Butt Hurt 0

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Not assuming that every auction ends with a winning bidder...and yes, when consigners win their own items, that's a problem...BUT, that is mitigated by two factors: 1. it doesn't happen very often, and 2. there was still someone willing to pay *almost* what the item ended for.

 

It's just not as big a deal as it may seem, and there's quite a bit of sour grapes and "it's not fair!" involved for winners hoping to get a "substantially less than they were willing to pay" kind of deal.

[Eric Seffinga]

Another thread on this?

 

 

 

 

[crassus]

Don't worry yourself too much about it, I'm sure none of this will get in the way of business as usual.

[Eric Seffinga]

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

[Terry Doyle]

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

 

Especially when boardies are now having to copy-and-paste their posts onto other threads just to cover all bases.

[crassus]

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.

 

Not assuming that every auction ends with a winning bidder...and yes, when consigners win their own items, that's a problem...BUT, that is mitigated by two factors: 1. it doesn't happen very often, and 2. there was still someone willing to pay *almost* what the item ended for.

 

It's just not as big a deal as it may seem, and there's quite a bit of sour grapes and "it's not fair!" involved for winners hoping to get a "substantially less than they were willing to pay" kind of deal.

 

I realize here that there will always be competing perspectives of buyer v seller, and I am presenting the buyer's perspective.

 

If the auction were to be openly redefined as "here's your chance to own this wonderful piece for the consignor's asking price or more" it would be a bit more transparent, but perhaps not as exciting a marketing vehicle in the hobby.

 

What I don't get from a seller's standpoint is the charade of going to auction, if you are not going to "let it ride" or post openly a reserve, why not just list the big pieces on your website with a "best offer over x gets it" and let the junkies compete via email for the piece- no consigning, no fees, no hassle.

 

But I guess then one wouldn't have the benefit of a big auction house publishing the sales data as if it were real public auction results.

[crassus]

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

 

Absolutely, yes it is, but that is part of the fun...and for the record this is not about MB, its about "Butt Hurt".

[Eric Seffinga]

Exactly. I'm contributing to the original topic by being butt hurt at the the numerous threads... FWIW.

[Doc McCoy]

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

 

Isn't that the point however, to divert attention from the original discussion?

[Terry Doyle]

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

 

Isn't that the point however, to divert attention from the original discussion?

 

Which one was the original discussion . . . I'm losing track?

[Doc McCoy]

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

 

Isn't that the point however, to divert attention from the original discussion?

 

Which one was the original discussion . . . I'm losing track?

 

[Funnyslover]

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

 

Isn't that the point however, to divert attention from the original discussion?

 

Which one was the original discussion . . . I'm losing track?

 

Strictly speaking, that honour may now belong to the " X-Men 2 splash" thread.

 

That said, certainly the most amusing to date is the long running FRIENDS OF HERITAGE SPEAK UP

[OldGuy]

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

 

Leaving work in 15 minutes. Butt hurts after a day sitting at the computer.

 

Go fist yourself!

 

[Mephisto]

Another thread on this?

 

 

 

 

 

Actually my topic was just the general butt hurt seen in his section of the boards and people took the Burkey thing and ran. Don't forget about all the Butt Hurt going on with the CAF deal gone bad thread.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Mephisto

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

Not assuming that every auction ends with a winning bidder...and yes, when consigners win their own items, that's a problem...BUT, that is mitigated by two factors: 1. it doesn't happen very often, and 2. there was still someone willing to pay *almost* what the item ended for.

 

It's just not as big a deal as it may seem, and there's quite a bit of sour grapes and "it's not fair!" involved for winners hoping to get a "substantially less than they were willing to pay" kind of deal.

 

I realize here that there will always be competing perspectives of buyer v seller, and I am presenting the buyer's perspective.

 

If the auction were to be openly redefined as "here's your chance to own this wonderful piece for the consignor's asking price or more" it would be a bit more transparent, but perhaps not as exciting a marketing vehicle in the hobby.

 

What I don't get from a seller's standpoint is the charade of going to auction, if you are not going to "let it ride" or post openly a reserve, why not just list the big pieces on your website with a "best offer over x gets it" and let the junkies compete via email for the piece- no consigning, no fees, no hassle.

 

Because auctions at major auction houses are different beasts, that attract different types of buyers, and different types of behavior from those buyers. There are dynamics within dynamics involved, factors that go far beyond an individual item, or an individual seller.

 

If you understand going in that a consigner can bid on his/her own item..."shill bid", that is...and everyone using Heritage had to acknowledge that they did before they could use Heritage's system...then there's no harm, no foul.

 

You bid what you're willing to pay, and you will never walk away from an auction disappointed with the results.

 

But, of course, people won't do that, and that results in butt hurt.

 

But I guess then one wouldn't have the benefit of a big auction house publishing the sales data as if it were real public auction results.

 

You say this as if the world is awash with "unreal" public auction results.

 

It's not.

[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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eastriver]

 

I have consigned multiple items to Heritage and I am ALMOST sure I remember signing something that stated I would be responsible for purchasing my own items if I bid on my own lots and won.

 

Can anyone back me up?

[zhamlau]

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

 

 

 

Yeah, Again trying to stay out of this whole thing....but this little part is whats really bothering me....who is correct here? From what i read, Stewart is an expert on coins and has worked for Heritage for a very long time, like he isnt an intern. But this statement seems to be 100 percent contradicted by a plain language reading of that number 15 clause.

 

not a fan of inconsistencies like that.

This bothers me, like a lot.

[pinupcartoonguy]

I don't know whether it's been noted before or not, but Comiclink's terms and condition has a phrase similar to Heritage's, but with one big diference:

 

Regardless of the disclosure of his identity, any bid by a consignor or his agent on a lot consigned by him is deemed not to be made in “Good Faith.” Emphasis added.

[Mephisto]

Private email I sent to a boardie, concluded with me stating Heritage is sketchy as it is.

Reply "Yeah fair point."

 

Come on guys, if you've been on these boards for any length of time you really should not be surprised.

 

-Thank You,

 

N.P. Gresham