggle room" or advantage.

Now in your example # 2, if HOC puts in a bid of $300 and someone else outbids them and the bid goes up to $330, not only do they make the extra money for the buyers premium, they also make an additional $13 from sellers commission based on charging the seller 10%. Now this is only on a $200 item. You take a $2000 item and you just multiply those numbers by 10. That starts to become some pretty significant numbers and that is only making one bid on an item. What about auctions where they make more than one bid?

I personally don't see how anyone can defend this practice or how an auction house can think this is acceptable.

So it would almost seem that they are working with an almost 30% buffer or advantage to other bidders while also allowing them should they choose to take more chances bidding on items and therefore getting paid more on the backside should they not win the item.

Very disturbing indeed.

ch..r i-s. shr..e-v..e

[ChiefBenderForever]

I hear you Chris but it's just the way it is, what can you do ? Here's what you can do, decide your max price and don't go over it, or don't bid at all. You are not forced to do this, no one is holding a gun to anybodys head and saying 'bid on this card or else !!' This hobby is an addiction, but atleast you can get a return on your fix if you play the game. Johnny s t e f a n I c h

[vintagechris]

Sadly Johnny, what seems to be more addicting is the greed of auctioneers.

You know what is going to be real interesting? We have an example going right now where we will be able to see just how they may benefit from what they are doing or to see if they lose $ on this deal, assuming they let the auctions on ebay run. Of course, if they don't let them run I will assume like many others will assume, that they are hiding something.

Lot # 55 in their last auction for 4 HIGH 1952 Yankees ended at $700. Let's assume they charge a 10% fee to the seller. HOC actually gets the lot for $630.
The McDougald has already sold for $202.50 http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...item4ab3cc3043

And the other three are currently running on ebay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...item53eb88e062

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...item53eb995595

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-B...item4ab40abec4


ch..r i-s. shr..e-v..e

[forazzurri2axz]

Recently an auction house owner who has been around quite a while told me that some of the software used by the different auction houses DO enable them to see the bids.....and if not, one can easily get the software to be able to do so......so if they "shill bid" items we are bidding on, it is difficult to believe they do not see our bids as well.

Furthermore , logic tells me that if you bid $2000 on an item and THEY win the item, does anyone here think they pay $2200 plus the juice????. Maybe their final prices show $2200 but my guess is that the "employee" pays $2001 or so, just sayin'

[danmckee]

Let it be known that H&S lost money on this endevor so they just weren't buying for a good deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

If the house, or an affiliate or employee, is bidding to win and not to run up max bids it can see (i.e., to shill), then I have no issue with it.

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the house, or an affiliate or employee, is bidding to win and not to run up max bids it can see (i.e., to shill), then I have no issue with it.

The problem is one of intent and motive. Since we cannot judge intent and motive from where we sit (i.e., since we don't know these folks), the prudent thing to do would be for them to refrain from bidding altogether.

Also, bidding to win and then resell in their store lines their pockets. If they win, they get it at a discount (buyer's premium paid from one hand to the other). If they lose, they increase the buyer's premium paid on that lot to them.

Win-win = lose for bidder

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the house, or an affiliate or employee, is bidding to win and not to run up max bids it can see (i.e., to shill), then I have no issue with it.

I sell stuff on ebay for a few local guys...sometimes they bring me stuff that's pretty cool and I wouldn't mind having it....is it okay for me to create another ebay account and bid on that item? What if I don't win it and I'm the only other bidder? Is it still okay?