An Open Letter to Bill Mastro

[perezfan]

Hunt's is simply exercising a hidden reserve. Since the auctions are live, the "phantom bidding" is the only way to get the item to meet the consignor's minimum. I can see how it is frustrating for the "real bidder", but it is just an alternate way of establishing a minimum bid amount.

[Runscott]

I have never complained to an auction house about strange bids, until I recently paid my ceiling for every single item in a Hunts auction. It was just way too much of a coincidence.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Hunt's is simply exercising a hidden reserve. Since the auctions are live, the "phantom bidding" is the only way to get the item to meet the consignor's minimum. I can see how it is frustrating for the "real bidder", but it is just an alternate way of establishing a minimum bid amount.

Isn't an alternative way of establishing a minimum amount to set the reserve from the outset? As opposed to having an illusory auction process taking place up to the minimum.

[Giants00]

Also, lets remember what Mastro has plead guilty to doing (vs maintaining a minimum bid). He has said he altered materials and lied about it, he has admitting to shill bidding (when there was no minimum and he just felt like the item was too low), and he admited to mail fraud. What he did (particularly on high pieces) was to control the authentication, the pricing and supply. It was done clearly in a way which has violated the law. What you saw early on was that he was contrite and that he was religious. What has come out in the comments to the thread I have posted and in his defense, is that he is defiant and not contrite. He has now claimed his crimes were victimless because everyone made money.
While we may not like the practice of having hidden reserves, it is commonplace in auctions and fully disclosed. What Mastro has confessed to is staggering. The fact that he is posting in comments sections claiming no remorse and that the collectors made money so his crimes are excused is frankly lurid.
I think the major auction houses no longer think like this. My sense is that if there is a hidden reserve it is set at the beginning of the auction. I think most auctions no longer look at the highest price bid and thus remove temptation. We now have disclosure when an auction is selling its own stuff. In general, in most auctions, authentication is separated from the auctioneer. Is it perfect, no. But it is much better than being in a rigged system.

[Giants00]

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...ts-sentencing/
Another good story. Mastro's justification is that he was bidding for himself, yah right. He also destroyed records.
Again, if he was contrite I shut up. He is not contrite. He is still justifying his crimes and trying to berate the victims. Way to go Bill.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Isn't an alternative way of establishing a minimum amount to set the reserve from the outset? As opposed to having an illusory auction process taking place up to the minimum.

Yes, you are correct. But I think Hunt's thought process is to get more bidders involved by starting the lots low. I think they believe this method will ultimately drive the price higher. I don't love it either...

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Hunt's is simply exercising a hidden reserve. Since the auctions are live, the "phantom bidding" is the only way to get the item to meet the consignor's minimum. I can see how it is frustrating for the "real bidder", but it is just an alternate way of establishing a minimum bid amount.

Mark,

You and I usually see eye-to-eye on most things, but if you're saying that an auction house bidding on an item to exercise a hidden reserve is the same (or even similar) as having a stated, transparent reserve, I disagree. The first practice can falsely imply another "real" bidder is increasing the price of an item, whereas the second practice clearly defines that the auction house/consignor has determined the minimum for which an item will sell.

Big difference, in my opinion.

Rob

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Mark,

You and I usually see eye-to-eye on most things, but if you're saying that an auction house bidding on an item to exercise a hidden reserve is the same (or even similar) as having a stated, transparent reserve, I disagree. The first practice can falsely imply another "real" bidder is increasing the price of an item, whereas the second practice clearly defines that the auction house/consignor has determined the minimum for which an item will sell.

Big difference, in my opinion.

Rob

Big difference IMO as well

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Mark,

You and I usually see eye-to-eye on most things, but if you're saying that an auction house bidding on an item to exercise a hidden reserve is the same (or even similar) as having a stated, transparent reserve, I disagree. The first practice can falsely imply another "real" bidder is increasing the price of an item, whereas the second practice clearly defines that the auction house/consignor has determined the minimum for which an item will sell.

Big difference, in my opinion.

Rob

Yeah, I guess you are right. As a bidder, it does seem a bit sleazy. On the filpside, I've really liked it as a consignor, because it's ensured that I won't get killed on my consignments. I would rather have the lackluster winning bid result in a "no sale" than lose a bunch of money on my consignment.

That said, I agree with you both, that it would be more straight-forward just to just start the item at the lowest acceptable level to the consignor. Heritage does the hidden reserve thing as well (in their own way).

I guess the FBI has a very fine line, in terms of what's "acceptable shilling" and what's criminal.

[sports-rings]

We now have disclosure when an auction is selling its own stuff.

I see many advertisements for various auction houses in our hobby proclaiming "Now Buying", yet I rarely if ever see disclaimers in their auctions that they own the item.

Am I missing something?

[BigJJ]

Along the lines of Michael's post above, regarding Mastro - It has not been made clear -who were the owners - of the pieces that were shill bid. In other words, were 20%, 50%, 80% of the pieces that were shill bid owned by the Company? owned by its head? I was never happy with the prices my particular pieces received. If they owned a great number of the pieces that were being shill bid, this would poke a hole also in the idea of - 'trying to do the best for our consignors'.

[springpin]

We live in an accepting society. People in prominent positions as Bill Clinton, Oliver North, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Wiener, Paula Deen, etc., fall from grace, and following a period of exile, they return refreshed, rejuvenated, and rehabilitated. Some even achieve higher recognition after their return than before. It will be argued that the people who were shilled (including me) got what they wanted, albeit they were overcharged. The Wagner card is not a reproduction or fake; it was simply trimmed years after it was originally produced. Is this fraud? Yes, but less severe than if the card itself was a reproduction. I am not a card collector, but I suspect many card collectors would rather have a trimmed card in their collection than not have the card at all. Now that we definitively know the Wagner card was trimmed, no one is alleging the card is worthless. Collecting tastes and values change over time. Perhaps years from now few will care that a card was trimmed. If I understand how cards are made, at some point in their history all cards were trimmed from sheets. I also will not be surprised if today's villains are accepted back into the hobby after a period of time. I think we place more value on the items in our collections than we have contempt for the people who overcharged us.

[Giants00]

Springpin,
I was sort of with you until he attacked a collector on a message board, clearly showing zero remorse. If you believe the FBI, as much as $1m was ripped off consumers. Bill defends by saying that he was legitimately trying to buy the items. Then he attacks people for making money.
Until there is some recognition and remorse, I would not go near him.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I guess the FBI has a very fine line, in terms of what's "acceptable shilling" and what's criminal.

What about when Mastro looked at the ceiling bids of his customers and then put in a bid, from his own computer, right below it, ensuring that the bidder lost thousands of dollars (and he made money)?

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What about when Mastro looked at the ceiling bids of his customers and then put in a bid, from his own computer, right below it, ensuring that the bidder lost thousands of dollars (and he made money)?

I would say that's on the wrong side of any "fine line."