Can Someone Interpret this Ebay Bidding History?

[ejharrington]

I lost out on card last night. I bid $190 right before the auction ended; I was bidder 60. The price was $149.99 when I bid, which would seem to be bidder 5640. I don't understand the bids for Bidder 2070 in this case. Can someone explain this?

[The Detroit Collector]

The bids are being placed an hour after what the current bid is. Looks like he reviewed what the current bid is and then places another larger bid.

[OhioLawyerF5]

I think the only confusing part is why it lists bidder 5640's $149.99 bid. I think that is just a result of how the bids are reported, though.

Basically, the starting price was $149.99. On October 20, bidder 2070 put in a bid that ended up being the winning bid (it was higher than $192.50). At that moment, it was the first and only bid and had him as the highest bidder at $149.99.

Then on the 21st, one second before your bid, bidder 5640 entered his bid. He only entered one bid. His bid was for $169.99. It recorded his bid as $149.99, which tied the leading bid, but then recorded the same bid again as $169.99 because that was his max bid. But when he placed the bid, it had already lost to 2070's previous bid (and ultimately winning bid).

So once 5640 bid $169.99, the next listed bid is automatically 2070's bid of $172.99, placed by ebay, because his highest bid was higher than that.

One second later, your bid came in, which drove the price to you max of $190.00. Because 2070's original high max bid was higher than your $190 bid, ebay automatically bid the next bid increment for him, $192.50, which won the auction.

I don't see anything odd about 2070's bidding, as he only entered one bid, which was high enough to win the auction. It is weird that his initial leading bid of $149.99 isn't shown, but instead they show the first bid to bump it up by 5640. I assume they show that to simply show how 2070's bid was the first to supercede another bidder's bid. But the way they list the first couple bids isn't really concerning as we can clearly see that 2070 only put in a single bid on the 20th. So no funny businiess to worry about.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I think the only confusing part is why it lists bidder 5640's $149.99 bid. I think that is just a result of how the bids are reported, though.

Basically, the starting price was $149.99. On October 20, bidder 2070 put in a bid that ended up being the winning bid (it was higher than $192.50). At that moment, it was the first and only bid and had him as the highest bidder at $149.99.

Then on the 21st, one second before your bid, bidder 5640 entered his bid. He only entered one bid. His bid was for $169.99. It recorded his bid as $149.99, which tied the leading bid, but then recorded the same bid again as $169.99 because that was his max bid. But when he placed the bid, it had already lost to 2070's previous bid (and ultimately winning bid).

So once 5640 bid $169.99, the next listed bid is automatically 2070's bid of $172.99, placed by ebay, because his highest bid was higher than that.

One second later, your bid came in, which drove the price to you max of $190.00. Because 2070's original high max bid was higher than your $190 bid, ebay automatically bid the next bid increment for him, $192.50, which won the auction.

I don't see anything odd about 2070's bidding, as he only entered one bid, which was high enough to win the auction. It is weird that his initial leading bid of $149.99 isn't shown, but instead they show the first bid to bump it up by 5640. I assume they show that to simply show how 2070's bid was the first to supercede another bidder's bid. But the way they list the first couple bids isn't really concerning as we can clearly see that 2070 only put in a single bid on the 20th. So no funny businiess to worry about.

Thanks, this was helpful.