Mound City Auctions

[fantastic_four]

Were the reserve rules specifically laid out in the auction terms?

 

Were Bid withdrawal rules specifically laid out in the auction terms?

If a bid after mine is withdrawn, I expect to be able to withdraw mine also.

 

Rob is adamant that yes, they did lay out the terms. Bluechip also verified that Rob told him he could have withdrawn his own bid as well. However, Bluechip said he didn't even realize he could be asked to pay for an auction that hadn't even met reserve, so he had no reason to withdraw his bid. Nor did he even know he could. I don't know how common withdrawing bids is in the larger auction world, but certainly no other comic auctions from the last decade or so let you do it.

[fantastic_four]

I was bored, so I read some of the thread, and the most widely accepted definition of shill bidding is:

Definition: Shill bidding is the act of bidding on your own auction against other bidders in order to raise the price at which your item will eventually sell.

Given that the auction house did bid on (or bid for) someone to raise the price that marvel 1 sold for, seems to clearly meet the definition of shill bidding... all I have to say (thumbs u

 

I tend to agree, it does meet the popular definition of shilling. Rob from Mound City's retort was that it doesn't meet the legal definition of shilling. We raked Heritage over the coals for auto-bumping their auctions to the reserve amount and we called that shilling as well.

[G.A.tor]

I was bored, so I read some of the thread, and the most widely accepted definition of shill bidding is:

Definition: Shill bidding is the act of bidding on your own auction against other bidders in order to raise the price at which your item will eventually sell.

Given that the auction house did bid on (or bid for) someone to raise the price that marvel 1 sold for, seems to clearly meet the definition of shill bidding... all I have to say (thumbs u

 

I tend to agree, it does meet the popular definition of shilling. Rob from Mound City's retort was that it doesn't meet the legal definition of shilling. We raked Heritage over the coals for auto-bumping their auctions to the reserve amount and we called that shilling as well.

I , of course, made no reference to "legal" or not (there are lots of things that are "legal" but are still considered "wrong")... just wanted to point out that to the comic collecting community as a whole, the majority would consider that action (from 3 years ago), to be shill bidding...

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Their argument should be that advancing the reserve is not "bidding", although unless there was clear indication online that "live" bidding was no longer taking place and that the auctioneer was manually advancing the reserve ....

 

 

[Prince Namor]

If there were multiple competing bids via internet bidding or genuine in house bidders the bid would advance without the assistance of the auction house. If there were no other bidders aside from the OP, then the bid would stop. At that point, the owner would either have a no sale or decide if the true high bid was acceptable.

 

The iCollector auction site probably gave Mound City no built-in way to determine what that high bid was for the owner to even determine if it was acceptable.

 

Where do you get this? Why would any auction house use a sight that doesn't tell them what bids are in?

[Prince Namor]

Your point is moot.

 

Not when you are philosophically discussing morals and ethics.

 

And not nearly as moot as bringing up the term shill bidding in this discussion when the item was not going to sell anyway. It had not met reserve.

 

It's similar to shill bidding but it's not shill bidding.

 

I was bored, so I read some of the thread, and the most widely accepted definition of shill bidding is:

Definition: Shill bidding is the act of bidding on your own auction against other bidders in order to raise the price at which your item will eventually sell.

Given that the auction house did bid on (or bid for) someone to raise the price that marvel 1 sold for, seems to clearly meet the definition of shill bidding... all I have to say (thumbs u

 

+1

Despite multiple pages of them denying they did anything wrong (by law), which may be true, the INTENT is very transparent....

 

[fantastic_four]

If there were multiple competing bids via internet bidding or genuine in house bidders the bid would advance without the assistance of the auction house. If there were no other bidders aside from the OP, then the bid would stop. At that point, the owner would either have a no sale or decide if the true high bid was acceptable.

 

The iCollector auction site probably gave Mound City no built-in way to determine what that high bid was for the owner to even determine if it was acceptable.

 

Where do you get this? Why would any auction house use a sight that doesn't tell them what bids are in?

 

Educated guess. What other reason would Rob's wife have had to bid over and over and over to discover Bluechip's bid? If she were able to see it to begin with, that exercise wouldn't have been necessary.

 

As to why Mound City would use auction software that forced them to bid themselves to discover high bids and not see bids themselves...dunno. Maybe it was their first time using software like that and it didn't occur to them until they already had the auction going. I can see why an auction site like iCollector wouldn't want anyone to see the bids of bidders. I've always felt like I should have a right for my bids to be private so that an auction company can't engage in shilling shenanigans.

[ft88]

So I think I have it figured out.

 

The wifes bid can be withdrawn as per prior agreement

bluechip could have withdrawn his bid as well but either didn't because he couldn't do it using the online system.

MCA asks consigner if he will reduce the reserve to the bid put in by bluechip (after wife withdrew the last bid)

MCA says he could have withdrawn his bid but then backs out and says he couldn't have. (according to bluechip)

MCA stands by the law that once an auction is closed you can't back out.

 

MCA then forces bluechip to honor the auction by holding prior payments and not distributing books paid for from previous orders.

 

So my question for MCA is: Did bluechip have the opportunity to withdraw his bid? Was he notified of that option and did the online capacity allow him operationally to do so?

 

Did MCA hold back bluechips paid for comics to force this resolution? Will bluechip provide any copied emails that show MCA did that?

 

If I were MCA, regardless of the law and regardless of the likely insults/heated argument thrown back and forth, I would make this right by simply offering to purchase the MC 1 for the asking price. Likely MCA would get 90% of the $$$ back anyway and its an easy public relations fix.

 

I think MCA junior said that he can't please everybody. I'm not sure there is a single defender of what happened here. Maybe Vintage Comics but he seems to be enjoying the philosophical debate of ethics.

 

 

[VintageComics]

What does posting girly pics have to do with someone being sneaky and taking money from a bidder's pocket?

 

What does that picture you posted have to do with what I wrote? Nothing, that's what.

 

 

 

Sure it does. All I see is spin from you. Is that your thing?

 

You're not fooling anybody.

 

Please explain what I'm spinning and who and I'm trying to fool?

 

 

 

Nice try.

 

Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

 

Please don't attempt to highjack this thread. It's very disrespectful. Again, you're not fooling anybody.

 

How can I be highjacking the thread when you first posted the spin picture?

 

Since this is not a win/lose discussion and the fact that you see this as a "win/lose" scenario speaks volumes. Even bluechip, the person who initially started the discussion sees more to the discussion than you do.

 

I personally don't have anything to gain or lose by participating in the discussion since I don't sell through Mound City and I haven't bought anything from them in almost 4 years - the one and only time I bought something through them, so I don't have an agenda here.

 

I started the discussion in this thread by wanting to flesh out what happened with details before condemning anyone publicly because that is a reasonable position to take for any discussion. I also clearly explained that I did it because I personally knew those involved and didn't consider them dishonest.

 

I then decided that based on what I'd read that I disagreed with the practice they used to reach the reserve (although through the discussion everyone eventually understood better how and why they were doing it) and that the strong language that was used was not OK in a business transaction.

 

To me that is a lot more productive than calling people names and taking pot shots at posters.

 

I'm known around these parts as the local, barstool pontificating, hippy relativist, so welcome to my barstool pontificating hippy relativity discussion.

 

[seanfingh]

hippy relativist

 

[VintageComics]

I was bored, so I read some of the thread, and the most widely accepted definition of shill bidding is:

Definition: Shill bidding is the act of bidding on your own auction against other bidders in order to raise the price at which your item will eventually sell.

Given that the auction house did bid on (or bid for) someone to raise the price that marvel 1 sold for, seems to clearly meet the definition of shill bidding... all I have to say (thumbs u

 

I tend to agree, it does meet the popular definition of shilling. Rob from Mound City's retort was that it doesn't meet the legal definition of shilling. We raked Heritage over the coals for auto-bumping their auctions to the reserve amount and we called that shilling as well.

I , of course, made no reference to "legal" or not (there are lots of things that are "legal" but are still considered "wrong")... just wanted to point out that to the comic collecting community as a whole, the majority would consider that action (from 3 years ago), to be shill bidding...

 

Their argument should be that advancing the reserve is not "bidding", although unless there was clear indication online that "live" bidding was no longer taking place and that the auctioneer was manually advancing the reserve ....

 

 

That's how I took it as well.

 

I assume that because the house would not raise a bid if reserve was hit it didn't fall into the legal definition of shill bid (which is what I was referencing, because Stu (or whoever the new shill is) was talking about it being legal or illegal to shill auctions) although it does meet our comic collector definition of shill bidding (someone raising bids with no intention to win).

 

 

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

it does meet our comic collector definition of shill bidding (someone raising bids with no intention to win).

 

 

Which is what I posted last night. I'm glad to see you come around to my all of our way of thinking.

 

So, if that quote of your's is the whole problem in a nutshell..... What more is there to discuss about MCA? It appears they have cut and run from this thread. Which is probably the smartest move they have made yet.

[LetThereBeComics-migration]

I was bored, so I read some of the thread, and the most widely accepted definition of shill bidding is:

Definition: Shill bidding is the act of bidding on your own auction against other bidders in order to raise the price at which your item will eventually sell.

Given that the auction house did bid on (or bid for) someone to raise the price that marvel 1 sold for, seems to clearly meet the definition of shill bidding... all I have to say (thumbs u

 

I tend to agree, it does meet the popular definition of shilling. Rob from Mound City's retort was that it doesn't meet the legal definition of shilling. We raked Heritage over the coals for auto-bumping their auctions to the reserve amount and we called that shilling as well.

I , of course, made no reference to "legal" or not (there are lots of things that are "legal" but are still considered "wrong")... just wanted to point out that to the comic collecting community as a whole, the majority would consider that action (from 3 years ago), to be shill bidding...

 

Their argument should be that advancing the reserve is not "bidding", although unless there was clear indication online that "live" bidding was no longer taking place and that the auctioneer was manually advancing the reserve ....

 

 

That's how I took it as well.

 

I assume that because the house would not raise a bid if reserve was hit it didn't fall into the legal definition of shill bid (which is what I was referencing, because Stu (or whoever the new shill is) was talking about it being legal or illegal to shill auctions) although it does meet our comic collector definition of shill bidding (someone raising bids with no intention to win).

 

 

HulkSmash isn't a shill and I didn't say anything about shill bidding. I was the one confused by your "a married man having pics of hot chicks is immoral" analogy.

[VintageComics]

HulkSmash isn't a shill and I didn't say anything about shill bidding. I was the one confused by your "a married man having pics of hot chicks is immoral" analogy.

 

I replied to this post from memory:

 

You mean you're legally allowed to shill bid your own auctions but you don't? What's this world coming to?

 

I know he's not a shill.

 

(thumbs u

 

it does meet our comic collector definition of shill bidding (someone raising bids with no intention to win).

 

 

Which is what I posted last night. I'm glad to see you come around to my all of our way of thinking.

 

I have never agreed with shill bidding being OK so I didn't "come around" to your way of thinking.. I just wanted to know more about what happened because I felt that not enough detail was known about the process.

 

 

So, if that quote of your's is the whole problem in a nutshell..... What more is there to discuss about MCA? It appears they have cut and run from this thread. Which is probably the smartest move they have made yet.

 

Because public discussions end when all people involved are satisfied, not when one person says it's over. Some people want more detail than just a carpet bomb or a good grenade thrown at the subject matter.

 

There has been some amazing stuff that has come out of this discussion, and I think all of it was positive.

 

A quick " you" drive by wouldn't have amounted to much.

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

 

There has been some amazing stuff that has come out of this discussion, and I think all of it was positive.

 

Not for MCA.

[VintageComics]

 

There has been some amazing stuff that has come out of this discussion, and I think all of it was positive.

 

Not for MCA.

 

Naw, even for them.

 

All things work for good, IMO.

 

 

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

 

There has been some amazing stuff that has come out of this discussion, and I think all of it was positive.

 

Not for MCA.

 

Naw, even for them.

 

All things work for good, IMO.

 

 

I guess if MCA were trying to convince everyone that's read this thread, to never buy a comic from them, then they are a

[LetThereBeComics-migration]

HulkSmash isn't a shill and I didn't say anything about shill bidding. I was the one confused by your "a married man having pics of hot chicks is immoral" analogy.

 

I replied to this post from memory:

 

You mean you're legally allowed to shill bid your own auctions but you don't? What's this world coming to?

 

I know he's not a shill.

 

(thumbs u

 

Oh, I get it, April Fools!

There's no way my quote above (referencing Mycomicshop being in Texas) equates to "it didn't fall into the legal definition of shill bid (which is what I was referencing, because Stu (or whoever the new shill is) was talking about it being legal or illegal to shill auctions)". You are a very confused hippy.

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

HulkSmash isn't a shill and I didn't say anything about shill bidding. I was the one confused by your "a married man having pics of hot chicks is immoral" analogy.

 

I replied to this post from memory:

 

You mean you're legally allowed to shill bid your own auctions but you don't? What's this world coming to?

 

I know he's not a shill.

 

(thumbs u

 

Oh, I get it, April Fools!

There's no way my quote above (referencing Mycomicshop being in Texas) equates to "it didn't fall into the legal definition of shill bid (which is what I was referencing, because Stu (or whoever the new shill is) was talking about it being legal or illegal to shill auctions)". You are a very confused hippy.

 

You both just made Hulk head hurt.

[VintageComics]

HulkSmash isn't a shill and I didn't say anything about shill bidding. I was the one confused by your "a married man having pics of hot chicks is immoral" analogy.

 

I replied to this post from memory:

 

You mean you're legally allowed to shill bid your own auctions but you don't? What's this world coming to?

 

I know he's not a shill.

 

(thumbs u

 

Oh, I get it, April Fools!

There's no way my quote above (referencing Mycomicshop being in Texas) equates to "it didn't fall into the legal definition of shill bid (which is what I was referencing, because Stu (or whoever the new shill is) was talking about it being legal or illegal to shill auctions)". You are a very confused hippy.

 

"Saying "legally allowed to shill bid" is a misnomer, which is what I was referencing.

 

Since shilling is illegal, you can't be legally allowed to shill bid.

 

 

Nevermind. I've said enough in this thread.