Thanks guys for still remembering me!:o

Barry, you are unforgettable!

:)

Response.
 

Board Members:

First, this is certainly not an easy situation to deal with and I do want to apologize to anyone who is upset. I have worked for Bill Huggins (originally with House of Cards) starting in 1985. We began Huggins and Scott Auctions in 2003 and I am part-owner and Vice President of the Company. The one thing I can tell you about Bill and this company, is that we pride ourselves on honesty, integrity and upholding the highest standards for this hobby that we all love. When an item’s authenticity is questioned, we pull them from the auction if we can’t confirm they are legitimate. When someone has a problem with a lot, we do everything we can to make it right for the customer including offering returns and refunds, which is unusual for auction houses, since rule #1 is “Everything is sold as is.”

I can tell you that House of Cards is an entirely separate entity from Huggins and Scott Auctions. They have no advantage over any other bidder in our auctions, other than they are physically closer to the lots and can view them – but so can anyone else who wants to view every lot in the auction. They also do not pay shipping charges – but neither does anyone else who wants to come to our offices and pick up their winnings. In fact, the original poster in this thread has come to the offices to preview lots and comes to the office to pick up his winnings – the exact same advantages as House of Cards has.

The way our auction system is developed is that NO ONE can see who is bidding on which lot, nor can they see how much they are bidding. Only those who place the bids know what and how much they are bidding. From a “code” standpoint, items that are active in the auction have a “0” code. As soon as the lot ends, it is converted to a “1”, which opens the bid history for us to see, however the lot is CLOSED at that point and nothing else can be done by anyone (in house or out) to modify it.

The fact that our honesty and integrity has been questioned (and in some cases, not questioned, but deemed “guilty of fraud”) is troubling, to say the least. I can assure each and every one of you, that no illegal activity has taken place in any of our auctions, nor will it ever take place. Bill Huggins, our President, has told me that if ANYONE would like to discuss this personally with him, he would be more than happy to do so, in a phone conversation during business hours. He is currently at the show in Somerset, NJ, but will return to the office on Monday and if you would like to ask him anything about this situation, or our company, he would be happy to have a conversation with you. He can be reached toll free at 1-866-462-2273. If you would like to have the conversation with me, I would also be more than happy to discuss this with anyone. You can contact the office and they will get the message to me and I will contact you back.

Thanks for reading.

Josh Wulkan
Vice President
Huggins and Scott Auctions

Hidden reserves are used for an entirely legitimate purpose in some auctions that is unrelated to shilling. If a consignor wants to get a certain dollar for an item that the auctioneer does not think it will fetch sometimes the item will be offered with a hidden reserve to test the market to show the consignor what the item is worth. Some consignors will then authorize the auctioneer to offer the high bidder the chance to purchase the item at the max bid even though it did not reach the reserve.

Josh, it doesn't matter whether or not you or Bill know the amount of the max bids, it is still shill bidding. Bill's participation in the bidding not only inflates the final sale prices, but also increases the house's take on the buyer's premiums. Every time Bill bumps a lot, it increases how much Huggins and Scott pocket on the buyers premiums. That is exactly the point.

Also, consider this. I am selling a card for my father on eBay. I list it for a starting bid of $0.99 and plan to let it run a full 7 days. Now let's say it has a book value of $1,000. I have no idea what other bidders have entered, but I would consider it a bargain at $800, so I enter my own bid. If I win, I can try selling it at some point down the road. Can anyone else see the conflict on interest?

At least if I were shilling this acution, it would be eBay (a third party) enjoying the increase off of the final value fees...they wouldn't be going into my own pocket.

Who is the owner of Huggins and Scott auctions? Who is the owner of House Of Cards? If the answer is the same person then it is shill bidding.

If you check the websites the only common employee is the primary owner.

And I would think both are incorporated.

While some may not like it that's not necessarily shilling.
The employees of one business are bidding in an auction run by a second business is generally not shilling. I can own stock in Sothebys, and at the same time consign items from an antique business and bid on items from that same business in sothebys auctions.

If the two businesses had the exact same employees and location then yes it would probably be improper.

By some of the defenitions I've seen here any bidding that isn't the winning bid is shilling. (Yes, it's possible to shill bid and not be either the seller or auctioneer.)

Steve B

I couldn't disagree more.

When the OWNER of the auction house is bidding on lots in HIS OWN AUCTION, resulting in prices increasing, what else would you call it?

Maybe we should start a poll. I would suspect the majority of this board is not okay with this practice.

And owning a few shares of stock in a company is hardly the same as owning a company. Your analogy doesn't hold water.

FYI - Addresses of both entities are the same and if you go to the website they are both under the same banner. They are the same.

HOUSE OF CARDS
900 Silver Spring Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20910 * 1-866-HOC-CARD or 301-608-0355 * Huggins & Scott Auction

HUGGINS AND SCOTT
Huggins and Scott Auctions LLC
900 Silver Spring Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20910


These addresses are taken directly from their own websites.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...pl/contact.htm
http://www.houseofcardsmd.com/huggins.html

william todd
 

I'm not OK with it...

I see that painthistorian has Clean Sweep (Steve Verkman) on his good guys list, do a search in the archives about them and you might have a change of heart change your mind.

As far as auction houses I have dealt with and have no worries Sterling, REA, Goodwin and Baggers.

As far as this situation, I see no good coming of a situation where employees can bid on their own auctions. Kind of why they make your for contests that employee and there families can't enter or win.

One thing that always bugs me about auction house and ebay sellers getting busted for shill bidding is the responses you get supporting them and saying how they have never had a problem with them. Well, how many times were you a victim of the shill bidding? You will never now and how much money they stole from you.

By the way, I see the ebay auction is gone. The Burke name gets named quite often in the thread, did they have an auction house? I can't believe I have not heard the name in my 30 years in the hobby.

Lee

They are 'Collectible Classics'

http://www.auctionscc.com/

Online is a strange arena. At a live auction (with a crowd) I can bid on consignors items as long as it is not often and it is no problem. If I bid on my own items in my state in a live auction I have to disclose this to my crowd. I do not like to compete with bidders, because even if you do it with integrity it gets misunderstood.

You keep making the assumption that the bids raise the price and they don't win. If they win the lot they essentially lose the house take and need to pay the consignor out of their own cash.

Eric

Its a conflict of interest!!!
 

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

re: this looks interesting
 

Hi Lee- I do agree Baggers and Goodwin are excellent auction houses. I do find that even though there were issues in the past from the archives as you mentioned with Clean Sweep, I believe that Steve does not have anyone bidding on his or any consigned lots from his retail company, he runs an ethical auction. He may have made mistakes but it was not the same as having his retail company bidding on their own auction material. As much as I really like & enjoy H&S and their auctions, I am surprised & concerned on what was stated in this thread.

I do respect your opinion and I do transact with almost every auction house, each has its + and -, REA is still the best overall since I know he does not own any of the material he auctions.

wow, this is not right at all.

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.

Psa mag
 

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.

James
 

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

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.

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.

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

I am making the assumption that he has been outbid on several items over the course of this activity. That is shilling. Doing it even once, is wrong.

This is the hobby we live in, you want to get the best deal when buying a card and the best deal when selling. If a consigned card is at a low price and the house wants to purchase card for further resale down the road why wouldn't they? More money for seller and yes more money for house but just like a casino and anything else in life the house always wins right ? If you want nice stuff sometimes you have to pay more, sometimes you get a deal and without a set price or guideline impossible to have a balance. If you really have problems with this then don't bid in auction houses, quit the hobby, or be like my brother who loves this as much as anyone but only collects reprints . Johnny s t e f a n I c h

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

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

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

He's in Chicago waiting on the grand jury. 4 years and counting!!

Johnny is right about the auction environment and sadly us in the hobby are just as guilty because many will continue to bid if the it its an item they are interested in or the price is low enough. The one I do not understand is why people continue to consign to these auction houses. The one that really comes to mind is Mastro, they continued to have strong auctions even after the word had got around that they were not on the up and up.

Lee Beh.rens

..

as already stated
 

As stated before in this thread, everyone posting in it needs to have their full name by their post(s). That means everyone please. Thanks

Wow...absolutely digusted by this. Theres goes my business as well and I was a big fab of Huggins and Scott as I have always been pleased and the cards were as described.

Is it me or does it seem the big boys get to make/change the rules as they go and use different rationale as to why their situation is valid...kinda like an 8-yr-old. I feel the auction houses should be the examples in the industry setting the highest stamdards for honesty and integrity. Being honest and acting with class is rarely fiscally benefical in the short-term but lays the foundation for long-term growth and evelopment both as a business and hobby. Im just sick of this and will slink back to the bay and fend for myself. 1 week, a bad reference and another bad auction house experience and yes im talking to you heritage...

Steven William Frickin' Suckow

"we don't see the bids"
 

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'

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

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

This entire issue can be reduced to that single sentence.

It is also incredibly simple to remedy; don't bid on your own listings.

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?

I know this is a rhetorical question but I'd only answer it to say that I would be OK with you making an offer before it hit ebay. It saves them the selling fees, shipping, waiting, etc. Same thing with H&S. If they want an item, make an offer to the consignor for the price you want to pay. If they don't want to do it and want a true auction, then let's do that. A true auction without the dealer's hand in play.

I'm not real familiar with prices for 1952 Topps cards. Am I the only one that thinks that lot would be an odd one for someone to buy to try and make money on, at least at that price. Although they are high #'s, they were all graded authentic.

Then your consignor is happy, and the winner who paid what he wanted to is probably happy too.

Ignorance is bliss in a non-arms length transaction.
Willing to pay and had to pay could be two different things.

Is it still okay if I'm only bidding on it because I think it's going too cheaply and I might be able to sell it in a different venue for more money?

Let me know your ebay handle so I can be sure to stay far away should you decide to sell anything ;)

I think you are missing a key piece to this.

If someone pays me a buyers premium of $20, I'm up $20 for my efforts.

If my daughter wins and doesnt pay me the $20, (highly likely as she is 3 and always broke) I'm out my $20. She saves on the front but together we are even, so now she has to flip them for more then the cost plus the $20 I'm out. Not always easy to do.

So if HOC wins and doesnt pay H&S, H&S are out 20% of the previous bid, as that was a guaranteed BP to be paid before HOC bid up. Now who know if HOC hadnt bid up if someone else would. That's their biggest risk if it's borderline a good price, loose the BP and make it on the flip.

Now if HOC slowly bumps up that BP managing their risk on not winning too many lots then they can create a significant amount of profit for H&S to compensate for the lots they do win and have to flip. Now celing bids, if ones been entered it likely could be accessed but I won't go there.

That sounds like a hidden reserve, which I personally don't mind. How is it any different than starting the auction at a minimum bid? Granted, the latter would be cleaner.

To be clear, I think shill bidding -- that is, placing a bogus bid whose only purpose is to bump a different bidder to a higher level -- is wrong.

is it a perfect distinction? No, probably not. Can one posit examples where the effect is going to be similar? Probably. But to me intent does matter, and placing a bid with intent to win feels different from placing a bid with the intent to run someone else up.