The Leon Luckey Type Card Collection – Bidding Ends on Thursday - August 13, 2015

[Peter_Spaeth]

One 1988 or whatever it was study of one auction doth not science make. And i see no reason why the newer study wouldn't apply to auctions, buying is buying. In any event, I do not believe that buyer's premiums are charged by sports auction houses with an intent to manipulate the buyer into bidding more. I think it's much more likely a response to a trend which saw auction houses trying to compete by lowering seller's commissions, however irrational that was. Paul if you think otherwise, why don't you name the ones you think are trying to trick us? Or do you think it's all of them, making a conscious choice to try to trick us?

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One 1988 or whatever it was study of one auction doth not science make. And i see no reason why the newer study wouldn't apply to auctions, buying is buying. In any event, I do not believe that buyer's premiums are charged by sports auction houses with an intent to manipulate the buyer into bidding more. I think it's much more likely a response to a trend which saw auction houses trying to compete by lowering seller's commissions, however irrational that was. Paul if you think otherwise, why don't you name the ones you think are trying to trick us? Or do you think it's all of them, making a conscious choice to try to trick us?

Honestly, I view our argument as a waste of time. But, I have enjoyed finding substantial empirical evidence to show the impact of price partitioning, which many of us on Net54 intuitively knew was going on. Frankly, I am not sure why you would take such a strong position to the contrary. I don't get it. But, then, I don't care.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Honestly, I view our argument as a waste of time. But, I have enjoyed finding substantial empirical evidence to show the impact of price partitioning, which many of us on Net54 intuitively knew was going on. Frankly, I am not sure why you would take such a strong position to the contrary. I don't get it. But, then, I don't care.

For the plain and simple reason that I have more faith in the intelligence of our community than you do. As a result, I do not believe that sports auction houses who understand the intelligence of their market charge buyer's premiums with the intent of tricking people into spending more money. Are you saying that is Leon's intent? Al's? Lee's? They charge BPs after all. In other market segments, notwithstanding the newer research showing it is an unsuccessful strategy, maybe that is the intent. I don't believe it is here. It's just my opinion.

I agree with you the research as a whole is interesting, though.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For the plain and simple reason that I have more faith in the intelligence of our community than you do.

I've taken part in anchoring surveys with a group of intelligent folk. We all fall for the same tricks every time. It's more of a human nature thing than an intelligence thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I've taken part in anchoring surveys with a group of intelligent folk. We all fall for the same tricks every time. It's more of a human nature thing than an intelligence thing.

Then do you discount the newer study suggesting that the very perception that it is a trick renders the strategy ultimately unsuccessful?

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then do you discount the newer study suggesting that the very perception that it is a trick renders the strategy ultimately unsuccessful?

We are getting circular here. First, the article I am citing to and provided above is from 2009. That's the latest Morwitz article. I don't think the article you cited was more recent than that. But, in any event, I am talking about partitioned pricing in the auction environment, which is different than in the standard marketplace for the reasons you have already mentioned. Indeed, the fact that you and a substantial number of Net54 members do not believe they are being tricked means that the strategy may actually be working.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

We are getting circular here. First, the article I am citing to and provided above is from 2009. That's the latest Morwitz article. I don't think the article you cited was more recent than that. But, in any event, I am talking about partitioned pricing in the auction environment, which is different than in the standard marketplace for the reasons you have already mentioned. Indeed, the fact that you and a substantial number of Net54 members do not believe they are being tricked means that the strategy may actually be working.

Now that sounds even more circular. In any event we can agree to disagree I guess.

[begsu1013]

.