This looks interesting indeed

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Scott - No trainwreck, pm sent. Won't happen again.

Thanks Steven, and thanks for the PM. No problem - this is definitely the place to air your concerns.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Wow...what a forgiving lot?!?!

Not even an apology? We're listening to what our customers want...meaning for HOC/HS not to shill their own auctions and basically rob their customers of their hard earned cash?

And from this moment on...we're not going to steal your $$$ anymore?!?!

And many of you are ok with this...end of story? WOW!

There was no shill bidding here. Shill bidding is placing a bid for the purpose of bumping a bidder who has a max bid to a higher level. You are wrong to accuse Bill Huggins of unethical conduct. You may have a legitimate disagreement with him about the practice of house accounts bidding to win, but to leap from there to accusing him of being unethical is just wrong. It is unfortunate that others who agree with me will not speak up.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There was no shill bidding here. Shill bidding is placing a bid for the purpose of bumping a bidder who has a max bid to a higher level. You are wrong to accuse Bill Huggins of unethical conduct. You may have a legitimate disagreement with him about the practice of house accounts bidding to win, but to leap from there to accusing him of being unethical is just wrong. It is unfortunate that others who agree with me will not speak up.

Peter.

Facts speak louder than words. Not accusing H&S of anything nefarious, but the fact remains that every time they bid a lot up, they screwed the other bidders. Glad that he's stopped it, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened. End of story.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter.

Facts speak louder than words. Not accusing H&S of anything nefarious, but the fact remains that every time they bid a lot up, they screwed the other bidders. Glad that he's stopped it, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened. End of story.

I don't agree Kenny. If someone is willing to pay more than I am, I don't feel screwed, I feel outbid. It doesn't matter to me if the higher bidder is inside or outside, if the bid is legitimate.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, although the posts and the response seem to indicate that it is in the minority. Everything that I would say has already been said, but my thought is that if I'm outbid by an actual bidder, then I'm outbid. If I'm outbid by the house because it didn't get what they were hoping for, or I won it for more than I should have paid because I got bid up by the auction house, then IMO, I got screwed. Most posters here seem to agree

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny I have no doubt that I am in the minority in terms of being OK with house bidding (to win, not to bump), but also no doubt that others who are unwilling to post see it my way. In the end, it is just as you say, a matter of opinion. My main point is to clarify that whatever H&S was doing, it was not -- as far as we know -- shill bidding as that term is commonly used and understood.

[Kenny Cole]

And that is where we will have to agree to diverge, opinionwise, because I don't think it is OK at all. When the bid to win is because the prior bid seems too low, or when the bid to win ends up simply being a bump on the way to a higher bid, I view that as a problem. If you seriously don't, then I suppose that's fine. When I decide to personally auction some of my stuff, remind me to make sure you know about it.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter.

Facts speak louder than words. Not accusing H&S of anything nefarious, but the fact remains that every time they bid a lot up, they screwed the other bidders. Glad that he's stopped it, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened. End of story.

I'm stunned that there are collectors who apparently think this is no biggie and now that the policy has changed everything is ok. Has anyone asked whether or not House ofcards does the same type pf thing with their Ebay auctions.
In my opinion it is certainly unethical for an auction house to bid on their own auctions.

Dave Krabal

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Peter, I know from your posts you are a much more educated and overall experienced collector than myself. But for me, I am tired of not being listened to with legitimate concerns such as the one with h/s auctions. Bill changed his policies and apologized...my inexperience leaves me somewhat historically uneducated, but at this point I was happy Bill changed. If the cards I want are at a good price, I have no reservations on bidding.

Steven Suckow

Does anyone wonder whether the change would have been made had this thread not been started ?

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by T206DK

Does anyone wonder whether the change would have been made had this thread not been started ?

Of course everyone knows that this "issue" wouldn't have changed b/c in their eyes, they were doing nothing wrong. Things like this or just things in general don't get changed without people pointing out the possible wrongdoing effect it will have on their business and/or the community.

How does anything with possible unethical implications get changed? Through the masses voting it to change or peer pressure or mind changing in general. I'm just glad that the President of H&S was listening and made the proper adjustments...I give him full credit for that.

For the record, I do believe it is wrong to bid on their auctions like they were doing, but I can honestly see both sides of the spectrum.

Mik/e C.a.vv.e.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Kenny I have no doubt that I am in the minority in terms of being OK with house bidding (to win, not to bump), but also no doubt that others who are unwilling to post see it my way. In the end, it is just as you say, a matter of opinion. My main point is to clarify that whatever H&S was doing, it was not -- as far as we know -- shill bidding as that term is commonly used and understood.

Every time they bid and don't win it is no different than a shill bid, and how would anyone here know that they were bid up essentially by the house? They wouldn't. I don't care what their intent was if the auctioneer is bidding it is illegal, and I don't really care for the legal technicality that HOC and H&S are separate businesses, they are owned by the same person.

Peter, I think you are in a bigger minority than you think you are...what would keep anyone from speaking up for H&S if they thought it was okay? I actually think more people are not speaking up who believe that it was shill bidding because they don't want to lose their bidding privileges...if H&S is as thin skinned as the folks from Heritage that's a real possibility.

[barrysloate]

I know that bidders hate when an auction house bids in their own auction, but I wonder how consignors feel about it. My guess is they just might be okay with it.

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't agree Kenny. If someone is willing to pay more than I am, I don't feel screwed, I feel outbid. It doesn't matter to me if the higher bidder is inside or outside, if the bid is legitimate.

Hi POLLYANNA

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by T206DK

Does anyone wonder whether the change would have been made had this thread not been started ?

I guess my whole point is/was I was glad he was listening and made the change...probably wouldnt have made the change otherwise. As far as HOC goes, I have never won a lot there, and still do not agree with those practices and will not bid.

Kudos to Dan for the thread in the first place and initiating change. Lots of things bother me in this world...I dont know Mr Huggins personally, but Id like to believe he'll keep his word. Just my opinion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Every time they bid and don't win it is no different than a shill bid, and how would anyone here know that they were bid up essentially by the house? They wouldn't. I don't care what their intent was if the auctioneer is bidding it is illegal, and I don't really care for the legal technicality that HOC and H&S are separate businesses, they are owned by the same person.

Peter, I think you are in a bigger minority than you think you are...what would keep anyone from speaking up for H&S if they thought it was okay? I actually think more people are not speaking up who believe that it was shill bidding because they don't want to lose their bidding privileges...if H&S is as thin skinned as the folks from Heritage that's a real possibility.

Dan -- fear of backlash. I know this from private communications. EDIT TO ADD If H&S were really "shilling" HOC wouldn't be winning anything -- it would just be a house account used to bump other bidders to their max bids.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ScottFandango

Hi POLLYANNA

LOL that is refreshing, as I am so often accused of being cynical. Thanks!!

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dan -- fear of backlash. I know this from private communications. EDIT TO ADD If H&S were really "shilling" HOC wouldn't be winning anything -- it would just be a house account used to bump other bidders to their max bids.

I disagree with you Peter. You are basically saying if someone is shilling auctions, the shill account never wins. That is just simply not true. As for the change in bidding rules now, IMO they basically had no choice, So i guess I am in the boat of they didn't do anything so great by changing to this.

I feel like what they did in the beginning was wrong. I believe H&S and HOC are the same company, and for them to have been bidding on items was running bids up against loyal customers who have been doing business with them for years.

Call me old school, but I am also in the camp that when someone owns a business and there is a problem with a customer, the business owner should apologize to the customer, there was never an apology for this or really an explanation as to why they felt this was right, other than HOC pays the buyers premium as well.

I had what I felt like was a major issue with H&S once, when I called to voice my concern, there was no apology from the person who answered the phone, to me, he didn't seem to care about the issue at all, he did allow me to send the item back for a refund and when I asked if they could cover what it would cost to ship it back, the person helping me seemed irritated that I would even ask that because as he said, it only costs $15 to ship.

Well, that didn't exactly make me feel like a valued customer. Not only did I feel like I had irritated this person for bringing this issue up, but there was never any explanation for how this could have happened in the first place and no assurance was made to me to make me believe it couldn't or wouldn't happen again.

In all fairness, it was not Josh or Bill that handled this issue, maybe they would have handled it better. I don't know if they ever even knew of the issue. I would think they would have been informed of it. To me, it just seemed like no one there really cared too much that there was what I felt was a major issue and to me it had a feel of being swept under the rug.

Chr....s S-hr.. e--ve

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dan -- fear of backlash. I know this from private communications. EDIT TO ADD If H&S were really "shilling" HOC wouldn't be winning anything -- it would just be a house account used to bump other bidders to their max bids.

That's not true..their software is set up to not show max bids, but it may not be anonymous and they may know the bidding patterns of their customers..some guys are win at all cost, and others are cautious, and wait until extended bidding to do their work. They IMO were looking at lots that they believed they could make money on with their ebay account..they may have been bidding to win, but in the process the house was running up bids...which is illegal regardless of intent.

At first I couldn't tell if you were playing Devil's Advocate or looking for work. But now I think you're being serious that you see nothing wrong with what they were doing. I just don't understand how anyone could look at the situation and be okay with this.

[ullmandds]

Yes Dan...agreed?! WTF is wrong with everyone?!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am being serious. I don't consider placing a bid with the hope of winning the lot to be running anyone up. It's a different issue if you don't believe that's what H&S was really up to, but that's more a factual than a philosophical question.

Dan, do you object to hidden reserves also? Or consignors buying back their own cards? Just curious.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dan, do you object to hidden reserves also? Or consignors buying back their own cards? Just curious.

A hidden reserve is a static target placed on a lot before the auction opens, which is very different than the scenario with H&S.

Owners bidding on their own lots is also shill bidding. Are you ok with owners bidding on their own items?

[Peter_Spaeth]

My instinct is against consignors bidding on their own lots, but on the other hand what is the difference I wonder between a hidden reserve of X on a lot and the consignor placing a bid of X-1 increment? Either way, you can't win the card for less than X, and the consignor gets it back if the bidding doesn't go that high.

Of course in a sense none of these things we are debating matter much. If an auction house wants to, it can ask a friendly third-party to do its bidding, and if a consignor wants to, he can ask a friend.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My instinct is against consignors bidding on their own lots, but on the other hand what is the difference I wonder between a hidden reserve of X on a lot and the consignor placing a bid of X-1 increment? Either way, you can't win the card for less than X, and the consignor gets it back if the bidding doesn't go that high.

Of course in a sense none of these things we are debating matter much. If an auction house wants to, it can ask a friendly third-party to do its bidding, and if a consignor wants to, he can ask a friend.

I have to agree with all of that. My thought is that it boils down to the principle. One is a static target placed at the outset while the other is a bit more arbitrary in that it can be adjusted as the auction unfolds (at least my understanding is the hidden reserve is not adjusted after an auction has begun). In the end, I'm not sure it matters much because the hammer price can be manipulated in many ways. Discussing principle is one thing, but policing reality is completely another.

[mordecaibrown]

Personally, I always assumed that auction houses (or employees of the house) were not allowed to bid on the items due to a potential conflict of interest. This whole thread got me thinking, is Huggins and Scott the only auction house that WAS allowing employees to bid on items.

I know many on here often mention REA as the gold standard of auctions and on their website they clearly state that, "The auction house should not own any of the material, set any secret hidden reserves, permit its employees and executives to bid in the auction, provide inaccurate descriptions, make undisclosed restorations to the material, or intentionally not disclose any conflicts of interest."

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/about/index.html

I did a real basic search of some other auction house rules and I had a hard time finding any statements concerning the topic of employee bidding - either way, allowed or not. I was surprised by this - only one auction house (that my admittedly caveman search found) addresses this topic...

Does anyone on here know factually where some of the other auction houses stand on this topic? If so, I think it would be good information to share with everyone.

A.ndy K.en.n.edy

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by mordecaibrown

Does anyone on here know factually where some of the other auction houses stand on this topic? If so, I think it would be good information to share with everyone.

A.ndy K.en.n.edy

6. Subject to exceptions relating to credit considerations, all qualified bidders in good standing are eligible to bid on any lot in the auction. Legendary Auctions as a Company, as well as all of its employees (including executives and principals), are ineligible to bid in our auctions. Passive outside investors are eligible to bid.
15. Although Legendary Auctions employees, executives and principals are prohibited from bidding in the auction, from time to time they will own items that are consigned to the auction. In those cases (1) It will be clearly disclosed and (2) On these particular items customers will have a 7 days “no questions asked” return policy.
http://legendaryauctions.com/rules.aspx

I searched both Sterling and Brockelman & Luckey Auctions and found nothing in writing per web sites pertaining to employee bidding in writing but I thought Leon has repeated they cannot bid in their auction I believe...
http://www.b-lauctions.com/terms.html
http://www.sterlingsportsauctions.com/rules.aspx

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Wow...what a forgiving lot?!?!

Not even an apology? We're listening to what our customers want...meaning for HOC/HS not to shill their own auctions and basically rob their customers of their hard earned cash?

And from this moment on...we're not going to steal your $$$ anymore?!?!

And many of you are ok with this...end of story? WOW!

Now that Mr. Huggins has responded to forum opinion and changed the policy, what more of true substance can he do to correct the situation? Submit to flogging? Cut off his ear and send it to you? Just curious.

[ullmandds]

Well Golly Gee...an apology would be nice?

[ullmandds]

Admission of wrong doing would be nice?!

[ullmandds]

I'm done with this "discussion!"

It seems I am in the minority here of those that expect more from the businesses we deal with in this hobby and beyond. I expect honesty and integrity...and when someone F$cks up...I expect an apology...and then I can and usually do...move on!

I used to go to house of cards when I lived in MD back in the 90's and I always enjoyed my experiences there. Personally...H & S hardly ever offers anything in their auctions that I'm interested in...so I will most likely never bid in their auctions anyway.

I'm just a bit sick and tired of the mentality that has been propogating that businesses can rip people off at will...until they get caught...and then they just stop without any repercussions.

So I'll just group H&S/HOC with the Madolphs...and the banks...and most of the finance world that basically raped the country of their money...with nary a slap on the wrist!

God Bless America!

[kcohen]

I said "of substance." Such window dressing changes nothing. Reasonable people are satisfied with a resolution to a problem. Declare victory and move on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

So I'll just group H&S/HOC with the Madolphs...and the banks...and most of the finance world that basically raped the country of their money...with nary a slap on the wrist!

God Bless America!

Occupy Huggins & Scott!!!

[sox1903wschamp]

The first two words out of the President of a Major Auction house's mouth to his Customers were "so look'. What was the movie....Jerry Maguire I think that had a great line in the movie of "you had me at hello".

When I read his first two words, he did not have me because it sounded like he was "put off" in having to deal with this issue. I am in sales and if I sent out a mass note to my irate customer base and started my note the same way, I would expect to lose numerous customer's in the near future.

Don't get me wrong, its good the issue appears to be fixed but the communication came across (IMO) about as "sincere as a spider" and as loyal customers of his auction house, we deserved more respect.

Michael S*%@tee@le

[Fred]

I understand where some people are with this.

Ok, somebody got busted with their hand(s) in the cookie jar and after saying it won't happen again we're all just supposed to pretend like it never happened. I think the point a few people are trying to make is that this is something that shouldn't get swept under the carpet and forgotten about. This is something that impacts our hobby and hobbyist.

The way I figure, this is going to be on the minds of people after this thread goes to the bottom of the forum page and then off the main forum page. I'm guessing HOC and H&S would just wish it went away.

Maybe they ought to try and figure a way to smooth things over (monetarily). Drop he BP on the next auction to 5% (or something like that). Show the BUYERS/BIDDERS in their auctions that this is thier way of making amends for the MANY that felt slighted on this. There's nothing unethical about giving back to the hobby (and hobbyist) in a show of appreciation and gratitude.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by sox1903wschamp

The first two words out of the President of a Major Auction house's mouth to his Customers were "so look'. What was the movie....Jerry Maguire I think that had a great line in the movie of "you had me at hello".

When I read his first two words, he did not have me because it sounded like he was "put off" in having to deal with this issue. I am in sales and if I sent out a mass note to my irate customer base and started my note the same way, I would expect to lose numerous customer's in the near future.

Don't get me wrong, its good the issue appears to be fixed but the communication came across (IMO) about as "sincere as a spider" and as loyal customers of his auction house, we deserved more respect.

Michael S*%@tee@le

I'm with you Michael. To start out with "so look" seemed very put off to me, much like I was treated for an issue I had with H&S last year, there was nothing about the issue I had last year or this issue that made me really think they were sincerely sorry. I am with Peter also, A sincere apology would have been at least a start instead of starting it with "so look". That just sounds very stand offish.

Chr...s Sh-- r e...ve

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by sox1903wschamp

The first two words out of the President of a Major Auction house's mouth to his Customers were "so look'. What was the movie....Jerry Maguire I think that had a great line in the movie of "you had me at hello".

When I read his first two words, he did not have me because it sounded like he was "put off" in having to deal with this issue. I am in sales and if I sent out a mass note to my irate customer base and started my note the same way, I would expect to lose numerous customer's in the near future.

Don't get me wrong, its good the issue appears to be fixed but the communication came across (IMO) about as "sincere as a spider" and as loyal customers of his auction house, we deserved more respect.

Michael S*%@tee@le

+1

[smotan_02]

Interesting that this thread is happening as the Legendy Auction is kicking off. Makes me wonder...

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Admission of wrong doing would be nice?!

yeah, I agree. an admision and an apology would be nice. It almost seems like they are mad that this was discovered....like someone ruined their good thing

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by kcohen

Now that Mr. Huggins has responded to forum opinion and changed the policy, what more of true substance can he do to correct the situation? Submit to flogging? Cut off his ear and send it to you? Just curious.

Leave the ear. Send cannoli.

[sb1]

We do not bid on any lots in our auction(could have sworn we had that in print, but I guess not), the statement has been made previously and still holds true. And since we don't have any employees, you don't have to worry about them either.

Also, we use the same software provider/auction platform as REA. So you can feel equally comfortable on our auction venue as well.


Scott

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sb1

We do not bid on any lots in our auction(could have sworn we had that in print, but I guess not), the statement has been made previously and still holds true. And since we don't have any employees, you don't have to worry about them either.

Also, we use the same software provider/auction platform as REA. So you can feel equally comfortable on our auction venue as well.


Scott

It is under our Market Strategy section and has been there since day one on our website, http://www.b-lauctions.com/market.html . As we recall we started our auction company in the heyday of some investigations. As far as I know we have the only written rule allowing for auditing of our records by a third party, if there ever is any question as to our auction bidding. I knew we had that rule concerning auction house bidding and missed it in our our "rules" page too.. I will work on getting a section added there in addition to where it is now. But again, been set in writing since day one. regards

[danmckee]

Huggins Ear? No thanks, I want his liver!