1969 PSA 9 pop 1/1
theBobs
Posts: 1,136 ✭✭
Let the games begin...
What expectations to the 1969 experts have on this card?
Also, notice who the seller is? Where you getting all of the cards Z? Remember, you may want your soul back someday... Of course, you do sell most things -- cards, rights to your daughter's hand in marriage, soul, etc.
What expectations to the 1969 experts have on this card?
Also, notice who the seller is? Where you getting all of the cards Z? Remember, you may want your soul back someday... Of course, you do sell most things -- cards, rights to your daughter's hand in marriage, soul, etc.
Where have you gone Dave Vargha
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
0
Comments
Ron
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
<< <i>Unfortunately, I will probably end up in some sort of agreement that is going to prevent me from bidding on it. >>
What type of agreement? I recall some discussions of buy agreements a few months ago for a different set. Just curious if the 1969 collectors have anything set up like this.
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
There is no formal set-up. However, I treat fellow 1969 collectors as colleagues, not competitors. If any of them contacts me and asks me to refrain from bidding on a certain card, then I do in return for the same courtesy on a different item. Unfortunately, I have gotten myself in situations where I could hardly bid on anything! Some sellers have picked up on this and now contact several of the 1969 collectors directly. Nevertheless, it is also true that I routinely pass on PSA 8's or 9's that I need due to poor eye appeal.
Ron
Us in the 1965 group are aware of each other as well, and on occassion I will back off of bidding if a see a familiar name as high bidder. I don't believe we have ever formalized any agreements to specifically not bid on a particular card. With one or two exceptions, the 1965 collectors seem to be pretty modest in their bidding although 9s are amazingly strong right now.
I completely agree with viewing fellow set collectors as colleagues, not competitors. I think this is very important.
All that being said, I would hope that a 1/1 PSA 9 card would have "competitive" bidding.
Brian
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
Alliances work fairly well even with PSA 9; 1 of 1 pops. You simply agree to pass in exchange for the same courtesy when the next 1/1 comes along. Of course if the Dow continues its decent into oblivion, all of this will mean very little.
Ron
I understand that the agreements are simple, but I am also for a competitive market place. What if next time never comes?
<< <i>in exchange for the same courtesy when the next 1/1 comes along >>
Plus one bidder from outside the agreement could really change the end result.
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
Regards,
Alan
<< <i>this card will go between $65 to $95 if bidding is competitive. >>
Looks as if the bidding is uber-competitive, already at $65.00 with 6 days left. On a 1/1 card, I'd imagine the market is efficient all alliances aside.
On a side note, I have reach alliance with Canada -- I will not be invading the country (unless I need the tree's or a vending run of 1965 Topps is discovered
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
"If I ever decided to do a book, I've already got the title-The Bases Were Loaded and So Was I"-Jim Fregosi
Zardoz is making vacation plans as we speak!
RayB69Topps
PSA 9's are much tougher - they only show up a few at a time and the people bidding have more cash to spend than the PSA 8 crowd. It seems like the farther the Dow and Nasdaq fall, the more people are putting their money into graded cards...
I find myself making more deals off of eBay because there are too many wild cards lately.
Sets - 1970, 1971 and 1972
Always looking for 1972 O-PEE-CHEE Baseball in PSA 9 or 10!
lynnfrank@earthlink.net
outerbankyank on eBay!
<< <i>Maybe Zardoz will get a "true market" price >>
It looks like he will, despite OPEC.
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
And where is the minister of mirth and amuesment himself? His whole thread is about his card, and he is silent! Only a Burger run would warrant his abscence. ZARDOZ, stand and be counted...jay
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
And express my outrage at the vile conspiracy being waged against me by the 1969 cartel to fix the price at the lowest possible level?
Shades of OPEC, shades of DeBeers and their diamonds, shades of cable TV rates, and I could go on.
No Jay, I have chosen to take the high road and remain silent in the full knowledge that I represent truth, justice, and the American way where free enterprise, the open market, a market free of restraints and manipulations by scheming individuals will triumph over their wicked plots. A market that will bask in the sunlight, where children can play without fear, where the elderly and infirm will be cared for, where hunger and poverty just do not exist, this is my dream and for that reason, I am without comment
How do people feel when the dealers get together and collude to keep prices hi? By shilling each others auctions, or simply refusing to sell cards below artifically high prices? Does it piss anyone off? It's collusion, the same as creating syndicates to artifically keep bidding down.
I'm a little biased, as a seller and someone who used to run auctions via e-mail of 1000+ lots/week (mostly off grade vintage). There was one group of vintage collectors who started to collude - one even went to far to ask me to change their groups bidder numbers to make it easier for them to avoid bidding on each others lots...
All that I'm saying is anyone who's participating in a syndicate can't complain if they're being artifically run up at auctions...
The funny thing about the 1951 Bowman collectors is that we all are very competitive and have never been helpful in setting up alliances or gentlemen's agreements not to bid a card up. Nonetheless, once we already have a particular card, we seem to be very helpful when another example becomes available that someone needs; whether from our personal collections or elsewhere.
If a few friends divide up auctions, and agrere to defer to others, they don't represent a monopoly, and there are many many more who are not in the monopoly. It just prevents the price from going to bizarre levels that two desparate collectors can bring an auction to. It doesn't prevent a fair market price which will still be set by the #3 bidder.
With shill bidding, two dealers or any other two people for that matter can make a collector pay much more than market price. And it is particularly bad when the shill bidder doesn't go through with the purchase. I say this as both a buyer and a seller on ebay.
You are also correct on how such an arrangement can ultimately bite one of the colluding members in the rear should they choose to sell down the road.
"What!
And express my outrage at the vile conspiracy being waged against me by the 1969 cartel to fix the price at the lowest possible level?
Shades of OPEC, shades of DeBeers and their diamonds, shades of cable TV rates, and I could go on.
No Jay, I have chosen to take the high road and remain silent in the full knowledge that I represent truth, justice, and the American way where free enterprise, the open market, a market free of restraints and manipulations by scheming individuals will triumph over their wicked plots. A market that will bask in the sunlight, where children can play without fear, where the elderly and infirm will be cared for, where hunger and poverty just do not exist, this is my dream and for that reason, I am without comment "
ZARDOZ if this is your version of "no comment" I'd hate to see you get on a roll
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
<< <i>I have no objection to a group of dealers who won't sell below a certain price, but that is different than shill bidding. It is much more like a reserve, which is perfectly legitimate. >>
Not really - it's still a form of price fixing. Like Coke & Pepsi getting together and saying "we're not going to sell soda under $1/can." Yes, it's baseball cards, and there's a huge difference in scale, but the concept is the same.
<< <i>If a few friends divide up auctions, and agrere to defer to others, they don't represent a monopoly, and there are many many more who are not in the monopoly. It just prevents the price from going to bizarre levels that two desparate collectors can bring an auction to. It doesn't prevent a fair market price which will still be set by the #3 bidder. >>
Just because they're not successful doesn't mean it's not collusion. It is illegal in a technical term, but practically is not enforced.
<< <i>All this collusion may seem like a great idea and real party time when they're buying, but eventually one of them will want to sell off part of their collection. I don't think they'll find the collusion very funny then. >>
This is the crux of my point - people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Buyers want to buy items as cheap as possible, and sellers want to sell for the most. But what happens when they reverse roles?
Why?....two reasons.
1.) "the golden rule"....whenever I sell a card...I hope there isnt a pre-determined "bidding schedule" on the card I have up for auction.
2.) "the random collector factor" example: say two (or more) collectors decide that one will hold off and just the other guy will bid on the card to get a really great price (the favor of course to be repaid at a later date). Well...that low ball bid gets sniped by some "random collector" for 50 cents higher. Guess what..neither of the collectors wins the card and each of them in reality would of paid more than the random guy sniped it for!
I agree Waitill may have put it best...
<< <i>All this collusion may seem like a great idea and real party time when they're buying, but eventually one of them will want to sell off part of their collection. I don't think they'll find the collusion very funny then. >>
John
#3 Jay would yell at me.
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
Congratulations on your Bando card! Obviously, the card will do much better than I expected. I'll join gaspipe26 and pass on this card as well.
Ron
Jay-
You sure are right about that !!
John
Not really - it's still a form of price fixing. Like Coke & Pepsi getting together and saying "we're not going to sell soda under $1/can."
I disagree. Coke & Pepsi, as the #1 and #2 sellers in the soft drink market, clearly control the market. Collusion between those two powerhouses to fix prices would constitute an oligopoly and be illegal.
On the other hand, agreements by a few collectors of PSA 9 commons to not bid hardly constitutes an oligopoly. There is no way two or five or even 10 of them could possibly depress the price. There are way too many interested collectors for such agreement among a few to have any depressing effect on price.
I think the current price of the Bando card proves my point. Astute collectors who may be part of the agreement have seen the price exceed their maximum level. The price is above what "OPEC" is willing to pay. "OPEC" knows other oil perhaps exists in ungraded form and they are patient.
I enjoy watching '63 collectors bid up PSA 8 commons, pop. 5-10, above $100 (5x SMR) on a regular basis. One recent pop. 5 went to $203. All it took is for two bidders to snipe at the last second with a "bet ya can't top this insane bid" price.
For your point to be valid in an ebay auction, the agreement would have to be between every potential bidder, save one. Then that one lucky stiff gets a cheap card, absent a reserve or high opening bid.
Sorry but I must disagree:
The definition of collusion is as follows:
Collude- Conspire,plot
Collusion- secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose.
No matter the number of buyers or potential buyers if you have an agreement not to bid against each other or "divy up" auctions is not legal or certainly is deceitful...
Granted I am sure some dealers Shill each other's auctions but 2 wrongs do not make a right...
Furthermore , for those of you who have "agreements" I certainly would not put them in a public forum such as this... I doubt if anything could happen but you never know ....
Collusion in and of itself is not prima facie evidence of illegal activity. Agreement to not bid is a smart move on the part of astute buyers. It is not deceit, either. Especially now that it's been posted. There is nothing wrong with it unless those who agree CONTROL the market. Clearly, Mitochondria and his pals don't control the market for PSA 9 1969's.
No one can force bidders to bid on cards. I personally choose to wait until more commons have been graded than to bid an insanely high price on cards. I have spoken with many other collectors who do the same. Have we colluded? [Yes.] Is that illegal? [No.]
This is actually a very good thread. Reasonable people may disagree. All it proves is some people's opinions are wrong.
Your right. For now on, if someone does not want me bidding on a card that they either A) own,
Don't make it public!!!
Ron
I am sure if you emailed Ebay and asked them this question and or/ this thread ... They would have a problem with it and find the practice decietful... Whether you bid on a card is your own right... However, when you agree with other collectors not to bid against each other you are plotting or conspiring to keep prices low and this if I am not a lawyer and do not know the law but I am sure EBAY would feel that it in some way shape or form violates their rules (or they would change them) and hence is decietful .... COULD THEY PROVE IT? Doubtful... Unless they had it in writting ....