the list (of criminals) is revealed

bcornell · #1 01-28-2016, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonepony

There is quite a stretch from inferring phantom accounts were used to shill lots, to truly believing that the AH would actually use active accounts from established customers to bid. I'd think some eyebrows would be raised by someone getting an Email confirmation that they've bid on a lot.... that they didn't bid on. I don't buy it for a second.

I get what you're saying, but when you have access to a database as Mastro and Allen did, you can do anything you want with it. There's no guarantee emails were sent to high bidders to notify them.

Put another way, do we think their receptionist was part of the shill bidding conspiracy? That seems unlikely.

Bill

drcy · #2 01-28-2016, 04:13 PM

Why can't a secretary place shill bids for her boss? I'd buy it if all the bids were the in the names of the receptionist and the janitor, but it's not as if the bosses were shy about bidding under their own names.

If others' accounts were surreptitiously 'borrowed' to place illegal bids, perhaps there should have been charges for identity theft.

Thus ultimate salt in the wound would be when someone sees he was bid up by Spot.

vintagetoppsguy · #3 01-28-2016, 04:14 PM

What's the over/under on thread views here?

nsaddict · #4 01-28-2016, 04:21 PM

There are 3 shillers listed that currently sit on the board of experts at PSA. If someone were to post this on the CU boards, how long would it last?

bobbyw8469 · #5 01-28-2016, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's the over/under on thread views here?

And how about this being a Net54 exclusive???? Not a peep about this across the pond!

ALR-bishop · #6 01-28-2016, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

And how about this being a Net54 exclusive???? Not a peep about this across the pond!

Someone started a thread, but it just refers people over here

Yoda · #7 01-28-2016, 05:22 PM

Just when I thought that the Mastro Mess was beginning to move slowly to the back burner, with Bill inside and Doug soon to go, but now we have more sordid details and, horror of horrors, actual names on both sides of the equation. The Dark Side rules tonight. Yoda

MattyC · #8 01-28-2016, 04:23 PM

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards?

Would also be great to know if any of the names involved have since become affiliated with/employed by other Auction Houses?

ullmandds · #9 01-28-2016, 04:25 PM

this is quite the shit storm that's just getting started!

Stonepony · #10 01-28-2016, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ullmandds

this is quite the shit storm that's just getting started!

I have contacted 2 auction houses of which I currently have high bids. I respectively asked, that if the consignor of these lots appears on this list, to please retract my bids. I offered my understanding that this may exclude me from participating in further auctions. This list is a tiny tip of a huge iceberg. I hope it tips over, irregardless of what may happen to the current valuation of our collectibles.

bunst · #11 01-29-2016, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards?

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

Peter_Spaeth · #12 01-29-2016, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunst

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

Yes, Dave Forman is the owner of SGC, he may also be President but I am not sure. He and his brother Steve are identified on the list in several places.

ADDED I have not looked up the lots so I don't know the answer to the second part of your question.

Stonepony · #13 01-29-2016, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, Dave Forman is the owner of SGC, he may also be President but I am not sure. He and his brother Steve are identified on the list in several places.

ADDED I have not looked up the lots so I don't know the answer to the second part of your question.

Yes it looks like they shilled each other's lots right and left. I welcome a response.

Bicem · #14 01-29-2016, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunst

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

Yes, according to the document, Dave Forman (SGC owner) and his brother Steve Forman shilled each other's auctions on many occasions, including high grade SGC cards. The example below was consigned by Dave, shilled by Steve, and actually won by Steve... looks like he got stuck with it.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=70524

Here's one that was consigned by Steve, and shilled by Dave, and won by Greg Bussineau.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=74170

There are many, many other examples.

JEFF PR|ZNER

byrone · #15 01-29-2016, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicem

Yes, according to the document, Dave Forman (SGC owner) and his brother Steve Forman shilled each other's auctions on many occasions, including high grade SGC cards. The example below was consigned by Dave, shilled by Steve, and actually won by Steve... looks like he got stuck with it.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=70524

Here's one that was consigned by Steve, and shilled by Dave, and won by Greg Bussineau.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=74170

There are many, many other examples.

JEFF PR|ZNER

Who's the real hobby villian...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=113951

MattyC · #16 01-29-2016, 08:43 AM

And here I was, utterly oblivious to the fact that SGC really stands for:

"Shill, Get Cash."

Thank God baseball cards are such happy and pure things, in and of themselves, that the enjoyment they bring trumps and outshines that odious list.

Iron Horse · #17 01-29-2016, 08:46 AM

Seems to me that SGC should pack it up.
How can a grading company not only grade their own cards (likely over grade) then list them in auction and the shill their own lots.
It's bad enough when an individual does it but a grading company????
Ruben Baghdassarian

bn2cardz · #18 01-29-2016, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards? ?

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

Dpeck100 · #19 01-29-2016, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

Just means he is an equal opportunity profiteer.

bn2cardz · #20 01-29-2016, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Just means he is an equal opportunity profiteer.

The hypothesis that came to mind as to why the Formans had some cards they didn't cross to SGC prior to selling were:

1) They couldn't bump it to SGC because it was trimmed and were worried about their "guarantee".

2) The pop report with the other graders made the card look rarer than their pops would.

3) So they could have deniability that they showed preference to their cards

Dpeck100 · #21 01-29-2016, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The hypothesis that came to mind as to why the Formans had some cards they didn't cross to SGC prior to selling were:

1) They couldn't bump it to SGC because it was trimmed and were worried about their "guarantee".

2) The pop report with the other graders made the card look rarer than their pops would.

3) So they could have deniability that they showed preference to their cards

Sounds pretty logical to me.

I wonder if SGC's move to Florida was planned after they new this bombshell was coming out.

xplainer · #22 01-29-2016, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The hypothesis that came to mind as to why the Formans had some cards they didn't cross to SGC prior to selling were:

1) They couldn't bump it to SGC because it was trimmed and were worried about their "guarantee".

2) The pop report with the other graders made the card look rarer than their pops would.

3) So they could have deniability that they showed preference to their cards

Thinking like a criminal there...and probably right.

bn2cardz · #23 01-29-2016, 09:26 AM

.double post.

Shoebox · #24 01-29-2016, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

The head of SGC is involved in nearly 30 lots that were shill bid with approximately 2/3 of the card graded by his own company.

PSA has members of its Board of Experts appear as shill bidders.

Maybe no one else goes to jail after Bill and Doug but there are certainly a lot more than just one auction house getting sh#t on them over this.

conor912 · #25 01-28-2016, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's the over/under on thread views here?

>25k

Beastmode · #26 01-28-2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

>25k

Here's 25001.

I'm surprised so many folks are surprised. In-house proprietary auction houses make little sense from a financial perspective and can be easily manipulated by the AH. Shilling is probably still rampant on the ones that are left. You can't even see the bidders, which is the first clue as to what is going on there.

E-bay has already spent billions building this software platform; and they do all the maintenance, upgrading, hardware, security, power, cooling, etc; for pennies. Does E-bay have shilling? of course. But at least I have some information to review in bid history to make my own assessment.

Lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

martyp · #27 01-28-2016, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beastmode

Lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

I totally disagree with this statement. I bid within my budget and I am on the list as a victim of shilling. Just because you do not pay more than you are willing to does not mean that you will not pay more than you should have if the auction was run fairly.

SteveMitchell · #28 01-29-2016, 04:24 PM

Beastmode offers some good advice (see boldface and enlarged type for added emphasis). Perhaps not "never" but certainly "rarely" will one be a victim of shilling, if followed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastmode

here's 25001.

I'm surprised so many folks are surprised. In-house proprietary auction houses make little sense from a financial perspective and can be easily manipulated by the ah. Shilling is probably still rampant on the ones that are left. You can't even see the bidders, which is the first clue as to what is going on there.

E-bay has already spent billions building this software platform; and they do all the maintenance, upgrading, hardware, security, power, cooling, etc; for pennies. Does e-bay have shilling? Of course. But at least i have some information to review in bid history to make my own assessment.

lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

pokerplyr80 · #29 01-29-2016, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMitchell

Beastmode offers some good advice (see boldface and enlarged type for added emphasis). Perhaps not "never" but certainly "rarely" will one be a victim of shilling, if followed.

[/size][/b]

The main point I have seen others try to make is that even when following this advice, one can still be a victim of shilling if what they end up paying is higher than it would have been without the shilled bids. Just because you are willing to pay that amount, or would have paid more, doesn't mean you're not a victim. Plus the bar is set that much higher the next time the same card comes up for sale.

nolemmings · #30 01-29-2016, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

The main point I have seen others try to make is that even when following this advice, one can still be a victim of shilling if what they end up paying is higher than it would have been without the shilled bids. Just because you are willing to pay that amount, or would have paid more, doesn't mean you're not a victim. Plus the bar is set that much higher the next time the same card comes up for sale.

Exactly. It should not be that hard a concept to understand. That being said, I do not get very bothered if I win an auction at or below what I was willing to pay, even if shilling is shown. That does not mean I find it acceptable behavior to shill, however--far from it.

Shoeless Moe · #31 01-28-2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

>25k

in 1 day

Peter_Spaeth · #32 01-28-2016, 05:08 PM

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would let him bid using my ID. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if the bid from my account won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and the bid from my account was high bid, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Stonepony · #33 01-28-2016, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction., particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron expected the set to go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Thanks for posting the explanation Peter. I understand, and see how things can happen. That was 2007. I think you'll agree that everyone now is edgey and ready for zero tolerance

Peter_Spaeth · #34 01-28-2016, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonepony

Thanks for posting the explanation Peter. I understand, and see how things can happen. That was 2007. I think you'll agree that everyone now is edgey and ready for zero tolerance

Yes, and after discussing this with some people I respect, I do see the gray area.

sflayank · #35 01-28-2016, 05:25 PM

well peter admits to being a shill...how nice
so he believes theres nothing wrong with making the public believe the value of that item is what he bid when in fact there was no one willing to actually pay that price...ie the most anyone person was willing to pay lets says is 1800 and he puts in 2000...but the 1800 bidder actually would have won the lot for 1200 as the 3rd bidders hi bid was only 1100...and he doesnt see anything wrong with that....if your consignor friend ron wants at least x dollars then he should consign it to an AH that will start the bidding at x dollars...this is nothing more than artificially upping the perceived value in the eyes of the public...but theres nothing wrong with that....hmmmmm

Buythatcard · #36 01-28-2016, 05:39 PM

This list just shows 2007-2008. Can you imagine what the list would look like if it included all the years that Mastro was in business? You know that it doesn't end with Mastro. I am sure that this is still going on within many AH's today. I am not saying that the AH are involved but there must be shilling done by individuals that have a connection with the consignor.

I have won 21 items from Mastro between 2005-2009 for a total of $34,000. The list shows that I was shilled only once in 2007 on a lot of 38 Colgan Chips. It makes me wonder how many other times they shilled me.

buymycards · #37 01-28-2016, 05:24 PM

Peter, the only reason that no one was "run up" is because it happened that there were no bidders. If there had been bidders, you would have run them up.

asoriano · #38 01-28-2016, 05:26 PM

...you gotta love this dirty hobby.

Peter_Spaeth · #39 01-28-2016, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buymycards

Peter, the only reason that no one was "run up" is because it happened that there were no bidders. If there had been bidders, you would have run them up.

As I thought of it, if Ron had not consigned the set at all, or if there had been a reserve or an opening bid at the reserve level, nobody could have won it for less than one bid above mine anyhow. So your hypothetical is not real, as I see it. But as I said, I do understand there are other ways to look at it.

Steve D · #40 01-28-2016, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I thought of it, if Ron had not consigned the set at all, or if there had been a reserve or an opening bid at the reserve level, nobody could have won it for less than one bid above mine anyhow. So your hypothetical is not real, as I see it. But as I said, I do understand there are other ways to look at it.

Here's my take:

If there had been, say, a $2,000 reserve on the lot, and the highest bidder bid $1,500, everyone would see that the set did not meet the reserve. This could be attributed to either the reserve being set too high, or there just being low interest in the set at that particular time. As it happened, a "shill bid" was placed for $2,000, to match the "unstated" reserve. This led people to believe the set had sold at that price. This is the lie, that the set sold, when it actually did not; and this is where, in my opinion, the main problem lies. It results in false price information being released to the public, and a false value being placed on the item. The set may later exceed the value that was falsely reported at that time, but there is really no way of knowing what effect the false info had, even if there are years between the auction in question, and the actual later sale.

The safest and best way to proceed is to set a reserve (if desired), and let the bidding determine if the reserve is realistic (at that particular moment in time). Then at least, if the item does not sell, the public has accurate information to use, in later placing a value on it.

Steve

Vintagefun · #41 01-28-2016, 05:29 PM

CU Thread...Poof. Not sure why. Disappointing.

ALR-bishop · #42 01-28-2016, 05:31 PM

....in two shakes of a lamb's tail

Jeff1970Red · #43 01-28-2016, 05:31 PM

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

1952boyntoncollector · #44 01-28-2016, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron expected the set to go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

yeah that's pretty bad that you would bid and there was some collusion that if you won, the consignor would pay the BP to get the card back to the consignor..why not at least make you pay it to them (and then you get reimbursed by the consignor with sweaty palms)...yeah I understand the end game..no one was hurt because he wouldn't of consigned the card in the first place without assurances he would get a certain amount or get the card back..but when there was no agreement to a reserve and he still consigned the card anyway, that's an easy sign to know that the auction house is corrupt (and tip of the iceberg stuff) I don't know why you would be a part of it....maybe for this item no one got hurt but this sort of collusion probably occurred on other items with other shillers and people were victimized....but allowing to be used as pawns gave incentive to the auction house to look for other pawns out there..

again i understand no one got hurt this time..but sometimes bad things are done many times but only one time they get caught for it....though you always hear it on 'to catch a predator' it was their first time they ever did this...

I don't think you are part of the hobby problem at all..i think personally you are a great asset for the hobby and i am sure everyone would agree....i would bid on any of your ebay auctions if you had any with no hesitation.. you also are a great resource on knowledge on cards...i hope its doesn't look like i am bashing you...i just commenting.....also you are mentioned like the very very least out of the 100s of other names on there

AGuinness · #45 01-28-2016, 06:07 PM

Garth Guibord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim.

Actually, no. When a reserve is included, the bidders are aware of it. In this case, it's clearly deceptive. It's doesn't take a degree in ethics to see that.

Not to mention the data point each shill auction, including that one, provides the industry, but is also deceptive.

I would hope people would be smart and decent enough that when they engage with somebody with shady practices, in this case an auction house who doesn't provide a specific service but encourages a deceptive alternative, they would simply walk away and find a more respectable auction house. Not offering a reserve, but suggesting this type of bidding as a proxy is a big red flag.

Joshchisox08 · #46 01-29-2016, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Garth Guibord
Actually, no. When a reserve is included, the bidders are aware of it. In this case, it's clearly deceptive. It's doesn't take a degree in ethics to see that.

I think the key word is ethics in this statement. Lawyer......ethics............ethics............la wyer.

Just when I was warming up to you Pete......... Please tell me that you're not a family court lawyer though. Then I could care less. Those are the ones that directly piss me off the most.

I think you can basically now be known as the Jason Giambi of this site. You admitted it and thus will take less flack. You will also be commended for owning up to it rather than hiding behind lies. It will be a mute point, it will all blow over. Now I'd like to know who the other's are on the site that aren't owning up !!

AGuinness · #47 01-29-2016, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

I think the key word is ethics in this statement. Lawyer......ethics............ethics............la wyer.

Just when I was warming up to you Pete......... Please tell me that you're not a family court lawyer though. Then I could care less. Those are the ones that directly piss me off the most.

I think you can basically now be known as the Jason Giambi of this site. You admitted it and thus will take less flack. You will also be commended for owning up to it rather than hiding behind lies. It will be a mute point, it will all blow over. Now I'd like to know who the other's are on the site that aren't owning up !!

Just to clarify, my name appears at the top of that post as I'm replying to Pete. I am not Pete...

Exhibitman · #48 01-28-2016, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

There are a lot of catty, snarky comments that would be fun to post, but really, reading this just makes me sad. You still don't get it. There are only two sides to this: right and wrong. You are on the wrong side. You did a bad thing. At least have the decency to admit it without the song and dance. People forgive most stuff, but not hypocrisy.

Peter_Spaeth · #49 01-28-2016, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

There are a lot of catty, snarky comments that would be fun to post, but really, reading this just makes me sad. You still don't get it. There are only two sides to this: right and wrong. You are on the wrong side. You did a bad thing. At least have the decency to admit it without the song and dance. People forgive most stuff, but not hypocrisy.

Adam, you are entitled to your opinion. Make whatever snarky comments you wish, I don't mind at all, I knew the wave of sanctimoniousness was coming when I posted. Some agree with you, and some very thoughtful people I have spoken to don't see it in your black and white terms. Maybe they will chime in, maybe they won't, whatever.

ElCabron · #50 01-28-2016, 06:37 PM

Anyone whose name is on that list in spite of their innocence is welcome to come here and set the record straight. Feel free to let us know all about how you didn't do it and how you're outraged that your reputation is being dragged through the mud. Go ahead and publicly declare your innocence right here. There is absolutely no reason not to, if you're innocent, so please post here so we can help you clear your name. If innocent people are being publicly accused of unethical actions which they didn't do, I say we demand an investigation into how that happened. Don't just sit there and let everyone think you have zero integrity. The truth shall set you free! Or shut you up. The truth will definitely do one of those two things.

-Ryan

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
my top secret want lists being revealed	sflayank	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	5	01-07-2016 02:13 AM
my top secret want lists being revealed	sflayank	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	12-31-2015 11:59 AM
Autograph News Live - criminals or just cowards?	Michael Frost	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	186	10-25-2013 11:36 PM
criminals and heroes of the t206 set	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	19	01-11-2009 08:03 PM
secret want list revealed dealers will kill for this list	Archive	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	08-18-2008 11:06 AM