This looks interesting indeed

[Orioles1954]

1.) HOC pays the Buyer's premium on each lot they win.

2.) They bid on a small fraction of lots in the auction. Primarily for the needs of their storefront or frequent customers with wantlists. There is no nefarious plot to artificially drive up prices so that no one can't get good deals.

3.) Peter Spaeth is correct. It's all about intent and motive. It is also about trust. If you think something is amiss (which I assure you in this case there isn't), place a maximum bid (as stated earlier in this thread) and stick with it.

For those who are truly interested and want to discuss this in a cordial manner, the owner's have generously offered to discuss this personally. The phone numbers are posted earlier in the thread.

James Feagin

[mordecaibrown]

James -

Thank you for the information.

One question:

House of Cards is owned by Huggins and Scott, correct? So, they are essentially paying the buyers premium to each other? The left hand is giving the right hand the money; therefore, its not really paying the buyers premium.

If what I wrote above is wrong, I apologize, but please clarify. Earlier in this thread, it was stated that both businesses are run from the same address and operated by the same individuals.

An.dy K.enn.edy

[Orioles1954]

Andy,

Although operated from the same address by the same owner, I am not privvy to the finances other than Mr. Huggins runs them completely as separate businesses. I am an employee of H&S and NOT of HOC. There are also multiple employees of HOC who do not work for H&S. That's what I can tell you from that end.

James

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Andy,

Although operated from the same address by the same owner, I am not privvy to the finances other than Mr. Huggins runs them completely as separate businesses. I am an employee of H&S and NOT of HOC. There are also multiple employees of HOC who do not work for H&S. That's what I can tell you from that end.

James

Does that mean there are employees who work for both companies? If so what would be the purpose of that?


Chr...s Sh..-re..v-=e

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

1.)
2.) They bid on a small fraction of lots in the auction. Primarily for the needs of their storefront or frequent customers with wantlists. There is no nefarious plot to artificially drive up prices so that no one can't get good deals.

So why did they need the 52 Topps lot of Authentic graded cards? Obviously not a store need since they threw them up on ebay, and obviously not a frequent customer wantlist filled.

[Orioles1954]

Dan,

You can always call HOC and ask. They have an "open door" policy when it comes to those questions. I have nothing to do with HOC, so I don't know why they bid on those. Perhaps they had a wantlist customer who fell through? I can only hazard a guess.

James

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Dan,

You can always call HOC and ask. They have an "open door" policy when it comes to those questions. I have nothing to do with HOC, so I don't know why they bid on those. Perhaps they had a wantlist customer who fell through? I can only hazard a guess.

James

The solution to that would seem to me to be to register these customers who have wantlists with HOC for the auction.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

The solution to that would seem to me to be to register these customers who have wantlists with HOC for the auction.

I think Dan B has hit it on the head. If they are buying things because of a storefront need or for customers with want lists, why not just have them register and bid on the H&S auction?

Secondly, if you don't want these customers bidding in the auction for some reason, why not just sell directly to the customer instead of putting it on Ebay?

Ch...s Sh..-r-..ev..e

[mordecaibrown]

Thanks James.

Essentially, the same individual owns the same company; therefore, the owner of House of Cards pays the buyers premium to the owner of Huggins and Scott (who are the same person).

All of this comes down to this:

Huggins and Scott occasionally bid on items in there own auction as House of Cards. As a bidder in their auctions, you never know if the item you are bidding on is also an item they are bidding on. Personally, I think that should be stated under their rules section, but thats simply my opinion.

If you dont feel comfortable with this possibility, then you should not bid on items in Huggins and Scott Auctions; however, if it does not bother you or you are willing to take the risk, then continue to bid.

But it would really make me upset, if I lost out on an item and then saw it posted on ebay by House of Cards.

An.dy K.enn.edy

[iggyman]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

2.) They bid on a small fraction of lots in the auction. Primarily for the needs of their storefront or frequent customers with wantlists. There is no nefarious plot to artificially drive up prices so that no one can't get good deals.

James,

If I'm to understand what you are saying, House of Cards had a "storefront need" for "four" Topps 1952 high numbers. Thus, they placed a bid and ultimately win the cards. Regrettably, after receiving the items from Huggins and Scott they have buyers remorse and feel the cards no longer serve their "storefront needs." Thus, a decision is made to sell the cards on eBay. Yeah, okay; I'm good with that explanation .

By the way, the four Topps 1952 high numbers sold for:

$202.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $181.75
$100.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $89.60
$371.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $333.23
$138.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $124.20
------------------------------------------
$812.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $728.78


One question that really needs to be asked. Can House of Cards consign items to Huggins and Scott???

Lovely Day...

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by iggyman

Regrettably, after receiving the items from Huggins and Scott they have buyers remorse and feel the cards no longer serve their "storefront needs." Thus, a decision is made to sell the cards on eBay. Yeah, okay; I'm good with that explanation .
Lovely Day...

That is not even close to what I wrote and takes a leap that was never mentioned. Should further questions arise, please contact the owners. As much as I would like to hang out on Net54, I do have an impending publication deadline to meet.

James

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by iggyman

James,
By the way, the four Topps 1952 high numbers sold for:

$202.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $181.75
$100.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $89.60
$371.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $333.23
$138.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $124.20
------------------------------------------
$812.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $728.78

Based on the H&S lot selling for $822.50, I believe the final bid was $700. So the "profit" was $28.78? Had they let the previous bid of $650 take the auction, they would have received $113.75 in juice.

Or is my math off here?

[iggyman]

Erick,

It's tough to speculate, because we are waist high in murky water. For example, did House of Cards place the $600 bid? Thus, the $650 second place bidder might have conceivably won the lot at $550.

Lovely day...

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by iggyman

Erick,

It's tough to speculate, because we are waist high in murky water. For example, did House of Cards place the $600 bid? Thus, the $650 second place bidder might have conceivably won the lot at $550.

Lovely day...

I agree. Very murky at this point. To me, it doesn't even matter anymore. The murkiness is all brought about by the fact that one entity owned and operated by the same person is bidding on items owned and operated by that same person. It's murky because it's murky.

Only way to clean up the waters is to have H&S (employees, subsidiaries, owners, etc.) stop bidding on their own auctions.

[atx840]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Based on the H&S lot selling for $822.50, I believe the final bid was $700. So the "profit" was $28.78? Had they let the previous bid of $650 take the auction, they would have received $113.75 in juice.

Or is my math off here?

No Erick you are correct. H&S will always be out the profit of the previous increments BP amount if HOC wins.

Im 99% certain H&S would make HOC pay the BP as each lot required effort to scan, detail, receive, ship and process the funds.

HOC then is in the same boat as all of us, paying a 20% premium on lots and have to find a way to make a profit on the flip. Now maybe its just a risk they take while trying to bump up auctions and occasionally win but I doubt this as your one example shows a significant loss of profit.

[Jaybird]

Even if I were willing to accept the notion that one hand paying the other is not a competitive advantage (which I don't), what about all the auctions that they bid on and don't win. Those lot prices are driven up putting more Money in H&S hands. They could look at the lots they win as collateral damage

[atx840]

Yes collateral damage is the risk they could be taking.

I can't seen any advantage in paying a BP from one hand to the other. Keeping it simple.

You have $20 in your right hand.

Right hand gives the $20 to the left hand, you still have $20.
Right hand does not give $20 to the left hand, you still have $20

-$20 spent + $20 made = $0 profit
$20 saved + -$20 earned = $0 profit

[ValKehl]

Paying the BP from one company to the other obviously affects how much profit each company makes at the end of the day/month/year. Even if the same individuals own both companies, this will make a difference in each individual's profit, unless each of the individuals owns the same percentage of both companies, which I doubt is the case.
Val

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by atx840

Yes collateral damage is the risk they could be taking.

I can't seen any advantage in paying a BP from one hand to the other. Keeping it simple.

You have $20 in your right hand.

Right hand gives the $20 to the left hand, you still have $20.
Right hand does not give $20 to the left hand, you still have $20

-$20 spent + $20 made = $0 profit
$20 saved + -$20 earned = $0 profit

0 profit but they have a $20% advantage over the person bidding next to them. So, if they get any item at a 20% discount, how do they not win that battle? And why would I play a game where the house has a 20% advantage? This isn't vegas and the potential to "win big" isn't even there.

They are able to own an item at a 20% savings over anyone else. If they take the next increment over anyone, bidding it up 10%, they still get the item at 10% less than previous bidder. Not a level playing field.

In math terms, the item is $1000 (bid by outside bidder). He stops because he knows he has to pay $1200. Auction house bids up to $1100. Since they don't have to pay premium, they still get it at $100 less than previous "REAL" bidder.

[ValKehl]

Josh & James - It's nice of you to attempt to do "damage control" for H&S and HOC, but it would be much more meaningful for Bill Huggins to address these issues himself on Net54, rather than inviting anyone who is concerned (MANY Net54ers are CONCERNED!) to call him to discuss.

It has long been my assumption that pretty much the same individuals own both H&S and HOC, with Bill owning a majority interest in both companies. FWIIW, I have known Bill since the mid-1980s, and I have always believed him to be a person of high integrity.

I would prefer that auction houses, their retail affiliates, and/or their employees be precluded from bidding in their own auctions. But, personally, I have no problem with auction houses, their retail affiliates, and/or their employees (1) putting their own items in their auctions, and (2) bidding on items (except their own) in their auctions, PROVIDED this is very clearly made known to us bidders. By this, I mean that each item so owned should be clearly noted, both in the auction catalog and online; and furthermore, each lot on which the auction house, their retail affiliate, and/or their employees bid should be clearly noted online during the course of the auction along with whether or not the auction house, their retail affiliate, and/or their employee is the current high bidder. This could still lead to shill bidding by auction houses, especially on those lots with higher maximum bids, but I seldom leave maximum bids because of this concern.
Val