[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Lifson

Actually there is something that stands in the way of shill bidding by a consignor on his lots by a friend. We are on the lookout for this. It is illegal, it is not fair to bidders, and we don’t allow it. Consignors also must sign a contract specifically stating that they understand this - that they are not allowed to bid on their own items both because this is against REA’s rules as a condition of consignment and because it is against the law. Software systems are in place at REA to track unusual bidding activity, especially shill bidding. We can’t read minds and sometimes we get false alarms but our systems are in place to help track statistically unusual bidding patterns that identify various potential bidding issue problems including potential shill bidding situations. Many bidders have had their accounts automatically shut off because of this. We appreciate any attention this issue gets. We’ve lost some pretty big consignments because we won’t let bidders bid on their own items, or work with them to allow a friend to do so. We’re always amazed when a consignor tells us this but at least they are up front. This is the world we live in. With reference to the Pittsburgh Federals jersey, the bidders on this item were a virtual who’s who of the most sophisticated vintage jersey collectors in the world. The fact that Dave Bushing (in my opinion too aggressively, but hindsight is always 20-20) offered the seller $10,000 for it, and the seller turned him down, and Dave then won it at auction for less than $1000, and then sold it at REA for a hammer $10,000, is a coincidence. In fact, with the buyers premium the jersey sold for $11,750, and Dave received less than $10,000 for it due to the seller’s commission. With the logic that if it sold for $10,000 then perhaps it was not a 100% on the up and up legitimate sale, then presumably if it sold for any lesser amount it would also be a potentially suspect sale. I point this out not to discourage any attention to the issue of shill bidding, only to point out what I perceive to be a flaw in logic. We think there is not enough attention to the issue of shill bidding in the auction industry and appreciate it whenever anyone discusses it. Also, REA permanently archives all bidding records for auditing purposes for reference in case there is ever an issue. We have heard that the practice of not keeping records, altering them, or destroying them, has been a standard practice of some auction companies. At REA, the bidding records are always permanently archived specifically to allow verification and auditing if desired. This information is very complete, including the exact time to the second that a bid is placed and from what IP address if placed by Internet.

With reference to the jersey itself and the authentication process, that is something for the MEARS board. They are happy to answer any questions about MEARS authenticated items and provide detailed information. The same can be said about any MEARS-authenticated item. It is true that Dave Bushing owned this item. That’s what the description said. It is true that Dave Bushing contributed to the authentication process of the Pittsburgh Federals jersey. That’s what the description said. It is also true that the MEARS authentication process involves more than Dave Bushing. It was authenticated by MEARS and while Dave is an authenticator for MEARS, he is not the only authenticator (actually, he just resigned as an authenticator, but was at this time). The fact is that if anyone was not comfortable bidding on this jersey because Dave owned it or contributed to the authentication process, they did not have to bid. If they were uncomfortable with the authentication of the jersey, they did not have to bid, and if they were interested in having anyone else examine the jersey, they had that option. There were other jerseys that were actually sent out at the request of bidders for examination, to have further reviewed for authentication, and we would have been happy to cooperate in any reasonable manner with any bidder on this or any other jersey in the auction. If an interested bidder wanted any other authenticator to see the jersey – whether it was Lou Lampson, or the PSA-overseen jersey authentication process cited by a competitor about which we have no knowledge, or any other reasonable request for cooperation, we would have been extremely happy to cooperate. I’m not sure what else we could have done to provide bidders with more information. We told them in the description that the jersey was found on eBay by Dave Bushing, that Dave Bushing won it, and that Dave Bushing put it in the REA auction. I happen to know that Dave Bushing personally went to the public library in Pittsburgh to search the 1913 Pittsburgh newspaper microfilms just to try to find a perfect picture. He found only one new photo and though it too was far from perfect, it also was supportive. I know that it would be ideal to have a perfect photo but the fact is that for many early jersey styles this is not so easy. It is the case that that photos were not the sole basis of the MEARS authentication process for this jersey, though it is easy to say (and everyone would agree) that if one had a perfect picture of a 1913 Federal League player showing all details of his uniform, that picture would be extremely valuable to the authentication process. With many early uniforms, there are no ideal pictures available. The 1913 Federal League had six teams. I don’t think we have perfect pictures of any of their uniforms. MEARS has identified this as a 1913 Pittsburgh Federals jersey. One of the great things about MEARS is that their authentications are accompanied by a money-back guarantee. They stand behind their authentication work. If they make an error, which is rare but they are human, they take the item back and pay up. They are extremely accessible. They have a website and are always available to discuss their authentication process for any item on the MEARS website. I’m not sure what more anyone could want. If the issue is that anyone thinks that no one should be able to purchase an item and at the same time have any role in authenticating it even with full disclosure, my response is that anyone thinking this has the right to not bid on the item. We have provided full disclosure. It’s easy to not bid on these items. I respect the right of any collector to collect however they want, but it would not be fair to force other collectors to collect the way someone else prescribes if they feel differently. Also, if a person cannot buy an item, disclose ownership, provide a detailed authentication report on the item, let alone the much greater support provided by MEARS, and provide a money-back guarantee regarding authenticity – if this is deemed to be improper – would it not be the case that purchases of any non-third-party authenticated collectible of any kind by dealers who identify, personally grade, and sell these items (whether they are baseball cards or anything else) would also be deemed improper? If the answer is yes, then that cuts a pretty big swatch across the collectibles field. I don’t really think that is what is being suggested, but I’m just taking what are issues with the authentication of items by authenticators, and throwing out some thoughts to be responsive. Personally, with reference to authenticators authenticating items they own and are selling, I think the problem is with the non-disclosure and non-accountability of dealer-authenticated items. As always, when serious questions about how business is conducted in this field, one thing leads to another and many different topics come up. I’m glad to see the Federal League jersey has been a catalyst for the discussion of so many important hobby issues.


Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC.