the list (of criminals) is revealed

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

And almost impossible to prove, since they're not going to discuss their lack of additional bids with anyone else, including the auctionhouse...

Yes, but that can be true of seller collusion as well, sometimes there are smoking guns but often it has to be proved circumstantially.

[T206Collector]

On day 1, Zues created auction houses.
On day 2, Hades created shill bidding.

If you participate in bidding at auctions against strangers then shill bidding in one form or another is a significant and predictable risk. Too easy to call a friend and have him place a bid for you. It's unethical and illegal. But, very hard to police. So I accept it as a hobby hazard.

Having said that, once in awhile the rock is lifted, the sun shines on the mud beneath and the bugs scatter. And we can see you all very clearly now. You were betting we wouldn't ever see you. Oops.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by RGold

I was the consignor of a 1955 Red Man set in the August, 2007 Mastro Auctions which appears on the list being discussed. It is the only item where my name is listed as consignor and Peter Spaeth as the bidder.

Peter has already related the facts and expressed views as I see them. People may question my ethics but I ask that they at least acknowledge that this was the lone entry on a very long list, and that this one transaction was much different than many of those listed. I have had many private transactions with people on this board and as a seller and buyer on eBay, and I hope my past dealings are at least considered before passing judgment.

I made the decision to consign this set with Mastro Auctions despite the fact they would not use a reserve or high starting bid. They told me that they would allow me to select one bidder to place what constitutes a hidden reserve, as long as I understood that if that bid was the winning bid, I would have to pay a buyer's premium on that amount.

I assumed this was an acceptable practice as I was told this was done on other Mastro auction lots. At that time I believe Mastro Auctions was considered the premier auction house in our hobby.

I have been a member on this board for about 8 years, and have read the many discussions regarding shill bidding. My understanding and views have evolved over that time like I am sure it has for many other members. I understand and agree that using a hidden reserve in the way Mastro Auctions suggested is wrong. I only ask that the members here consider that this was done in 2007, that it was recommended by the leading auction house, that it was done once, that the hidden reserve was a fraction of the value of the lot, and that the buyer's premium was paid by me.

There was no intent to deceive anyone. This set was #1 on the PSA Registry by a very large margin. Every card was the highest graded at that time and almost half of the 50 cards were the only ones graded at that level. Any one interested in Red Man cards could see that I retired the set before the auction and then re-registered the set after the auction showing that the set had not changed hands.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to clarify the record. Peter is a good friend and wrote his explanation in such a way as not to distance himself from me, but the fact of the matter is that he did not place these bids, I did. He did know what I was doing because we discussed how I had been instructed to proceed by Doug Allen, and he does not deny that, but he was not an active participant in the bidding. The worst part of this whole affair is that an honest, good guy is being hurt for doing me a favor.

I to usually dont like to comment anymore on these posts but felt that the comments here needed it. So if I am reading this right Doug Allen was the one who told you to use a "hidden reserve" to protect your investment. So if Doug Allen told you to shoot someone with a BB gun instead of a 45 that the hole would be smaller would you do that? Bottom line is what you did was a shill weather it was in 2002 2005 2007 or 2016. Also if Im reading it correctly you say your friend (Peter) didnt bid so does that mean you took his account and his password from your own computer went in and placed the bid where you wanted it? Dont you think there is something wrong with that? So in other words if you say what is true (Peter your friend) didnt bid so that would mean you my friend shilled your own auction. So then lets ask another question suppose there was another bid placed on your item and someone won it, would you have told him ? As for Peter (A Lawyer) Im sorry and yes he fessed up but I really wonder if either of you would have come clean if this docuement hadnt come to light with your names there. As for Peter Im also sorry but you are a lawyer sir , you are held to a higher standard than others and you of all people should know what was done either by you or Ron was wrong. I to have been on this board for a long time so my comments arenot just off the cuff. Sorry but I probably would never deal with either of you and Im sure others would feel the same way. Also as was pointed out by another board member you did have an option to use another AU but you elected to stay with a thief! So in my eyes you sir are no better than they were.
Al S!m@on@

[ullmandds]

the fact that there are a number of lawyers on the list is a bit disconcerting to me...but again...not too shocking.

sorry if this comment offended any of the "other" lawyers on the board...as I know there are a bunch.

you'd never see dentists doing this kinda shit!

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

the fact that there are a number of lawyers on the list is a bit disconcerting to me...but again...not too shocking.

Sorry if this comment offended any of the "other" lawyers on the board...as i know there are a bunch.

You'd never see dentists doing this kinda shit!

lmao!!

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I have not won an item from Goldin auctions, but was watching stuff in the current auction. Does anyone think that his name being on the list will have negative results this weekend?

All depends on the actions of Darryl Abramowitz tonight.

ALWAYS LOOKING FOR COMPLETE TOPPS 60-70 NBA SETS THAT ARE IN GOOD TO EXCELLENT CONDITION.

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Darryl Abramowitz?

Tom C

exactly WHO da F**k is dat? and even bigger question is will he be participating in tonights auction!

ALWAYS LOOKING FOR COMPLETE TOPPS 60-70 NBA SETS THAT ARE IN GOOD TO EXCELLENT CONDITION.

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by Shoebox

+1 There is at least one board member that appears as a consigner for many lots that is not in the list of shill bidders.

appearing as a consignor is one thing, especially if you are a true consignor with zero intent to shill. But if you appear as a consignor and consistently have the same exact specific named shiller, then there is more than enough justifiable reasons than not to be leery and suspicious.

J.Micah W

ALWAYS LOOKING FOR COMPLETE TOPPS 60-70 NBA SETS THAT ARE IN GOOD TO EXCELLENT CONDITION.

[Dave Grob]

Very interesting to see this, especially when we have a consigner listed dozens of times and the shill bidder was always the same person, and that shill bidder is not show as shilling on anyone else's lots. Draw your own conclusions. Just an observation.

Dave Grob

[jboosted92]

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

the purpose of the shill bid is to move the increment up a notch or two and generate a higher (real) bid. Sometimes the shill fails and the shiller or consignor wins they're own lot back. Or possibly the consignor feels item is simply going for too low and wins item back rather than lose out $$ wise.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

The plan backfires sometimes.

[mickeymao34]

This practice, i'm sure, is still happening and so common. I'm sure Houses believe this is just "part of the business".

[Mark]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

The FBI may have discovered that even though Smith bought the item, Doe went on to auction the same item at a later auction.

[jason.1969]

Wow, even pols are weighing in.

http://www.cnn.com/palin-blames-obam...mp-agrees.html

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Very interesting to see this, especially when we have a consigner listed dozens of times and the shill bidder was always the same person, and that shill bidder is not show as shilling on anyone else's lots. Draw your own conclusions. Just an observation.

Dave Grob

great observation

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by mickeymao34

great observation

Crazy that the AH couldn't figure that out.

[UnVme7]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Very interesting to see this, especially when we have a consigner listed dozens of times and the shill bidder was always the same person, and that shill bidder is not show as shilling on anyone else's lots. Draw your own conclusions. Just an observation.

Dave Grob

My thoughts exactly, Dave. One can say the consignor had nothing to do with it, but if that was the case, why is the same shill name coming up for all of 1 consignor, which is exactly your point.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

the fact that there are a number of lawyers on the list is a bit disconcerting to me...but again...not too shocking.

sorry if this comment offended any of the "other" lawyers on the board...as I know there are a bunch.

you'd never see dentists doing this kinda shit!

Peter,
Dentists drill deeper to get to the root of the problem Lawyers just touch the surface trying to cover the surface with Fluff...

[trobba]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

When the AH says you don't have to pay for the lot if you win it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Peter,
Dentists drill deeper to get to the root of the problem Lawyers just touch the surface trying to cover the surface with Fluff...

I like that Al!!!!

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by trobba

When the AH says you don't have to pay for the lot if you win it.

Exactly and I'm guessing that is the case in every situation and why the AH has to be in on every senario. Hey u bid this up, u end up winning it no harm no foul. Every consignor has to be in on it also otherwise he'd expect the funds when the shiller ending up winning. Despicable and I'm no fan of anyone involved whether they confessed in a courtroom or owned up here. Bottom line it harmed either the eventual buyer or the marketplace in general by communicating erroneous price information and everyone of us that has ever bought a card or collectible has been impacted. Either you have items you paid too much for after buying them for an auction house or have items you paid too much for from other sources because the true market is lower.

[jboosted92]

Originally Posted by mickeymao34

the purpose of the shill bid is to move the increment up a notch or two and generate a higher (real) bid. Sometimes the shill fails and the shiller or consignor wins they're own lot back. Or possibly the consignor feels item is simply going for too low and wins item back rather than lose out $$ wise.

That logic is crazy....so they pay for it twice?

If i have an item that i paid $1000.00 for, but i want to sell it for $10,000.... and it reaches only $7,000...why the F would i pay 7k, only to hope it sells for 10k later?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by biohazard

Incremental bidding -

Example 1: Lot A, you the cosigner think the lot should sell for $2,000.

Did the bidding go like this?

Bidder 1: $650.00
You: $750.00
Bidder 1: $900.00
Bidder 2: $1,000.00
Bidder 1: $1,200.00
You: $1,400.00
Bidder 3: $1,600.00
You: $1,800.00
Bidder 3: $2,000
You - See that is the rub, did you stop or keep pushing?

If you are willing to pay 20% BP when winning your own auction I don't see a big problem with it..but its hard for me to believe that the people winning their own auctions as a hidden reserve are really paying that BP....most people think the auction house is waving it..or at best reducing it down .to lets say 5%...if you are paying a reduced buyers premium than that's bad as well because its not at even playing field with the real bidders who have to pay 20% BP

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

I have no problem with this. There was no price manipulation and the item sold for what it typically would bring. There's nothing unethical about not bidding.

In addition, when the first guy buys the card at the discount...theres no real agreement the first guy cant bid full on the next card....the second guy could get screwed and have to pay more than what he thought....and yes there no price manipulation....

the problem with shilling as well..is you feel if you bought a card..you at least should be able to sell it the next week for a 20% loss..but if they were shill bids than maybe you overpaid by 50%...if there not really a legit underbidder...these fake bids make it seem there is legitimate interest out there....when you pay a BIN or know of a reserve..then you know you may be paying easily over 20% what the card would go for on the open market the next week and you are fine with it..

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

That logic is crazy....so they pay for it twice?

If i have an item that i paid $1000.00 for, but i want to sell it for $10,000.... and it reaches only $7,000...why the F would i pay 7k, only to hope it sells for 10k later?

Well thats not how it works sometimes If you read What Ron Goldberg and Peter Spaeth did if I read it right ,the auction house cut a deal with him that he only had to pay the auction house fee not the cost of the item.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

the fact that there are a number of lawyers on the list is a bit disconcerting to me...but again...not too shocking.

sorry if this comment offended any of the "other" lawyers on the board...as I know there are a bunch.

you'd never see dentists doing this kinda shit!

Dentists are masochists...they like to kill things. Especially big game in Africa.

Minnesota dentists are the worst at this...or so I've heard.

[Dave Grob]

When you have the suspected shiller as the winner of the lot (no one chased them higher), you can always still look at invoicing and payment documents to see if the lot was actually paid for and by who. When you find that the suspected shiller has won lots, not paid for them themselves (and often by the consigner and NOT in the full amount), this tells you something.

In addition when you see this type of non-payment activity and the auction house continues to let the same bidder continue to bid, this is equally telling, as it suggests the non-payment for the lot in full is not an issue for the auction house. Assume what you want about the related consigner, especially if an exclusive pattern exists.

The damage does not end there, since in any number of cases, the final shilled bid (no real sale) is promoted as a genuine "price realized" and this in fact skews the perceived market valuation.

Dave Grob

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Dentists are masochists...they like to kill things. Especially big game in Africa.

Minnesota dentists are the worst at this...or so I've heard.

Dan,
That comment might be the shot heard round the world!!

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

When you have the suspected shiller as the winner of the lot (no one chased them higher), you can always still look at invoicing and payment documents to see if the lot was actually paid for and by who. When you find that the suspected shiller has won lots, not paid for them themselves (and often by the consigner and NOT in the full amount), this tells you something.

In addition when you see this type of non-payment activity and the auction house continues to let the same bidder continue to bid, this is equally telling, as it suggests the non-payment for the lot in full is not an issue for the auction house. Assume what you want about the related consigner, especially if an exclusive pattern exists.

The damage does not end there, since in any number of cases, the final shilled bid (no real sale) is promoted as a genuine "price realized" and this in fact skews the perceived market valuation.

Dave Grob

Agreed, it clouds transparency in the market.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

When you have the suspected shiller as the winner of the lot (no one chased them higher), you can always still look at invoicing and payment documents to see if the lot was actually paid for and by who. When you find that the suspected shiller has won lots, not paid for them themselves (and often by the consigner and NOT in the full amount), this tells you something.

In addition when you see this type of non-payment activity and the auction house continues to let the same bidder continue to bid, this is equally telling, as it suggests the non-payment for the lot in full is not an issue for the auction house. Assume what you want about the related consigner, especially if an exclusive pattern exists.

The damage does not end there, since in any number of cases, the final shilled bid (no real sale) is promoted as a genuine "price realized" and this in fact skews the perceived market valuation.

Dave Grob

Dave, Good points but also back to another problem I found about " reserves"
I had consigned a few very high ticket items (Not Legendary) and I also wanted a reserve (sorta high) placed on the items. I was told that most auction houses dont like reserve because if the reserve on that item was possibly put to high then all the work that the AH did for you I.E. photos taken , descriptions written by staff, room taken up in the catalogue etc. would be lost if the item or items didnt sell. I found out that they would rather make something in and out (buyer ,seller) than nothing... on your dime!!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Wow, even pols are weighing in.

http://www.cnn.com/palin-blames-obam...mp-agrees.html

guess it got taken down?

[jboosted92]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

When you have the suspected shiller as the winner of the lot (no one chased them higher), you can always still look at invoicing and payment documents to see if the lot was actually paid for and by who. When you find that the suspected shiller has won lots, not paid for them themselves (and often by the consigner and NOT in the full amount), this tells you something.

In addition when you see this type of non-payment activity and the auction house continues to let the same bidder continue to bid, this is equally telling, as it suggests the non-payment for the lot in full is not an issue for the auction house. Assume what you want about the related consigner, especially if an exclusive pattern exists.

The damage does not end there, since in any number of cases, the final shilled bid (no real sale) is promoted as a genuine "price realized" and this in fact skews the perceived market valuation.

Dave Grob

Thats EXACTLY where i was leading..... i bet no one paid for a single one....

[jboosted92]

Originally Posted by Leon

guess it got taken down?

I think it was a joke....just look at the URL

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Dave, Good points but also back to another problem I found about " reserves"
I had consigned a few very high ticket items (Not Legendary) and I also wanted a reserve (sorta high) placed on the items. I was told that most auction houses dont like reserve because if the reserve on that item was possibly put to high then all the work that the AH did for you I.E. photos taken , descriptions written by staff, room taken up in the catalogue etc. would be lost if the item or items didnt sell. I found out that they would rather make something in and out (buyer ,seller) than nothing... on your dime!!

well heritage lets you do a reserve but you pay them a percentage or something if card doesn't sell.....some auction houses make you pay 20% on the highest bid if card doesn't sell...that way you wont have an unrealistic reserve and waste their time..

[frankbmd]

Let's say Mr. Goldbrick consigns an item with mr maestro, who wants a lower minimum bid than Goldbrick is comfortable with. Mr All-in suggests that a friend could bid to the minimum in Goldbrick's comfort zone. A bid in the name of mr spacecadet is then made.

Mr. Spacecadet then wins the auction. Spacecadet then pays mr maestro for the item with fees. Then Spacecadet returns the item to mr Goldbrick, who reimburses him for his costs and thanks him.

Mr All-in is IMO guilty by suggesting the scheme. Mr Goldbrick is perhaps negligent in retrospect for playing along. Mr Spacecadet is not guilty. The outcome pleases all parties. No names ever appear on a "shill" list nine years later.

I would suggest that this scenario occurs more frequently than many of us would imagine. This scenario would also fly under the radar and would be deniable by all concerned.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

well heritage lets you do a reserve but you pay them a percentage or something if card doesn't sell.....some auction houses make you pay 20% on the highest bid if card doesn't sell...that way you wont have an unrealistic reserve and waste their time..

You may be correct now but back lets say several years ago most auction houses frowned upon reserve...

And also if you were one of the ones on the "Special Packages" list I bet you didnt have to pay a dime!

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

That logic is crazy....so they pay for it twice?

If i have an item that i paid $1000.00 for, but i want to sell it for $10,000.... and it reaches only $7,000...why the F would i pay 7k, only to hope it sells for 10k later?

The $7K goes right back to you, the consignor, You lose the $1.4K AH fee but may get $3K more later.

[ElCabron]

It's still shill bidding if you pay the BP and buy your own item back. It seems like you're all saying it's not.

-Ryan

[edjs]

For those that are wondering why anyone would buy their own card rather than it selling low, here is how it works. You bought a card for $1000, and now you feel it is worth $10000. You decide to send it to an auction house. Many auction houses will waive the consignor fee on high profile items, and will offer to share a percentage of the buyers premium with the consignor as well, for ease of math, let's say half. So the auction is closing, and your card is going to close low, so you buy it through your buddy at $5000. You now pay the house $6000, and they cut you your consignment check for $5500. You now have a total of $1500 invested in the card. Had you not bought the card and it sold to someone else for $5000, you would have made a profit of $4500. You didn't let it sell, so you consign it a couple months later, this time it sells for $7000 (same terms). You get a check for $7700, a profit of $6200. That is why people buy their own consignments instead of letting them sell low. I have never consigned a card, I don't have any of the big dollar collections, but I can figure out the "why" of it. This is in no way meant to condone any practice, I am just trying to clear the reasoning up. It is purely based on profit margins. I am also sure that, as an apprentice collector, I still don't understand or explain here all the nuances involved in the business end of this (I haven't even mentioned how setting historical sales records come into play as a reason for buying your own card), but I think my example paints a fairly accurate picture. Please correct me if I am wrong. No opinions of anyone listed in my post, per the rules.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

It's still shill bidding if you pay the BP and buy your own item back. It seems like you're all saying it's not.

-Ryan

if the BP is 20% and the shiller is paying that I have ZERO problem...20% is going to prevent a lot of shilling..plus if someone is willing to pay 20% to keep a card...it must be going very under market price...I would bid at AHs with no problem if they said 'Shillers welcome but they must pay the 20%' BP

so if I bid 1000 and I get beat out at 1010 and that guy keeps his card but has to pay $200 to keep it..good for him...

if someone wins their own 1952 Topps PSA 8 Mantle..and they think 375,000 is too low and want 425,000 for the card..let them pay 375,00 to keep the card and pay a 70,000 BP...good luck to them there as well....I just don't seem them shilling that mantle that high..they would have to stop at at about 275,000...

the problem is when they don't have to pay a BP or its 5 percent etc

[glchen]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

if the BP is 20% and the shiller is paying that I have ZERO problem...20% is going to prevent a lot of shilling..plus if someone is willing to pay 20% to keep a card...it must be going very under market price...I would bid at AHs with no problem if they said 'Shillers welcome but they must pay the 20%' BP
...

You don't know this though. For AH's may give a portion of the BP back to the consignor (as well as waive the seller's commission) for large/loyal consignors. So for all we know, these consignors may only have had to risk a 5% effective (complete guess) BP through their shilling.

[esd10]

So does Mastro and his cronies have to pay restitution to these customer who where shill bid against? This really weakens my faith in these auction houses and the bottom line is they make money off the juice from these sales.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Right my scenario is if 20% is paid.....I would bid at AH's that say 'shilling Is allowed subject to 20% BP if win item'

[ElCabron]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Right my scenario is if 20% is paid.....I would bid at AH's that say 'shilling Is allowed subject to 20% BP if win item'

Which ones are those?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Which ones are those?

I talking about now and the future...if an AH was to say that I would bid with no problems... I already said the problem with the people saying in the past they would pay the BP if theywon their own card is that may only be a paying a few percent BP if that on their own cards..they think the fact they paid BP absolves them.....if it was 20 percent I would tend to agree...but I know its unlikely....but for the future if an AH makes you pay 20 percent I am fine with 'shilling'

[Rich Klein]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ya...ampaign=buffer

[Rich Klein]

I hope dentists where you practice are better than Dallas Dentists

http://interactives.dallasnews.com/2...try/part1.html

This is must reading for anyone with kids who need to go to a dentist

Rich

[ullmandds]

Thats a terrible story, Rich. I'd avoid going to a general dentist who took a weekend class on sedation offering coupons.

[Rich Klein]

I was lucky, when I was at Beckett, most of us went to a specific dentist. That dentist ran into some real problems.

I somehow avoided him and ended up with one of the best perios in Plano,.

And then when I had to get to a general dentist as well, I gave him the list of the then approved dentists from my insurance company and he told me whom to go as; He's a decent dentist and the best of this bunch. Perios usually know whom the good dentists are because of all the work they do on gums.

Rich