On an ethical level, I agree with Mark... It just sucks!
On a legal level, I believe you'd be on shakey ground; One one hand, you're willing to back your bids with cash and take posession of the item so it's NOT shill bidding..... On the other hand, Mark's definition of collusion (almost verbatim from Webster's) nails you to the cross!
I don't believe either you or the consignor would have a case against each other for non-compliance, in ANY court in the land, but the other bidder (Laura in this hypothetical case) might have a strong case against both of you, depending on the judge, and the specifics of the case.
I do believe that it is unethical to solicit a kickback from a consignor.
I also believe that the consignors to auctions are entitled to fair market value for their items, as the auction company is able to provide their customers.
Short sighted auction purchasers may see $$ by collusion, but the long term effect is only having the most common coins to bid on.
I further believe that interested collectors should always bid their max for items up for auction, of course based on their current financial situation. No participant can know, for sure, someone else's action at the exact time of sale. The other participant may get cold feet, may have spent too much, may have lost his place, whatever........
Bid up to your max and no one will be hurt. No consignors, no self doubts.
If this is strictly a financial decision and has nothing to do with a collection, then acting within the law to make money is perfectly acceptable. Just remember COLLUSION IS ILLEGAL.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
Comments
On a legal level, I believe you'd be on shakey ground;
One one hand, you're willing to back your bids with cash and take posession of the item so it's NOT shill bidding.....
On the other hand, Mark's definition of collusion (almost verbatim from Webster's) nails you to the cross!
I don't believe either you or the consignor would have a case against each other for non-compliance, in ANY court in the land, but the other bidder (Laura in this hypothetical case) might have a strong case against both of you, depending on the judge, and the specifics of the case.
(edited for typos)
___________________________
click to email me
ronsrarecoin.com
ebay auctions for ronsrarecoin-com
I also believe that the consignors to auctions are entitled to fair market value for their items, as the auction company is able to provide their customers.
Short sighted auction purchasers may see $$ by collusion, but the long term effect is only having the most common coins to bid on.
I further believe that interested collectors should always bid their max for items up for auction, of course based on their current financial situation. No participant can know, for sure, someone else's action at the exact time of sale. The other participant may get cold feet, may have spent too much, may have lost his place, whatever........
Bid up to your max and no one will be hurt. No consignors, no self doubts.
If this is strictly a financial decision and has nothing to do with a collection, then acting within the law to make money is perfectly acceptable. Just remember COLLUSION IS ILLEGAL.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Or do you know of this actually happening at one or more occasions in the past?
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana