the list (of criminals) is revealed

[Shoebox]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

That list is the just the Shill bidders, but not the ones that consigned.

+1 There is at least one board member that appears as a consigner for many lots that is not in the list of shill bidders.

[MULLINS5]

Am I looking at the right list? It says "Consignor" and "Shiller"

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

Am I looking at the right list? It says "Consignor" and "Shiller"

Sorry, I meant the list posted directly in this thread by Shoeless Moe.

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by Shoebox

+1 There is at least one board member that appears as a consigner for many lots that is not in the list of shill bidders.

appearing as a consignor is one thing, especially if you are a true consignor with zero intent to shill. But if you appear as a consignor and consistently have the same exact specific named shiller, then there is more than enough justifiable reasons than not to be leery and suspicious.

J.Micah W

ALWAYS LOOKING FOR COMPLETE TOPPS 60-70 NBA SETS THAT ARE IN GOOD TO EXCELLENT CONDITION.

[Dave Grob]

Very interesting to see this, especially when we have a consigner listed dozens of times and the shill bidder was always the same person, and that shill bidder is not show as shilling on anyone else's lots. Draw your own conclusions. Just an observation.

Dave Grob

[jboosted92]

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

the purpose of the shill bid is to move the increment up a notch or two and generate a higher (real) bid. Sometimes the shill fails and the shiller or consignor wins they're own lot back. Or possibly the consignor feels item is simply going for too low and wins item back rather than lose out $$ wise.

[jboosted92]

Originally Posted by mickeymao34

the purpose of the shill bid is to move the increment up a notch or two and generate a higher (real) bid. Sometimes the shill fails and the shiller or consignor wins they're own lot back. Or possibly the consignor feels item is simply going for too low and wins item back rather than lose out $$ wise.

That logic is crazy....so they pay for it twice?

If i have an item that i paid $1000.00 for, but i want to sell it for $10,000.... and it reaches only $7,000...why the F would i pay 7k, only to hope it sells for 10k later?

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

That logic is crazy....so they pay for it twice?

If i have an item that i paid $1000.00 for, but i want to sell it for $10,000.... and it reaches only $7,000...why the F would i pay 7k, only to hope it sells for 10k later?

Well thats not how it works sometimes If you read What Ron Goldberg and Peter Spaeth did if I read it right ,the auction house cut a deal with him that he only had to pay the auction house fee not the cost of the item.

[Dave Grob]

When you have the suspected shiller as the winner of the lot (no one chased them higher), you can always still look at invoicing and payment documents to see if the lot was actually paid for and by who. When you find that the suspected shiller has won lots, not paid for them themselves (and often by the consigner and NOT in the full amount), this tells you something.

In addition when you see this type of non-payment activity and the auction house continues to let the same bidder continue to bid, this is equally telling, as it suggests the non-payment for the lot in full is not an issue for the auction house. Assume what you want about the related consigner, especially if an exclusive pattern exists.

The damage does not end there, since in any number of cases, the final shilled bid (no real sale) is promoted as a genuine "price realized" and this in fact skews the perceived market valuation.

Dave Grob

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

That logic is crazy....so they pay for it twice?

If i have an item that i paid $1000.00 for, but i want to sell it for $10,000.... and it reaches only $7,000...why the F would i pay 7k, only to hope it sells for 10k later?

The $7K goes right back to you, the consignor, You lose the $1.4K AH fee but may get $3K more later.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

The plan backfires sometimes.

[mickeymao34]

This practice, i'm sure, is still happening and so common. I'm sure Houses believe this is just "part of the business".

[Mark]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

The FBI may have discovered that even though Smith bought the item, Doe went on to auction the same item at a later auction.

[trobba]

Originally Posted by jboosted92

I see some where (For example)


Consignor: John Doe

Shill Bidder: Paul Smith

Winnnig: Paul Smith


how does that qualify as shill if he won it?

When the AH says you don't have to pay for the lot if you win it.

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by trobba

When the AH says you don't have to pay for the lot if you win it.

Exactly and I'm guessing that is the case in every situation and why the AH has to be in on every senario. Hey u bid this up, u end up winning it no harm no foul. Every consignor has to be in on it also otherwise he'd expect the funds when the shiller ending up winning. Despicable and I'm no fan of anyone involved whether they confessed in a courtroom or owned up here. Bottom line it harmed either the eventual buyer or the marketplace in general by communicating erroneous price information and everyone of us that has ever bought a card or collectible has been impacted. Either you have items you paid too much for after buying them for an auction house or have items you paid too much for from other sources because the true market is lower.

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Very interesting to see this, especially when we have a consigner listed dozens of times and the shill bidder was always the same person, and that shill bidder is not show as shilling on anyone else's lots. Draw your own conclusions. Just an observation.

Dave Grob

great observation

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by mickeymao34

great observation

Crazy that the AH couldn't figure that out.

[UnVme7]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Very interesting to see this, especially when we have a consigner listed dozens of times and the shill bidder was always the same person, and that shill bidder is not show as shilling on anyone else's lots. Draw your own conclusions. Just an observation.

Dave Grob

My thoughts exactly, Dave. One can say the consignor had nothing to do with it, but if that was the case, why is the same shill name coming up for all of 1 consignor, which is exactly your point.