Butt Hurt 0

[MR SigS]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

Well, in the end this is what I have to go with, personally. If I'm ever able to bid in the Big Leagues like you folks (and that's a mammoth "if"), I just won't feel comfortable doing it there if he or anyone in Texas is allowed to do this. I'd rather pay fair market value over proclaimed market value.

 

This has been an education

[DR.X]

when I hear of garbage like this going on, it makes me lose all interest in comics.

[Solar]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

 

For being the guy, you're really serving him up a buffet across 4 different threads right now

[RockMyAmadeus]

Its an open concept thread, if you have any other butt hurt to present, please feel free

 

My butt was hurt the other day when I sat on it doing extreme chair sitting.

 

I'm butt hurt that this hilarious joke didn't even get a " "

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

[Meeley Man]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

 

For being the guy, you're really serving him up a buffet across 4 different threads right now

 

Well, when someone tries to present facts I'll address them. If he wants to go back to just insulting people, I'll resume the line.

[Meeley Man]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

[crassus]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

Well, I think that is the root issue, transparency. Of course, if presented plainly and openly, that the consignor and his agents are manipulating prices just as the financiers prior to 1929 were artificially inflating stocks, well, I could choose to make an informed decision to not buy their stock, or their OA.

[RockMyAmadeus]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

 

No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much.

 

If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes.

 

If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation.

 

Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...?

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...?

[comicdonna]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

Well, I think that is the root issue, transparency. Of course, if presented plainly and openly, that the consignor and his agents are manipulating prices just as the financiers prior to 1929 were artificially inflating stocks, well, I could choose to make an informed decision to not buy their stock, or their OA.

Exactly. If I knew the consigner was bidding, I would fold.

[RockMyAmadeus]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

Well, I think that is the root issue, transparency. Of course, if presented plainly and openly, that the consignor and his agents are manipulating prices just as the financiers prior to 1929 were artificially inflating stocks, well, I could choose to make an informed decision to not buy their stock, or their OA.

 

It is transparent. You know about it going in. It's right there, in their terms. Who doesn't know that Heritage allows consigners to bid on their own items?

[Meeley Man]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

 

No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much.

 

Both are forms of theft. Theft is wrong. Thus, shilling is wrong.

 

If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes.

 

Yes, if you choose to engage with them. Then when you are shilled it is on you. But that still does not mean the act of shilling isn't still unethical and immoral.

 

If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation.

 

Except it is different, because you know that a shill is not the same thing as a reserve or negotiation. And again, it doesn't detract from the immoral and unethical nature of what shilling is. Regardless of what the buyer might know.

 

Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...?

 

Yes, I did. It's why I didn't buy on eBay in those days, before that was changed.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...?

 

Let's see...

 

Because it manipulates a market and artificially inflates prices, making things more expensive than they should (or need to) be.

 

Because if one has no faith in the market to bring them a fair price, one shouldn't sell in the market.

 

Because things like this are often hidden, just as in this case, and can cause harm to people financially.

 

Because an honest businessperson is supposed to work above-board at all times and this is diametrically opposed to that standard.

 

Because honesty and transparency in business matters.

 

Are those reasons enough, or do you need more?

[crassus]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

 

No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much.

 

If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes.

 

If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation.

Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...?

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...?

 

I am addressing the bold above. Part of the problem is that "the most I'm willing to pay" is not shaped in a vacuum but in the norms and trends apparent in the marketplace.

 

If someone wants a SA Kirby FF they are not going to say "well, I'm willing to pay at most $200 and so that is that". They are more likely to say "well, given the market, how much should I expect to have to pay for this to have a chance". If the market is in part a fabrication or an exaggeration as a result of manipulation of the prices than "what I'm willing to pay" is not rooted in any informed reality.

 

I'm guessing that the reason consignors and auction houses don't like declared reserves is because it shows weakness to the market. A declared reserve says "I'm not confident that this piece can sell for what I think its worth or what I want to get out of it". That is the message it sends to me.

 

So what better to have than an undeclared reserve, a secret safety fuse to ensure the appearance of a sale while eliminating the risk of a loss. And hey, while your "agents" are at it, why not give the market a little push.

[Meeley Man]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

 

No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much.

 

If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes.

 

If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation.

Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...?

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...?

 

I am addressing the bold above. Part of the problem is that "the most I'm willing to pay" is not shaped in a vacuum but in the norms and trends apparent in the marketplace.

 

If someone wants a SA Kirby FF they are not going to say "well, I'm willing to pay at most $200 and so that is that". They are more likely to say "well, given the market, how much should I expect to have to pay for this to have a chance". If the market is in part a fabrication or an exaggeration as a result of manipulation of the prices than "what I'm willing to pay" is not rooted in any informed reality.

 

I'm guessing that the reason consignors and auction houses don't like declared reserves is because it shows weakness to the market. A declared reserve says "I'm not confident that this piece can sell for what I think its worth or what I want to get out of it". That is the message it sends to me.

 

So what better to have than an undeclared reserve, a secret safety fuse to ensure the appearance of a sale while eliminating the risk of a loss. And hey, while your "agents" are at it, why not give the market a little push.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

 

No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much.

 

Both are forms of theft. Theft is wrong. Thus, shilling is wrong.

 

If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes.

 

Yes, if you choose to engage with them. Then when you are shilled it is on you. But that still does not mean the act of shilling isn't still unethical and immoral.

 

If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation.

 

Except it is different, because you know that a shill is not the same thing as a reserve or negotiation. And again, it doesn't detract from the immoral and unethical nature of what shilling is. Regardless of what the buyer might know.

 

Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...?

 

Yes, I did. It's why I didn't buy on eBay in those days, before that was changed.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...?

 

Let's see...

 

Because it manipulates a market and artificially inflates prices, making things more expensive than they should (or need to) be.

 

Because if one has no faith in the market to bring them a fair price, one shouldn't sell in the market.

 

Because things like this are often hidden, just as in this case, and can cause harm to people financially.

 

Because an honest businessperson is supposed to work above-board at all times and this is diametrically opposed to that standard.

 

Because honesty and transparency in business matters.

 

Are those reasons enough, or do you need more?

 

No, I wanted your reasons. If those are your reasons, that's all that was asked for.

 

And...again...if you know beforehand that you might be bidding against the house, then NO, it is not theft. You understand that going in, and it's nothing more than a form of negotiation. Comparing it to actual theft is, in that case, beyond reason.

[RockMyAmadeus]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

 

No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much.

 

If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes.

 

If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation.

Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...?

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...?

 

I am addressing the bold above. Part of the problem is that "the most I'm willing to pay" is not shaped in a vacuum but in the norms and trends apparent in the marketplace.

 

If someone wants a SA Kirby FF they are not going to say "well, I'm willing to pay at most $200 and so that is that". They are more likely to say "well, given the market, how much should I expect to have to pay for this to have a chance". If the market is in part a fabrication or an exaggeration as a result of manipulation of the prices than "what I'm willing to pay" is not rooted in any informed reality.

 

I'm guessing that the reason consignors and auction houses don't like declared reserves is because it shows weakness to the market. A declared reserve says "I'm not confident that this piece can sell for what I think its worth or what I want to get out of it". That is the message it sends to me.

 

So what better to have than an undeclared reserve, a secret safety fuse to ensure the appearance of a sale while eliminating the risk of a loss. And hey, while your "agents" are at it, why not give the market a little push.

 

Here's where the argument fails: it's not secret.

 

You know, going in, that you might be bidding against the house. Therefore, to say "well, it manipulates the market!" isn't accurate, any more than someone establishing a BIN that someone else pays is "manipulating the market."

 

If it is UNKNOWN that you might be bidding against the house, that might be one thing....but, in the case of Heritage, it is not.

 

Because, your claim that "the market is based on perception" is accurate...but it works ALL ways, not just in favor of the potential buyer. After all...what does it mean that the market is "based on an exaggeration as a result of manipulation" really mean? After all....if the price is "manipulated", but someone was actually willing to pay that price, even if it was "pushed up"....then that is just as legitimate a "market indicator" as an outright sale....because that price is a real price that someone was really willing to pay...albeit, more than they might have HAD to pay otherwise.

 

I'm certainly not justifying SECRET (that is, ACTUAL) shill bidding. But, where Heritage is concerned, it's not a secret[/i[ therefore, no one has the right to cry "foul!" after the fact.

 

That's the key, and deciding, difference.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Here's a GREAT example.

 

I recently sold a "one of one 9.8 SS" book on eBay. Tough book in 9.8, the only SS 9.8, only 3-4 copies total in 9.8.

 

I auctioned it off, starting at 99 cents.

 

It sold for $79...to a buyer who had already made a $200 offer on it several months earlier, that I had rejected.

 

What was the "real" value of that book?

 

Apparently, "the market" thought it was worth $79.

 

But is that true?

 

No, of course not! The high bidder was willing to pay more for the item, and he and I both knew it.

 

So, in that case, because I misjudged the market at the time, I lost out on a guaranteed $121 additional for the item Not a theoretical $121...an actual offer of someone who was willing to pay that price, which was the market.

 

If I could have, I would have absolutely put in a "reserve bid", so that at least the item would have sold for what the buyer was already willing to pay.

 

But, I didn't, I lost $121 in real money, and that's that. Now, if more get made and come to market, the market will reflect an artificially LOW price for the item, compared to what someone was really WILLING to pay.

[crassus]

There's absolutely no doubt about condition 15

 

http://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-conditions.zx?view=terms

 

It's what we sign up to when we bid.

 

I'm inclined to think that there must surely be a good reason for such a publicly visible and transparent condition.

 

Your "facts" change nothing.

 

Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it:

 

What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

 

. "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front.

 

 

No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

 

No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much.

 

If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes.

 

If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation.

Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...?

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...?

 

I am addressing the bold above. Part of the problem is that "the most I'm willing to pay" is not shaped in a vacuum but in the norms and trends apparent in the marketplace.

 

If someone wants a SA Kirby FF they are not going to say "well, I'm willing to pay at most $200 and so that is that". They are more likely to say "well, given the market, how much should I expect to have to pay for this to have a chance". If the market is in part a fabrication or an exaggeration as a result of manipulation of the prices than "what I'm willing to pay" is not rooted in any informed reality.

 

I'm guessing that the reason consignors and auction houses don't like declared reserves is because it shows weakness to the market. A declared reserve says "I'm not confident that this piece can sell for what I think its worth or what I want to get out of it". That is the message it sends to me.

 

So what better to have than an undeclared reserve, a secret safety fuse to ensure the appearance of a sale while eliminating the risk of a loss. And hey, while your "agents" are at it, why not give the market a little push.

 

Here's where the argument fails: it's not secret.

 

You know, going in, that you might be bidding against the house. Therefore, to say "well, it manipulates the market!" isn't accurate, any more than someone establishing a BIN that someone else pays is "manipulating the market."

 

If it is UNKNOWN that you might be bidding against the house, that might be one thing....but, in the case of Heritage, it is not.

 

Because, your claim that "the market is based on perception" is accurate...but it works ALL ways, not just in favor of the potential buyer. After all...what does it mean that the market is "based on an exaggeration as a result of manipulation" really mean? After all....if the price is "manipulated", but someone was actually willing to pay that price, even if it was "pushed up"....then that is just as legitimate a "market indicator" as an outright sale....because that price is a real price that someone was really willing to pay...albeit, more than they might have HAD to pay otherwise.

 

I'm certainly not justifying SECRET (that is, ACTUAL) shill bidding. But, where Heritage is concerned, it's not a secret[/i[ therefore, no one has the right to cry "foul!" after the fact.

 

That's the key, and deciding, difference.

 

You are assuming a case where the shill bidding still results in a winner other than the consignor or his agents, and then you can say, rightly as a matter of fact, that someone other than the owner was truly willing to pay that price.

 

However, if the auction ends with the consignor himself or his agent winning the item and the auction is recorded as a sale based on that winning bid, whatever the public declaration of policy permitting it in the abstract, the deception is real, because that specific shilled result will not be recorded as a shilled result.

 

Its fine to say that in the case of HA it is not a secret that shilling is permitted, but the problem is that all auction results are recorded the same, and therefore as market data there is no basis to distinguish. So the influence of shilling, if not its existence, is kept secret.

 

 

[Nexus]

Who doesn't know that Heritage allows consigners to bid on their own items?

 

Apparently, this guy:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=48&Number=9112945&Searchpage=1&Main=398822&Words=+swhuck&topic=0&Search=true#Post9112945

 

Heritage absolutely does not allow consignors to bid on their own lots.

 

Sincerely,

 

Stewart Huckaby

mailto:stewarth@ha.com

------------------------------------------

Heritage Auctions

3500 Maple Avenue, 17th Floor

Dallas, Texas 75219-3941

Phone: 1-800-872-6467, x1355

coins.ha.com

 

 

 

 

[drdroom]

Who doesn't know that Heritage allows consigners to bid on their own items?

 

Apparently, this guy:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=48&Number=9112945&Searchpage=1&Main=398822&Words=+swhuck&topic=0&Search=true#Post9112945

 

Heritage absolutely does not allow consignors to bid on their own lots.

 

Sincerely,

 

Stewart Huckaby

mailto:stewarth@ha.com

------------------------------------------

Heritage Auctions

3500 Maple Avenue, 17th Floor

Dallas, Texas 75219-3941

Phone: 1-800-872-6467, x1355

coins.ha.com

 

 

 

 

Versus: "Regardless of the disclosure of his identity, any bid

by a consignor or his agent on a lot consigned by him is deemed to be made in “Good Faith.”

 

Do you think maybe it is time for Heritage to grace us with another of their valuable clarifications?