IF Collecting a ZERO SUM Game then....
 

If collecting is a zero sum gain, (which it seems to be, especially when trading is involved) then the most successful collectors have technically screwed over the MOST collectors...

I have wondered how someone "trades to the top" and becomes the top dog aka Bill Mastro....did this person make the best trades/sales over the years and screwed the most people to gain such a long term advantage?

kind of a negative way to look at it but.....

also I remember watching Bruce Dorking Youtube how he tried for year to get a guy to sell him a memorabilia piece...he finally got the guy to say yes, by buying him plane tickets for a trip which was about $2000...Bruce then bragged how he truned around and sold it for $80,000.....

these are thing I would not be proud of if I did myself....

any comments?

Tons of different avenues people have taken to get great collections. Some people bought most their stuff 30+ years ago when it was cheaper, some people have had amazing finds, and some people just spend way more then everybody else.

wasn't thinking of "great collections" as there are many on this board...

I was referring to the TOP DOGS who become auctions houses that are started by their own huge collections and morph into selling others things...

This is a faulty premise, assuming everything else is static, and does not account for supply and demand. Also, if person A bought something from person B in a deal that BOTH were agreeable to, and person A subsequently sold the item for 10x what he paid for it to person C, HOW has person A screwed over person B? Or is the automatic assumption that anyone making a profit is screwing someone over?

(Does this mean there are NOT those out there who didn't "screw over" others by means of lying, cheating, falsification, etc? Of course not. Just that one doesn't follow from the other.)

A better question would be "IS collecting a zero sum gain?"

You "morphed" your own question from collectors to auction houses. It's certainly possible for each to have been successful without having screwed anybody over. Many collectors have assembled great collections by buying smartly over many years, leaving the sellers happy as well. Likewise, auction houses can be successful by working hard to acquire great items and collections, and leaving their consignors and buyers happy as well. I would never suggest that the hobby hasn't seen its share of unethical and illegal conduct over the years, we all know about that. But to suggest that those with the best collections, along with the successful auction houses and dealers, got there by screwing those they dealt with is absurd, and your "zero-sum" hypothesis flawed, in my opinion. Diligence, intelligence, and knowledge had more to do with it than bad behavior in most instances, I would say.

but you will agree that for a trader to do well, they need to come out ahead in the majority of trades...and coming out ahead is in the plan (offer low amount to sell at higher amount)

I collect championship rings. They are hard to get are quite rare. If I am dealing with another private ring collector like myself, I try to trade items that are a fair trade. If I have two rings from one year and team, I will sometimes even come out a little behind, and be happy, if I am able to build my collection. I realize that rings are rare and I can't go to ebay and order up the ones I need to finish my collection.

When I trade with full-time ring dealers, I realize they need to make money and look to come out ahead. That's fine, I can choose to make a deal or walk away if the trade is not to my liking.

Respectfully... Do you mean "trader" or "dealer", since you are talking about buying and selling. I would tend to disagree though for either, just for different reasons.

If I pay your asking price for something, how can you be anything but happy? If we're wheeling and dealing, and I agree to your offer, how can you be anything but happy? In my many years as a dealer, I probably sold more stuff to dealers than to collectors. Was I supposed to be unhappy because they were buying so much from me? On the contrary, I was thrilled because I knew they'd always be back looking for more. And I respected them because they had the knowledge and put in the hard work to make buying from me pay off for them. I also tried to learn from them, looking for more stuff like what they bought and constantly adjusting my idea of values based on what happened at my table. It's called arbitrage in the financial world, finding a gap between what someone will sell something for and what someone else will pay for it, and cashing in on that knowledge. Happens all over the world, in many markets. Nothing unethical about it.

One last thing, and I'll shut up about it. I always regarded what I did as a SERVICE to everyone I dealt with, and the profit I made was the reward for doing that work. I gave money to sellers when they needed it, and I brought stuff to the attention of collectors who were searching for it. No one ever had to sell to me, and no one ever had to buy from me. When they did, I can only assume that when they walked away, they were happy with the transaction EVERY SINGLE TIME. I would never have been in this business under any other circumstance.

...