shill bidders?

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me, red flags are where bidders not only have a high percentage of bidding with the seller, but ALSO have a high number of retractions -- suggesting they are consignors who run auctions up until they top the high bidder, then retract; or set a high target to induce other bidders to go higher and then retract. This particular auction does not seem suspicious.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, red flags are where bidders not only have a high percentage of bidding with the seller, but ALSO have a high number of retractions -- suggesting they are consignors who run auctions up until they top the high bidder, then retract; or set a high target to induce other bidders to go higher and then retract. This particular auction does not seem suspicious.

There was a thread a while back where someone accused Sean/Greg Morris of shilling a bunch of 1960 Topps Tatoos. The bidder had sveral retractions, a high percentage with GM and seemed to bid often. It was later established that the bidder wasn't shilling. I don't think it's nearly as easy to spot shill bidders than members lead to believe. A good start:

A high percentage of bids with the seller; and
A large number of retractions; and
Low feedback; and
Whole number bids in a sporadic increments.

I only see maybe one of those things here. Certainly not enough to out an auction and accuse people of shilling, but what do I know.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I only see maybe one of those things here. Certainly not enough to out an auction and accuse people of shilling, but what do I know.

There is shill bidding and fraud in Probstein auctions. Obviously not every auction but fraud exists. Not maybe, definitely.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

There was a thread a while back where someone accused Sean/Greg Morris of shilling a bunch of 1960 Topps Tatoos. The bidder had sveral retractions, a high percentage with GM and seemed to bid often. It was later established that the bidder wasn't shilling. I don't think it's nearly as easy to spot shill bidders than members lead to believe. A good start:

A high percentage of bids with the seller; and
A large number of retractions; and
Low feedback; and
Whole number bids in a sporadic increments.

I only see maybe one of those things here. Certainly not enough to out an auction and accuse people of shilling, but what do I know.

I agree there will be cases where something looks like shill bidding but in fact isn't. But there are so many of these suspicious-looking auctions, usually with the same sellers, that I think it's a near certainty that at least some of them are not innocent. If it looks like a duck, it usually is a duck, even if once in a while it might not be.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

There was a thread a while back where someone accused Sean/Greg Morris of shilling a bunch of 1960 Topps Tatoos. The bidder had sveral retractions, a high percentage with GM and seemed to bid often. It was later established that the bidder wasn't shilling. I don't think it's nearly as easy to spot shill bidders than members lead to believe. A good start:

A high percentage of bids with the seller; and
A large number of retractions; and
Low feedback; and
Whole number bids in a sporadic increments.

I only see maybe one of those things here. Certainly not enough to out an auction and accuse people of shilling, but what do I know.

I don't agree that shillers have a large # of retractions. Some do but most don't.

As far as the Sean/Greg accusations many of their auctions had some crazy bid histories. The "random" bid histories I posted in that thread actually all came from Greg's eBay listings auctions.