Anyone think this looks Shilly?

[Speedy-D]

Even if they were scrambled if I had 100 items on consignment and all 100 were being bid on by t***h I would notice that pretty fast and without spending a lot of time 'researching' it.

 

OK and then what would you do, if you are SC?

The point is, as a business, you want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. What do you do if you think a consignor is playing dirty and possibly sullying your name? You stop taking their consignments. You could also block the bidder and relist, but if you don't want to go that far, at least don't deal with them in the future. It's not rocket science to think up some steps that could be taken.

You could also, y'know, talk to the consignor, tell them that's not how you play the game, that you're keeping an eye on them, and give them another chance.

 

But how can they know for sure that a consignor is shilling their own auctions?

I mean, Occam's Razor comes into play here. One shills for a reason. Who stands to benefit? The seller and the consignor. If SC isn't doing it, that leaves the consignor. And know for sure? If a bidder has upwards of 200 bids, only with SC, and all the items are from a single consignor, that sounds like evidence enough. SC would be able to tell, quite easily, if all the items are from a single consignor.

 

Again, it's about the appearance of impropriety. Look at this thread. It's what you get when you have the appearance of impropriety.

[Heronext]

Even if they were scrambled if I had 100 items on consignment and all 100 were being bid on by t***h I would notice that pretty fast and without spending a lot of time 'researching' it.

 

OK and then what would you do, if you are SC?

The point is, as a business, you want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. What do you do if you think a consignor is playing dirty and possibly sullying your name? You stop taking their consignments. You could also block the bidder and relist, but if you don't want to go that far, at least don't deal with them in the future. It's not rocket science to think up some steps that could be taken.

You could also, y'know, talk to the consignor, tell them that's not how you play the game, that you're keeping an eye on them, and give them another chance.

 

But how can they know for sure that a consignor is shilling their own auctions?

I mean, Occam's Razor comes into play here. One shills for a reason. Who stands to benefit? The seller and the consignor. If SC isn't doing it, that leaves the consignor. And know for sure? If a bidder has upwards of 200 bids, only with SC, and all the items are from a single consignor, that sounds like evidence enough. SC would be able to tell, quite easily, if all the items are from a single consignor.

 

Again, it's about the appearance of impropriety. Look at this thread. It's what you get when you have the appearance of impropriety.

 

I guess that's all true, but even though something seems like proof (and probably is), it is not enough proof to send someone to jail, or indict them, and possibly not enough for SC to accuse their consignors of shilling to their face and sever business ties with them.

 

I imagine it's a very sensitive thing for auction houses to deal with, to collectors like us they pay lip service to shill-monitoring, but I bet in reality they all turn a blind eye. I think we should endeavor to understand the reality of this hobby, from the perspectives of all participants, I think it makes us smarter collectors and better able to effect change. I'm not sure here though if change can be effected. If somebody can suggest something I could do, let me know

[1950's war comics]

from the evidence I have gleened from this thread and after evaluating a couple of very dubious posts in its defense, I have easily come to the conclusion I will never bid more than the bare minimum with that company again

 

[Speedy-D]

from the evidence I have gleened from this thread and after evaluating a couple of very dubious posts in its defense, I have easily come to the conclusion I will never bid more than the bare minimum with that company again

This, my friends, is why you need to be honest and vigilant if you're selling on ebay, even/especially if you're taking consignments.

[lizards2]

What I will say, if anyone is interested in one dude's humble opinion, is that I see a lot of people on these boards very quick to accuse people of shilling.

 

Most of the time claimed shilling accusations reference bidding practices that match mine. I bid with a couple different sellers, and do some incremental bidding at times.

 

And if any doofus bids high on stuff I want, with identical bids on all items, I'll gladly bid them all up to the doofus-high bid and stick him with them all for the highest price possible.

 

I'm a jerk that way.

[dupont2005]

At least eBay has some tools available to us to spot suspicious bidding patterns

Seems they go out of their way to hide it actually.

 

 

[ttfitz]

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidderProfile&mode=1&item=201163602479&aid=e***i&eu=&bidtid=1109258069010&view=BUYER&ssPageName=PageBidderProfileViewBids_Buyer_ViewLink

 

199 bids, 100% with the same seller

 

I know it isn't definitive. Could be he just really likes sparkles but I don't like paying for stuff I was shilled on. Just on general principle.

 

Anyone aware of any shenanigans with sparkle?

 

While that bid history looks a little weird, the bidding on the item that was linked from doesn't look like what I generally think of as shill bidding. Yes, he bid up one increment at a time, until it was the winning bid, and then it appears he sniped with a good deal higher (27%) bid, which he only lost out on because he was a few seconds later than someone else sniping (the winning bid appears to be less than a full bid increment higher).

 

Shillers don't really do that, do they?

 

He also has 0 bid retractions. And what does the green vs. black in the "No. of bids" column mean - winning bids?

[lizards2]

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidderProfile&mode=1&item=201163602479&aid=e***i&eu=&bidtid=1109258069010&view=BUYER&ssPageName=PageBidderProfileViewBids_Buyer_ViewLink

 

199 bids, 100% with the same seller

 

I know it isn't definitive. Could be he just really likes sparkles but I don't like paying for stuff I was shilled on. Just on general principle.

 

Anyone aware of any shenanigans with sparkle?

 

While that bid history looks a little weird, the bidding on the item that was linked from doesn't look like what I generally think of as shill bidding. Yes, he bid up one increment at a time, until it was the winning bid, and then it appears he sniped with a good deal higher (27%) bid, which he only lost out on because he was a few seconds later than someone else sniping (the winning bid appears to be less than a full bid increment higher).

 

Shillers don't really do that, do they?

 

He also has 0 bid retractions. And what does the green vs. black in the "No. of bids" column mean - winning bids?

 

I believe you're correct. That actually looks like my bidding pattern, except I would never bid in round amounts on the way up if I was trying to win - I would bid 85.05, 90.04, 95.06, 100.11, etc. He was trying to win the item in the end, with a large bid of 161.01 that jumped way ahead. That particular auction I would have to say 'not a shill'.

 

If I was trying to stick someone, I would bid 84.51, 89.51, 94.51, 99.51.

[Sqeggs]

Even if they were scrambled if I had 100 items on consignment and all 100 were being bid on by t***h I would notice that pretty fast and without spending a lot of time 'researching' it.

 

OK and then what would you do, if you are SC?

The point is, as a business, you want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. What do you do if you think a consignor is playing dirty and possibly sullying your name? You stop taking their consignments. You could also block the bidder and relist, but if you don't want to go that far, at least don't deal with them in the future. It's not rocket science to think up some steps that could be taken.

You could also, y'know, talk to the consignor, tell them that's not how you play the game, that you're keeping an eye on them, and give them another chance.

 

But how can they know for sure that a consignor is shilling their own auctions?

I mean, Occam's Razor comes into play here. One shills for a reason. Who stands to benefit? The seller and the consignor. If SC isn't doing it, that leaves the consignor. And know for sure? If a bidder has upwards of 200 bids, only with SC, and all the items are from a single consignor, that sounds like evidence enough. SC would be able to tell, quite easily, if all the items are from a single consignor.

 

Again, it's about the appearance of impropriety. Look at this thread. It's what you get when you have the appearance of impropriety.

 

I guess that's all true, but even though something seems like proof (and probably is), it is not enough proof to send someone to jail, or indict them, and possibly not enough for SC to accuse their consignors of shilling to their face and sever business ties with them.

 

I imagine it's a very sensitive thing for auction houses to deal with, to collectors like us they pay lip service to shill-monitoring, but I bet in reality they all turn a blind eye. I think we should endeavor to understand the reality of this hobby, from the perspectives of all participants, I think it makes us smarter collectors and better able to effect change. I'm not sure here though if change can be effected. If somebody can suggest something I could do, let me know

 

So having gone on and on about not making false accusations, you are willing to say that the auction houses are lying when they say the monitor their auctions looking for shill bidding?

[JollyComics]

Even if they were scrambled if I had 100 items on consignment and all 100 were being bid on by t***h I would notice that pretty fast and without spending a lot of time 'researching' it.

 

OK and then what would you do, if you are SC?

The point is, as a business, you want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. What do you do if you think a consignor is playing dirty and possibly sullying your name? You stop taking their consignments. You could also block the bidder and relist, but if you don't want to go that far, at least don't deal with them in the future. It's not rocket science to think up some steps that could be taken.

You could also, y'know, talk to the consignor, tell them that's not how you play the game, that you're keeping an eye on them, and give them another chance.

 

But how can they know for sure that a consignor is shilling their own auctions?

I mean, Occam's Razor comes into play here. One shills for a reason. Who stands to benefit? The seller and the consignor. If SC isn't doing it, that leaves the consignor. And know for sure? If a bidder has upwards of 200 bids, only with SC, and all the items are from a single consignor, that sounds like evidence enough. SC would be able to tell, quite easily, if all the items are from a single consignor.

 

Again, it's about the appearance of impropriety. Look at this thread. It's what you get when you have the appearance of impropriety.

 

I guess that's all true, but even though something seems like proof (and probably is), it is not enough proof to send someone to jail, or indict them, and possibly not enough for SC to accuse their consignors of shilling to their face and sever business ties with them.

 

I imagine it's a very sensitive thing for auction houses to deal with, to collectors like us they pay lip service to shill-monitoring, but I bet in reality they all turn a blind eye. I think we should endeavor to understand the reality of this hobby, from the perspectives of all participants, I think it makes us smarter collectors and better able to effect change. I'm not sure here though if change can be effected. If somebody can suggest something I could do, let me know

 

So having gone on and on about not making false accusations, you are willing to say that the auction houses are lying when they say the monitor their auctions looking for shill bidding?

 

All employees are allowed to bid whatever they want to. It is a public for everybody.

 

Why not to be part of the Storage Wars?

 

I always believe this show has been staged in those years. I never believed there are any treasure findings but one guy happened to have Action Comics #1 out of the storage. His big mouth led to LAPD. The book was confiscated. A guy from Comicconnect confirmed it was Nicholas Cage's former book. It was sold for the world record price before it was broken by the recent other similar book. The guy with the big mouth took suicide after a drug bust.

 

I just wondered if A&E had that book that planted inside the storage before the public. Just wondered.

 

I still believe the storages may have comic books. You will never know. Even though, I always believe there are many shillings out there too. It's the dirty business in all over.