the list (of criminals) is revealed

[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.

[frankbmd]

Let's say Mr. Goldbrick consigns an item with mr maestro, who wants a lower minimum bid than Goldbrick is comfortable with. Mr All-in suggests that a friend could bid to the minimum in Goldbrick's comfort zone. A bid in the name of mr spacecadet is then made.

Mr. Spacecadet then wins the auction. Spacecadet then pays mr maestro for the item with fees. Then Spacecadet returns the item to mr Goldbrick, who reimburses him for his costs and thanks him.

Mr All-in is IMO guilty by suggesting the scheme. Mr Goldbrick is perhaps negligent in retrospect for playing along. Mr Spacecadet is not guilty. The outcome pleases all parties. No names ever appear on a "shill" list nine years later.

I would suggest that this scenario occurs more frequently than many of us would imagine. This scenario would also fly under the radar and would be deniable by all concerned.

[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

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by 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

Agreed, it clouds transparency in the market.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by 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

Dave, Good points but also back to another problem I found about " reserves"
I had consigned a few very high ticket items (Not Legendary) and I also wanted a reserve (sorta high) placed on the items. I was told that most auction houses dont like reserve because if the reserve on that item was possibly put to high then all the work that the AH did for you I.E. photos taken , descriptions written by staff, room taken up in the catalogue etc. would be lost if the item or items didnt sell. I found out that they would rather make something in and out (buyer ,seller) than nothing... on your dime!!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Dave, Good points but also back to another problem I found about " reserves"
I had consigned a few very high ticket items (Not Legendary) and I also wanted a reserve (sorta high) placed on the items. I was told that most auction houses dont like reserve because if the reserve on that item was possibly put to high then all the work that the AH did for you I.E. photos taken , descriptions written by staff, room taken up in the catalogue etc. would be lost if the item or items didnt sell. I found out that they would rather make something in and out (buyer ,seller) than nothing... on your dime!!

well heritage lets you do a reserve but you pay them a percentage or something if card doesn't sell.....some auction houses make you pay 20% on the highest bid if card doesn't sell...that way you wont have an unrealistic reserve and waste their time..

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

well heritage lets you do a reserve but you pay them a percentage or something if card doesn't sell.....some auction houses make you pay 20% on the highest bid if card doesn't sell...that way you wont have an unrealistic reserve and waste their time..

You may be correct now but back lets say several years ago most auction houses frowned upon reserve...

And also if you were one of the ones on the "Special Packages" list I bet you didnt have to pay a dime!

[ElCabron]

It's still shill bidding if you pay the BP and buy your own item back. It seems like you're all saying it's not.

-Ryan

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

It's still shill bidding if you pay the BP and buy your own item back. It seems like you're all saying it's not.

-Ryan

if the BP is 20% and the shiller is paying that I have ZERO problem...20% is going to prevent a lot of shilling..plus if someone is willing to pay 20% to keep a card...it must be going very under market price...I would bid at AHs with no problem if they said 'Shillers welcome but they must pay the 20%' BP

so if I bid 1000 and I get beat out at 1010 and that guy keeps his card but has to pay $200 to keep it..good for him...

if someone wins their own 1952 Topps PSA 8 Mantle..and they think 375,000 is too low and want 425,000 for the card..let them pay 375,00 to keep the card and pay a 70,000 BP...good luck to them there as well....I just don't seem them shilling that mantle that high..they would have to stop at at about 275,000...

the problem is when they don't have to pay a BP or its 5 percent etc

[edjs]

For those that are wondering why anyone would buy their own card rather than it selling low, here is how it works. You bought a card for $1000, and now you feel it is worth $10000. You decide to send it to an auction house. Many auction houses will waive the consignor fee on high profile items, and will offer to share a percentage of the buyers premium with the consignor as well, for ease of math, let's say half. So the auction is closing, and your card is going to close low, so you buy it through your buddy at $5000. You now pay the house $6000, and they cut you your consignment check for $5500. You now have a total of $1500 invested in the card. Had you not bought the card and it sold to someone else for $5000, you would have made a profit of $4500. You didn't let it sell, so you consign it a couple months later, this time it sells for $7000 (same terms). You get a check for $7700, a profit of $6200. That is why people buy their own consignments instead of letting them sell low. I have never consigned a card, I don't have any of the big dollar collections, but I can figure out the "why" of it. This is in no way meant to condone any practice, I am just trying to clear the reasoning up. It is purely based on profit margins. I am also sure that, as an apprentice collector, I still don't understand or explain here all the nuances involved in the business end of this (I haven't even mentioned how setting historical sales records come into play as a reason for buying your own card), but I think my example paints a fairly accurate picture. Please correct me if I am wrong. No opinions of anyone listed in my post, per the rules.

[jboosted92]

Originally Posted by 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

Thats EXACTLY where i was leading..... i bet no one paid for a single one....

[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.