<< <i>From collecting 101, an item is only "worth" as much as someone is willing to pay for it. Although, strikingly similar practices are often used by major auction houses and in certain cases these companies are enabled by grading companies in their efforts keep these machinations quit. I seem to recall a thread, but perhaps it was just a bad dream >>
See above post for recognition of collecting 101...
When you get into "quirky" items (one of a kind, low number produced, etc which dont fall into the "card" catagory), its tough to put a value on certain items since only certain collectors will even think about bidding on them.
If the item hovers at a low price, people will jump in just because. No reasoning. Just because.
Items like this fall into the catagory of people that would normally collect stadium chairs, or pennants, or maybe even game used memorabilia. Or just anything.
Ok let be specific....what is this flag worth? Worth eh?? I dont know. $200, ? but someone will probally have to mysteriously pay $500. Please never collect what I do. Its a money losing venture anyways.
When you plan on selling? Since theres no guides who will know in 10 years what it sold for today? A small pop tracks but generally people dont.
What you call "protecting your investment" I call unethical. It's shill bidding whether you do it yourself or get others to do it for you. If you're not willing to sell something for less than a certain amount, make that your starting bid or BIN price and if it sells great, if not, you've lost nothing. Honesty in Ebaying is the best policy, always.
I don't know what to say, if you didn't bid and the item closed higher than what you paid there is a real demand and thus a "real" value. If you are creating an artificial demand, don't sweat it because in essence the same practice may well have been applied to the sale in which your item was won. It's all good, if everyone else is doing it how can it be wrong?
I don't consider it "bidding up" the item...I will bid an amount that I consider a great deal for future profits and HOPE to win it...If i win, it also allows me to compare the item to what I already own and gives you a better idea of what PSA looks for when grading that particular card.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Anyone want to guess? Want to look it up and see it's BV in a guide? Guess again.
Even though my thinking is lame...it isn't shill bidding..it isn't overgrading....it isn't unethical...
It's value is of course what a buyer is willing to pay for it, but if you think that if one is available on the auction circuit right now( and it is) and I don't care what it goes for or if you think my flag's value is not affected by what it closes at ... >>
1) Book value is a "guide", not actual market price
2) In my opinion, it is unethical.
3) If it's a part of your collection and have no intention parting ways anytime soon, you shouldn't be concerned about the fluctuations in price.
Unless it's a rare and unique item worth millions and you have to adjust your insurance policy...
But again, that's just my opinion.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I do only if I think i is worth it. A low pop PSA 7 went up the other night where the cards has sold between 200-455 in last year, I have one, and bought this one for 175$. A pSA 6 sold last night for 100$ and I put the 7 up for 275$ We'll see what happenes.
I have never sold on ebay, but I do buy there. It is my view that what I bid on, when I bid on it, and why I bid on it is pretty much my business. I have never not paid for something I won.
<< <i>I have never sold on ebay, but I do buy there. It is my view that what I bid on, when I bid on it, and why I bid on it is pretty much my business. I have never not paid for something I won. >>
This is true, but if you come on a public message board looking for someone to validate your bidding practices /motives or a kindred soul , then you are pretty much fair game to those who oppose your view.
Sooo.... When we have a post about something that sold out of control, it is really being controlled by a person putting up a "protect your investiment bid?" I have always believed that whatever it sells for is the market...now I see that I am wrong. I wonder how much up bidding is done in Mastro and Goodwin auctions by a payroll employee to make it look good.
In general, these days Auctions benefit the buyer; especially on more common items. There are thousands of listings of similar items; your not going to get a good price on something unless its both rare , in demand AND attracts the attention of at least 2 very interested parties.
This is a common practice, and we're not talking about shill bidding here. When I for one place a bid on an item I already own, it's a price I'd be glad to pay if I won the auction. So we're not talking about making anyone reach deeper into their pockets, or padding those belonging to dealers. If I think winning multiples of a card that I already have will be a good investment down the road, heck yeah I'll try to win it.
Shag I have no problem with what you say you do, the problem was with the OP who said he had no intention of winning.
1. This whole thing could easily turn into a thread proclaiming..."I got shilled!"
2. It's a very slippery slide down the moral path from what Blaze is talking about to ANY ebayer feeling that they should be able to "protect" the value of their item up for sale sans reserve usage.
<< <i>I have never sold on ebay, but I do buy there. It is my view that what I bid on, when I bid on it, and why I bid on it is pretty much my business. I have never not paid for something I won. >>
This is true, but if you come on a public message board looking for someone to validate your bidding practices /motives or a kindred soul , then you are pretty much fair game to those who oppose your view. >>
I believe the OP is doing a service, in that newbees can gain confidence in seeing an experienced collector in the mix.
Not to change the subject, I'll bid on rare items to keep naive sellers from ending a listing -no longer available. Too many Once in a bluemoon items quickly disappear and they're sold off-auction for pennies on the dollar. Usually, I won't buy it, not because I no want but in a few days it's price would be far over my head. I guess it could also be unethical, but it just feels right.
If he gets "stuck" winning an item, then he pays for it and now owns two. He's not "shilling" it b/c he's NOT in cahoots with the seller (like an auction employee referenced above).
He's a buyer just like anyone else. His motives are irrelevant. He has a right to make a bid on said item. The fact that he's making a bit in hopes the hammer price ends higher is a risk for someone trying to play the "economics" of low supply items.
Another example: Buyer A is an "expert" on '60s-70s football HOFs. He bids on auction with the SOLE intention of flipping that card for profit (knowing he can based on market conditions). How is this ANY different than what blaze is doing? It's using the "economics" of the market to buy/sell cards.
In my opinion, you guys are unfair in calling him "wrong" --- he can act as a buyer just like anyone else so long as he's willing to pay for it if he wins.
-Tom
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Tom For the most part I agree with your statements except for the following.... This guy is saying he is bidding up the item without the intention to buy. Yes, he will pay for it if he gets "stuck" with the final bid. What he is attempting to do is make another potential buyer pay more because he has overpaid for his item....*thinking* he is protecting his investment.
I dont know if purposely trying to cause someone to pay more for an item is immoral but sketchy at the least....and wrong in my belief. But hey, thats just me
Don't get me wrong, he has every right to bid because he's not breaking any rules.
Personally, I believe the good faith of other bidders is being comprimised.
If his bids were intended to win the item, we wouldn't be having this discussion
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>He's a buyer just like anyone else. His motives are irrelevant. He has a right to make a bid on said item >>
Blindflyer
I'm not gonna give you an ethics lecture - what you believe will not be swayed by anything I have to say.
But, the motive or INTENT of anyone in doing business IS relevant.
Intent in the eyes of the law goes to conspiracy which can land one in jail just as easy as if they had committed a crime in some instances.
In this case the bidder is in "cohoots" with himself - his only intent is to artificially raise the price of an item; that's interferring with the normal flow of an auction.
If this happened to you and I could prove it? And you wound up paying way more for the item than you would've normally? You would be foaming at the mouth - and so would I.
This type of behavior can be rationalized by anyone on this board if they like - but it's unethical and IMO, since the bidder hopes NOT to win the item - is making a FALSE OFFER - which I believe is Fraud.
I also don't see anything at all wrong with blaze bidding on these auctions as long as he does so and is willing to pay for the item should he wind up being the winning bidder. Frankly, I don't see how there can be a conspiracy in this case without the involvement of another willing participant. I think you can argue that his practice of bidding on certain items to "maintain" their perceived value may be shortsighted or even foolish, but it certainly isn't unethical if he has every intention of paying for the auction if he winds up being the winner. After all, "perceived value" is essentially what drives any buyer to bid on an item thinking he/she is getting a "good deal". Just my 2 cents...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I guess I don't view this as an "ethics issue" --- but as an "investment/economics issue"
... Say I owned an authentic painting (one, of say, a series of 10 different paintings) by a famous artist -- and bought it for $1.5m. Two years later, another collector decides to sell another painting from that same series. He's sets an auction price at $400k.
As an INVESTOR with a vested interest in the price/value of each of those10 paintings, I would most certainly look at doing all I can (legally, mind you) to preserve the value of the painting I own. If that means bidding on the other painting in hopes of driving up the price, than so be it.
It comes down to capitalism and economics. I think there is very healthy debate as to whether blaze's strategy makes good economic sense ... but sitting on a soapbox, wronging him, and calling his move "unethical" (and some of you calling it fraud, etc) is ridiculous in my opinion.
People buy and bid against each other for different reasons all the time (to give as a gift, to flip for profit, to invest, to crack and resubmit, to add to registry set, etc). Just b/c one buyer's reason for bidding on an item is different than yours does not make him unethical or wrong. ... so long as he's a buyer on the same playing field as everyone else (i.e. not in cahoots with the seller) ... what is the problem?
-t
EDITED TO ADD: One other thought. The guy who supposedly owns a bunch of unopened '75 Mini cases and slowly "feeds" them to the market over several years ..... that guy does that to ensure the market isn't saturated and thus the values remain high. This is just another example of the "investment/economics" side of the hobby. Based on what you guys are saying, is this guy being unethical for b/c the value of all product is "artificially" high b/c he has so much of it stashed away and thus it not counted in the supply?
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Ebays does have rules pertaining to unwelcome and malicious buying. Though they don't address it specifically - it's the same as placing a bid to run the item up - perhaps not to prevent the sale - but definitely to affect the end price.
Though they don't specifically say so - an ebay representative said that the bidding on an item just to increase it's hammer price without the intent of purchase (whether they will pay for it or not) is malicious.
Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
You're gonna tell me you wouldn't want to hit me with a 2x4?
I'm not directing this at you - but I have a suspicion more people have done this than I care to know about.
It's wrong - the intent is NOT to buy - getting stuck with it and doing the right thing and paying for it is after the fact - before the fact - one never intended to pay - only articifically pump it up.
If someone can't see this? I'm sorry - but it's plain deceitful - the final buyer if not the "pumper" GOT SCREWED, SCREWED, SCREWED.
<< <i>I guess I don't view this as an "ethics issue" --- but as an "investment/economics issue"
... Say I owned an authentic painting (one, of say, a series of 10 different paintings) by a famous artist -- and bought it for $1.5m. Two years later, another collector decides to sell another painting from that same series. He's sets an auction price at $400k.
As an INVESTOR with a vested interest in the price/value of each of those10 paintings, I would most certainly look at doing all I can (legally, mind you) to preserve the value of the painting I own. If that means bidding on the other painting in hopes of driving up the price, than so be it.
It comes down to capitalism and economics. I think there is very healthy debate as to whether blaze's strategy makes good economic sense ... but sitting on a soapbox, wronging him, and calling his move "unethical" (and some of you calling it fraud, etc) is ridiculous in my opinion.
People buy and bid against each other for different reasons all the time (to give as a gift, to flip for profit, to invest, to crack and resubmit, to add to registry set, etc). Just b/c one buyer's reason for bidding on an item is different than yours does not make him unethical or wrong. ... so long as he's a buyer on the same playing field as everyone else (i.e. not in cahoots with the seller) ... what is the problem?
-t
EDITED TO ADD: One other thought. The guy who supposedly owns a bunch of unopened '75 Mini cases and slowly "feeds" them to the market over several years ..... that guy does that to ensure the market isn't saturated and thus the values remain high. This is just another example of the "investment/economics" side of the hobby. Based on what you guys are saying, is this guy being unethical for b/c the value of all product is "artificially" high b/c he has so much of it stashed away and thus it not counted in the supply? >>
This is pure rationalization IMO.
Bottom line - if one bids on an item with NO intent to purchase - they are being deceitful and screwing the the actual buyer.
If this happened to you? I promise all that word salad above would evaporate and the thread would read:
Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
>>
Stone, I'll answer this as well.
Of course I'm not going to like it. I'd much rather have gotten it for $50. But we live in a capitalistic world, man. Read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and your stomach will turn b/c of our country's roots in greed, capitalism, and corporations.
Life isn't fair. But we're not socialist. Investment/economics rule this country. Just gotta accept it.
-t
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
If he gets "stuck" winning an item, then he pays for it and now owns two. He's not "shilling" it b/c he's NOT in cahoots with the seller (like an auction employee referenced above).
>>
True, but the comparison I was trying to make and should have been more clear , is that it's not too far from some one trying to" protect his investment " if he bids on auction items the he has consigned to an auction house.
If the sole purpose of someone bidding on an item is to artificially inflate the value, it's wrong. If someone bids on an item so the a potential winner pays as much as he did, well that's petty and somewhat cheesy.But hey, that just my opinion.
I put low ball bids on items that I don't need or really want for the purpose of flipping for a profit.
Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
>>
Stone, I'll answer this as well.
Of course I'm not going to like it. I'd much rather have gotten it for $50. But we live in a capitalistic world, man. Read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and your stomach will turn b/c of our country's roots in greed, capitalism, and corporations.
Life isn't fair. But we're not socialist. Investment/economics rule this country. Just gotta accept it.
-t >>
Tom
I don't want to get into a flame war with ya over this.
Believe me, I'm quite aware that life isn't fair. Just because capitalism welcomes avarice is no justification for that practice.
I'm conceding people are doing this - I'm conceding that it's impossible to do anything about it - I'll concede that worse things happen in this world - but I will not concede on where my moral compass is pointing - and in this case it's south.
You're a good guy - just like all the members here - but some things fall into the realm of moral absolutes as opposed to the moral "relativism" wrapped up in capitalistic pursuits.
Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
With all due respect, Stone, that is not at all what's being discussed here. On the contrary, blaze is willing to PAY for the auction if he winds up winning it. It's been stated many times, and rightfdully so, that an item or card up for auction on ebay is on;y "worth" what one is willing to pay for it and what the next highest bidder is willing to pay for that same item. Why should blaze be restricted from bidding whatever he wants as long as he's a) willing to pay if he winds up winning and b) he's not in cahoots with the seller? As a collector, blaze has every right to place a bid on an item for whatever reason he chooses. I don't think we'd want a system where we start evaluating the intent of each bidder to see if it's acceptable or not.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
BUT...he is NOT trying to win it. I think that is a major point of this discussion.
That is probably true, but he is willing to pay for it if he does win. How is this any different from a collector who bids $50 on a PSA 9 card with a SMR value of $300, not because he necessarily wants to win it, but only because he wants to flip it and make a profit?
I'm not saying that blaze's strategy is sound, only that he is not being unethical if he has every intention of paying for the item if he wins it and he's not in cahoots with the seller. That's what the free marketplace is all about, IMO.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Following the logic on here, eBay should outlaw all auctions starting at $0.01 and force ALL sellers to list an item at a fixed price and simply offer lower "best offer" options.
This is absurd. Anyone who bids less than the final winning price could be said to "bidding the price up." The logic on here is crazy/scary. If you bid on eBay and NOT pay, that is a different story. Absolutely nothing wrong with placing a "safety" bid if you don't want to see the VALUE of an item you just purchased go down 100%. As long as you pay.
Buying for resell is MUCH different than artificially pumping up a final value. No comparison really.
I'm only using that example because in both cases the bidder is not really wanting to win the auction, but I see your point there. My main point about all of this is that bidding on anything on ebay is not unethical if a) the bidder is willing to PAY for the item should he win the auction and b) the bidder is not in cahoots with the seller. As long as those two requirements are met, who are we to say that someone doesn't have the right to bid on an auction for whatever reason. That isn't what the free market system is about. Blaze has just as much right to bid on an item as anyone else. That's the bottom line here.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Is one really protecting the value of an item by placing "safety" bids? Another one comes along and it sells for what market sets. Those who have overpaid have done nothing to "protect" their investment.
Eventually, in probably MOST cases it will come back to bite them in the a$$ and they will just lose more money. I would hope that is their cost for such skeptical practices.
<< <i> Buying for resell is MUCH different than artificially pumping up a final value. No comparison really.
I'm only using that example because in both cases the bidder is not really wanting to win the auction, but I see your point there. My main point about all of this is that bidding on anything on ebay is not unethical if a) the bidder is willing to PAY for the item should he win the auction and b) the bidder is not in cahoots with the seller. As long as those two requirements are met, who are we to say that someone doesn't have the right to bid on an auction for whatever reason. That isn't what the free market system is about. >>
I absolutely get that point Grote....and agree. I'm just going by exactly what the original poster stated he was doing.
Eventually, in probably MOST cases it will come back to bite them in the a$$ and they will just lose more money.
Exactly! That's why I don't think ANYONE can artificially prop up the pereceived value of an item for any length of time, since said collector needds at least one other bidder to drive the price up in a no reserve auction. Which is why I don't even think that this practice of blaze should ever even be really necessary, as in most cases, items of real value will either a) reach an acceptable market value or b) said item wasn't really as "valuable" as the original buyer thought. As yankeeno stated, such a practice as the one blaze is employing here is either unnecessary or bound to bite him in the behind, eventually.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I don't want to get into a flame war with ya over this.
Believe me, I'm quite aware that life isn't fair. Just because capitalism welcomes avarice is no justification for that practice.
I'm conceding people are doing this - I'm conceding that it's impossible to do anything about it - I'll concede that worse things happen in this world - but I will not concede on where my moral compass is pointing - and in this case it's south.
You're a good guy - just like all the members here - but some things fall into the realm of moral absolutes as opposed to the moral "relativism" wrapped up in capitalistic pursuits.
Now, how bout those Mets! >>
No flame war, Mike. You're a good guy and I respect your opinion.
Everyone has their "moral compass" ---- I just, logically, can't see this any other way than what Grote and I have stated (that simply: "he's a buyer just like everyone else and he can bid as a buyer for whatever reason he wants").
We can agree to disagree ... but I sleep just as sound as the next guy and feel my moral compass is lined up perfectly fine.
Good debate!
-t
-t
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
<< <i>Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
With all due respect, Stone, that is not at all what's being discussed here. On the contrary, blaze is willing to PAY for the auction if he winds up winning it. It's been stated many times, and rightfdully so, that an item or card up for auction on ebay is on;y "worth" what one is willing to pay for it and what the next highest bidder is willing to pay for that same item. Why should blaze be restricted from bidding whatever he wants as long as he's a) willing to pay if he winds up winning and b) he's not in cahoots with the seller? As a collector, blaze has every right to place a bid on an item for whatever reason he chooses. I don't think we'd want a system where we start evaluating the intent of each bidder to see if it's acceptable or not. >>
Grote
As I said to Tom - in essence - I'm not gonna make a blind man see.
Being "willing to pay" is irrelevant if the only reason for bidding is to run up the final hammer.
If ya can't see this? The discussion is over.
That's OK. I'm not calling anyone a crook or anything. And like Tom - we can agree to...
<< <i>I guess I don't view this as an "ethics issue" --- but as an "investment/economics issue"
... Say I owned an authentic painting (one, of say, a series of 10 different paintings) by a famous artist -- and bought it for $1.5m. Two years later, another collector decides to sell another painting from that same series. He's sets an auction price at $400k.
As an INVESTOR with a vested interest in the price/value of each of those10 paintings, I would most certainly look at doing all I can (legally, mind you) to preserve the value of the painting I own. If that means bidding on the other painting in hopes of driving up the price, than so be it.
It comes down to capitalism and economics. I think there is very healthy debate as to whether blaze's strategy makes good economic sense ... but sitting on a soapbox, wronging him, and calling his move "unethical" (and some of you calling it fraud, etc) is ridiculous in my opinion.
People buy and bid against each other for different reasons all the time (to give as a gift, to flip for profit, to invest, to crack and resubmit, to add to registry set, etc). Just b/c one buyer's reason for bidding on an item is different than yours does not make him unethical or wrong. ... so long as he's a buyer on the same playing field as everyone else (i.e. not in cahoots with the seller) ... what is the problem?
-t
EDITED TO ADD: One other thought. The guy who supposedly owns a bunch of unopened '75 Mini cases and slowly "feeds" them to the market over several years ..... that guy does that to ensure the market isn't saturated and thus the values remain high. This is just another example of the "investment/economics" side of the hobby. Based on what you guys are saying, is this guy being unethical for b/c the value of all product is "artificially" high b/c he has so much of it stashed away and thus it not counted in the supply? >>
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!YES!!!!!!!!!!!!YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Could not have( and have not ) stated my feelings properly. I want to make this point again which everyone..and especially Mike....seems to gloss over.
MEMORABILIA IS NOT A VOLUME TRADED COMMODITY. I have stressed as many ways as I thought possible that the price of an item is sensitive to the number of buyers looking to buy it at that moment in time. If I see that centennial flag listed and only 1 buyer is looking at it it WILL NOT SELL FOR IT'S TRUE VALUE. This is not about screwing the eventual buyer. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We can argue about whether 2 buyers vs 5 buyers yields a more "accurate" closing price, but to think that the hypothetical $150 wrapper that sells to the one bidder for $50 means I overpaid for mine...and that if I try to make sure that it goes for an amount approximating the BV that I have concocted in my head( since you would have a hard time finding it in any price guide)... is not screwing anyone. I have sat back and read a bunch of santimonous moralizing. I asked and still ask......WHAT IS THE BOOK VALUE OF THE FLAG?????????? Dan can direct anyonne interested in to a larger version that sold for $6000. If I don't want to see another one listed currently go for $200...that's my perogative and the eventual buyer is not a victim. As has been stated many times, and has cause me to reconsider what I am doing, is to question the economics of what I am doing. I have made this point off-line to a board member that I think is worth clarifying...I do not roam the internet scouring here and there looking for items I own and bid them up. It is an infrequent occurence. But if I am looking at WS programs for example and see a 1944 program ( of which I have 5) and it is nice and would be a nice addition if "I got stuck"....I will bid it up. If I win, then my hard earned money that might have been used on something else goes to the seller of something I already have a bunch of. It's that simple. But I don't want that program being sold on the cheap...cause that could affect the BV ( altho it probably wouldn't since I have al;ready argued that the price guides are crap and voodoo) Please let me apologize in advance if I am being defensive. As one poster said....by bringing this up I need to be prepared for the answer. But what I asked if anyone else does this....and appently no-one else does. That is what I wanted to know. But being lectured about fraud, and about shill bidding and about being un-ethical struck a nerve. And isn't fair.....in my opinion.
<< <i> BUT...he is NOT trying to win it. I think that is a major point of this discussion.
That is probably true, but he is willing to pay for it if he does win. How is this any different from a collector who bids $50 on a PSA 9 card with a SMR value of $300, not because he necessarily wants to win it, but only because he wants to flip it and make a profit?
I'm not saying that blaze's strategy is sound, only that he is not being unethical if he has every intention of paying for the item if he wins it and he's not in cahoots with the seller. That's what the free marketplace is all about, IMO. >>
Again, he WILL pay for it.
But that's NOT his intention - his intention is NOT TO WIN THE ITEM - only run up the price.
Why is this so hard to see? Again - he will pay for it - fine - but he DOESN'T intend to buy it. THE UNDERBIDDER IS GETTING SCREWED.
And trying to buy something as cheap as possible whether to keep or flip has no bearing on this issue what so ever IMO.
So on eBay, stone, in order to really want the item, you have to WIN it? Aren't there degrees of desire, hence, an ultimate top bidder? I don't think anyone on here said they'd be PISSED if they win the item for 70% of their first purchase price.
edit: In essence, you might want 2 copies of a card, but don't want to pay 100% of the first price. What is wrong with trying to get a "good price" for an auction?
<< <i>But being lectured about fraud, and about shill bidding and about being un-ethical struck a nerve. And isn't fair.....in my opinion. >>
Blaze
I don't care what you call these items - I don't care what others call these items. I don't care if it's a Blue Moose for sale.
If you bid on an item - ONLY to run it up - whether you pay for it or not - your INTENT is NOT to get the item only protect the value of YOUR blue moose.
The underbidder has to pay more. That's not fair. You're preventing that person from getting a "buy" and that's just plain bidding interference.
Whether the item is common or uncommon - IMO - is irrelevant to the act.
Nobody is lecturing you - in fact - why did you come here and ask?
If you thinks it's ok - why ask whether others are doing it. What's the difference?
This sounds like one of those dirty little ebay secrets that should've remained just that way - secret.
As I said to Tom - in essence - I'm not gonna make a blind man see.
Being "willing to pay" is irrelevant if the only reason for bidding is to run up the final hammer.
If ya can't see this? The discussion is over.
That's OK. I'm not calling anyone a crook or anything. And like Tom - we can agree to...
mike
Stone,
We obviously have a difference of opinion here, so I agree with Tom, that we can agree to disagree, etc, etc. I assure you, too, that I can see just fine, thank you!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>So on eBay, stone, in order to really want the item, you have to WIN it? Aren't there degrees of desire, hence, an ultimate top bidder? I don't think anyone on here said they'd be PISSED if they win the item for 70% of their first purchase price.
edit: In essence, you might want 2 copies of a card, but don't want to pay 100% of the first price. What is wrong with trying to get a "good price" for an auction? >>
If this is directed at me - I don't understand your question?
What I said is very simple. If someone bids on an item and DOES NOT intend to buy it - only RUN UP THE FINAL PRICE - that's not fair to the underbidder.
The person in this case - who is running up the bid - could wind up being stuck and will honor the act by purchasing it - how valiant of them!
When I buy an item on ebay - I want to believe the competition was fair and that the final price wasn't affected by a bidder who only wanted to run it up to protect book values.
If there's still confusion on this - feel free to PM me - no problem. mike
I can see both sides of the argument - anyway, apropos of nothing, I recently won an item (not a card) for about 250 even - my max bid had been 240 something - I changed my mind and snipe to about 260. Anyhoo, the next lowest bidder was also in the 240s - the one below that, only 100! Ah well, I wish bidder #2 hadn't entered the picture, but I'm happy to get the item period. I imagine, were our roles reversed, the underbidder would feel the same about me... them's the eBay breaks!
Comments
<< <i>From collecting 101, an item is only "worth" as much as someone is willing to pay for it.
Although, strikingly similar practices are often used by major auction houses and in certain cases these companies are enabled by grading companies in their efforts keep these machinations quit. I seem to recall a thread, but perhaps it was just a bad dream >>
See above post for recognition of collecting 101...
When you get into "quirky" items (one of a kind, low number produced, etc which dont fall into the "card" catagory), its tough to put a value on certain items since only certain collectors will even think about bidding on them.
If the item hovers at a low price, people will jump in just because. No reasoning. Just because.
Items like this fall into the catagory of people that would normally collect stadium chairs, or pennants, or maybe even game used memorabilia. Or just anything.
When you plan on selling? Since theres no guides who will know in 10 years what it sold for today? A small pop tracks but generally people dont.
D's: 50P,49S,45D+S,43D,41S,40D,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 241,435,610,654 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Anyone want to guess?
Want to look it up and see it's BV in a guide? Guess again.
Even though my thinking is lame...it isn't shill bidding..it isn't overgrading....it isn't unethical...
It's value is of course what a buyer is willing to pay for it, but if you think that if one is available on the auction circuit right now( and it is) and I don't care what it goes for or if you think my flag's value is not affected by what it closes at ... >>
1) Book value is a "guide", not actual market price
2) In my opinion, it is unethical.
3) If it's a part of your collection and have no intention parting ways anytime soon, you shouldn't be concerned about the fluctuations in price.
Unless it's a rare and unique item worth millions and you have to adjust your insurance policy...
But again, that's just my opinion.
<< <i>
Re-read his original post.
"Am I the only one who bids up items on ebay on items I have in my collection to try to preserve their value?
" >>
On a semi-related note, artificial preservatives are bad for for you.
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>I have never sold on ebay, but I do buy there. It is my view that what I bid on, when I bid on it, and why I bid on it is pretty much my business. I have never not paid for something I won. >>
This is true, but if you come on a public message board looking for someone to validate your bidding practices /motives or a kindred soul , then you are pretty much fair game to those who oppose your view.
My take?
At best what you're tryin to do is like "pissin' up a rope."
At worst what you're tryin to do is unethical at the point where you don't win and knew you were only quasi "shilling" the item for the item's sake.
Either way, not very good IMO.
mike
Shag I have no problem with what you say you do, the problem was with the OP who said he had no intention of winning.
BIG difference.
Steve
1. This whole thing could easily turn into a thread proclaiming..."I got shilled!"
2. It's a very slippery slide down the moral path from what Blaze is talking about to ANY ebayer feeling that they should be able to "protect" the value of their item up for sale sans reserve usage.
mike
<< <i>
<< <i>I have never sold on ebay, but I do buy there. It is my view that what I bid on, when I bid on it, and why I bid on it is pretty much my business. I have never not paid for something I won. >>
This is true, but if you come on a public message board looking for someone to validate your bidding practices /motives or a kindred soul , then you are pretty much fair game to those who oppose your view. >>
Agree 100 %
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
Not to change the subject, I'll bid on rare items to keep naive sellers from ending a listing -no longer available. Too many Once in a bluemoon items quickly disappear and they're sold off-auction for pennies on the dollar. Usually, I won't buy it, not because I no want but in a few days it's price would be far over my head. I guess it could also be unethical, but it just feels right.
He is NOT the seller.
He is a potential buyer.
If he gets "stuck" winning an item, then he pays for it and now owns two. He's not "shilling" it b/c he's NOT in cahoots with the seller (like an auction employee referenced above).
He's a buyer just like anyone else. His motives are irrelevant. He has a right to make a bid on said item. The fact that he's making a bit in hopes the hammer price ends higher is a risk for someone trying to play the "economics" of low supply items.
Another example:
Buyer A is an "expert" on '60s-70s football HOFs. He bids on auction with the SOLE intention of flipping that card for profit (knowing he can based on market conditions). How is this ANY different than what blaze is doing? It's using the "economics" of the market to buy/sell cards.
In my opinion, you guys are unfair in calling him "wrong" --- he can act as a buyer just like anyone else so long as he's willing to pay for it if he wins.
-Tom
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
For the most part I agree with your statements except for the following....
This guy is saying he is bidding up the item without the intention to buy. Yes, he will pay for it if he gets "stuck" with the final bid. What he is attempting to do is make another potential buyer pay more because he has overpaid for his item....*thinking* he is protecting his investment.
I dont know if purposely trying to cause someone to pay more for an item is immoral but sketchy at the least....and wrong in my belief. But hey, thats just me
Personally, I believe the good faith of other bidders is being comprimised.
If his bids were intended to win the item, we wouldn't be having this discussion
<< <i>He's a buyer just like anyone else. His motives are irrelevant. He has a right to make a bid on said item >>
Blindflyer
I'm not gonna give you an ethics lecture - what you believe will not be swayed by anything I have to say.
But, the motive or INTENT of anyone in doing business IS relevant.
Intent in the eyes of the law goes to conspiracy which can land one in jail just as easy as if they had committed a crime in some instances.
In this case the bidder is in "cohoots" with himself - his only intent is to artificially raise the price of an item; that's interferring with the normal flow of an auction.
If this happened to you and I could prove it? And you wound up paying way more for the item than you would've normally? You would be foaming at the mouth - and so would I.
This type of behavior can be rationalized by anyone on this board if they like - but it's unethical and IMO, since the bidder hopes NOT to win the item - is making a FALSE OFFER - which I believe is Fraud.
So, Go Directly to Jail and Do Not Pass Go.
mike
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
... Say I owned an authentic painting (one, of say, a series of 10 different paintings) by a famous artist -- and bought it for $1.5m. Two years later, another collector decides to sell another painting from that same series. He's sets an auction price at $400k.
As an INVESTOR with a vested interest in the price/value of each of those10 paintings, I would most certainly look at doing all I can (legally, mind you) to preserve the value of the painting I own. If that means bidding on the other painting in hopes of driving up the price, than so be it.
It comes down to capitalism and economics. I think there is very healthy debate as to whether blaze's strategy makes good economic sense ... but sitting on a soapbox, wronging him, and calling his move "unethical" (and some of you calling it fraud, etc) is ridiculous in my opinion.
People buy and bid against each other for different reasons all the time (to give as a gift, to flip for profit, to invest, to crack and resubmit, to add to registry set, etc). Just b/c one buyer's reason for bidding on an item is different than yours does not make him unethical or wrong. ... so long as he's a buyer on the same playing field as everyone else (i.e. not in cahoots with the seller) ... what is the problem?
-t
EDITED TO ADD: One other thought. The guy who supposedly owns a bunch of unopened '75 Mini cases and slowly "feeds" them to the market over several years ..... that guy does that to ensure the market isn't saturated and thus the values remain high. This is just another example of the "investment/economics" side of the hobby. Based on what you guys are saying, is this guy being unethical for b/c the value of all product is "artificially" high b/c he has so much of it stashed away and thus it not counted in the supply?
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Though they don't specifically say so - an ebay representative said that the bidding on an item just to increase it's hammer price without the intent of purchase (whether they will pay for it or not) is malicious.
Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
You're gonna tell me you wouldn't want to hit me with a 2x4?
I'm not directing this at you - but I have a suspicion more people have done this than I care to know about.
It's wrong - the intent is NOT to buy - getting stuck with it and doing the right thing and paying for it is after the fact - before the fact - one never intended to pay - only articifically pump it up.
If someone can't see this? I'm sorry - but it's plain deceitful - the final buyer if not the "pumper" GOT SCREWED, SCREWED, SCREWED.
<< <i>I guess I don't view this as an "ethics issue" --- but as an "investment/economics issue"
... Say I owned an authentic painting (one, of say, a series of 10 different paintings) by a famous artist -- and bought it for $1.5m. Two years later, another collector decides to sell another painting from that same series. He's sets an auction price at $400k.
As an INVESTOR with a vested interest in the price/value of each of those10 paintings, I would most certainly look at doing all I can (legally, mind you) to preserve the value of the painting I own. If that means bidding on the other painting in hopes of driving up the price, than so be it.
It comes down to capitalism and economics. I think there is very healthy debate as to whether blaze's strategy makes good economic sense ... but sitting on a soapbox, wronging him, and calling his move "unethical" (and some of you calling it fraud, etc) is ridiculous in my opinion.
People buy and bid against each other for different reasons all the time (to give as a gift, to flip for profit, to invest, to crack and resubmit, to add to registry set, etc). Just b/c one buyer's reason for bidding on an item is different than yours does not make him unethical or wrong. ... so long as he's a buyer on the same playing field as everyone else (i.e. not in cahoots with the seller) ... what is the problem?
-t
EDITED TO ADD: One other thought. The guy who supposedly owns a bunch of unopened '75 Mini cases and slowly "feeds" them to the market over several years ..... that guy does that to ensure the market isn't saturated and thus the values remain high. This is just another example of the "investment/economics" side of the hobby. Based on what you guys are saying, is this guy being unethical for b/c the value of all product is "artificially" high b/c he has so much of it stashed away and thus it not counted in the supply? >>
This is pure rationalization IMO.
Bottom line - if one bids on an item with NO intent to purchase - they are being deceitful and screwing the the actual buyer.
If this happened to you? I promise all that word salad above would evaporate and the thread would read:
I GOT SCREWED ON EBAY!
Mike
<< <i>
Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
>>
Stone, I'll answer this as well.
Of course I'm not going to like it. I'd much rather have gotten it for $50. But we live in a capitalistic world, man. Read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and your stomach will turn b/c of our country's roots in greed, capitalism, and corporations.
Life isn't fair. But we're not socialist. Investment/economics rule this country. Just gotta accept it.
-t
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
If he gets "stuck" winning an item, then he pays for it and now owns two. He's not "shilling" it b/c he's NOT in cahoots with the seller (like an auction employee referenced above).
>>
True, but the comparison I was trying to make and should have been more clear , is that it's not too far from some one trying to" protect his investment " if he bids on auction items the he has consigned to an auction house.
If the sole purpose of someone bidding on an item is to artificially inflate the value, it's wrong. If someone bids on an item so the a potential winner pays as much as he did, well that's petty and somewhat cheesy.But hey, that just my opinion.
I put low ball bids on items that I don't need or really want for the purpose of flipping for a profit.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
>>
Stone, I'll answer this as well.
Of course I'm not going to like it. I'd much rather have gotten it for $50. But we live in a capitalistic world, man. Read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and your stomach will turn b/c of our country's roots in greed, capitalism, and corporations.
Life isn't fair. But we're not socialist. Investment/economics rule this country. Just gotta accept it.
-t >>
Tom
I don't want to get into a flame war with ya over this.
Believe me, I'm quite aware that life isn't fair. Just because capitalism welcomes avarice is no justification for that practice.
I'm conceding people are doing this - I'm conceding that it's impossible to do anything about it - I'll concede that worse things happen in this world - but I will not concede on where my moral compass is pointing - and in this case it's south.
You're a good guy - just like all the members here - but some things fall into the realm of moral absolutes as opposed to the moral "relativism" wrapped up in capitalistic pursuits.
Now, how bout those Mets!
With all due respect, Stone, that is not at all what's being discussed here. On the contrary, blaze is willing to PAY for the auction if he winds up winning it. It's been stated many times, and rightfdully so, that an item or card up for auction on ebay is on;y "worth" what one is willing to pay for it and what the next highest bidder is willing to pay for that same item. Why should blaze be restricted from bidding whatever he wants as long as he's a) willing to pay if he winds up winning and b) he's not in cahoots with the seller? As a collector, blaze has every right to place a bid on an item for whatever reason he chooses. I don't think we'd want a system where we start evaluating the intent of each bidder to see if it's acceptable or not.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
That is probably true, but he is willing to pay for it if he does win. How is this any different from a collector who bids $50 on a PSA 9 card with a SMR value of $300, not because he necessarily wants to win it, but only because he wants to flip it and make a profit?
I'm not saying that blaze's strategy is sound, only that he is not being unethical if he has every intention of paying for the item if he wins it and he's not in cahoots with the seller. That's what the free marketplace is all about, IMO.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
This is absurd. Anyone who bids less than the final winning price could be said to "bidding the price up." The logic on here is crazy/scary. If you bid on eBay and NOT pay, that is a different story. Absolutely nothing wrong with placing a "safety" bid if you don't want to see the VALUE of an item you just purchased go down 100%. As long as you pay.
Any logic otherwise is scary.
I'm only using that example because in both cases the bidder is not really wanting to win the auction, but I see your point there. My main point about all of this is that bidding on anything on ebay is not unethical if a) the bidder is willing to PAY for the item should he win the auction and b) the bidder is not in cahoots with the seller. As long as those two requirements are met, who are we to say that someone doesn't have the right to bid on an auction for whatever reason. That isn't what the free market system is about. Blaze has just as much right to bid on an item as anyone else. That's the bottom line here.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Eventually, in probably MOST cases it will come back to bite them in the a$$ and they will just lose more money. I would hope that is their cost for such skeptical practices.
<< <i> Buying for resell is MUCH different than artificially pumping up a final value. No comparison really.
I'm only using that example because in both cases the bidder is not really wanting to win the auction, but I see your point there. My main point about all of this is that bidding on anything on ebay is not unethical if a) the bidder is willing to PAY for the item should he win the auction and b) the bidder is not in cahoots with the seller. As long as those two requirements are met, who are we to say that someone doesn't have the right to bid on an auction for whatever reason. That isn't what the free market system is about. >>
I absolutely get that point Grote....and agree. I'm just going by exactly what the original poster stated he was doing.
Exactly! That's why I don't think ANYONE can artificially prop up the pereceived value of an item for any length of time, since said collector needds at least one other bidder to drive the price up in a no reserve auction. Which is why I don't even think that this practice of blaze should ever even be really necessary, as in most cases, items of real value will either a) reach an acceptable market value or b) said item wasn't really as "valuable" as the original buyer thought. As yankeeno stated, such a practice as the one blaze is employing here is either unnecessary or bound to bite him in the behind, eventually.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
Tom
I don't want to get into a flame war with ya over this.
Believe me, I'm quite aware that life isn't fair. Just because capitalism welcomes avarice is no justification for that practice.
I'm conceding people are doing this - I'm conceding that it's impossible to do anything about it - I'll concede that worse things happen in this world - but I will not concede on where my moral compass is pointing - and in this case it's south.
You're a good guy - just like all the members here - but some things fall into the realm of moral absolutes as opposed to the moral "relativism" wrapped up in capitalistic pursuits.
Now, how bout those Mets!
No flame war, Mike. You're a good guy and I respect your opinion.
Everyone has their "moral compass" ---- I just, logically, can't see this any other way than what Grote and I have stated (that simply: "he's a buyer just like everyone else and he can bid as a buyer for whatever reason he wants").
We can agree to disagree ... but I sleep just as sound as the next guy and feel my moral compass is lined up perfectly fine.
Good debate!
-t
-t
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
<< <i>Grote - you're gonna tell me that if I ran up your purchase and I told you after and said: "sorry Grote but I own one also and I couldn't let you get it for 50 bucks - I was responsible for YOU buying it for 150$ - no great deal for you today"
With all due respect, Stone, that is not at all what's being discussed here. On the contrary, blaze is willing to PAY for the auction if he winds up winning it. It's been stated many times, and rightfdully so, that an item or card up for auction on ebay is on;y "worth" what one is willing to pay for it and what the next highest bidder is willing to pay for that same item. Why should blaze be restricted from bidding whatever he wants as long as he's a) willing to pay if he winds up winning and b) he's not in cahoots with the seller? As a collector, blaze has every right to place a bid on an item for whatever reason he chooses. I don't think we'd want a system where we start evaluating the intent of each bidder to see if it's acceptable or not. >>
Grote
As I said to Tom - in essence - I'm not gonna make a blind man see.
Being "willing to pay" is irrelevant if the only reason for bidding is to run up the final hammer.
If ya can't see this? The discussion is over.
That's OK. I'm not calling anyone a crook or anything. And like Tom - we can agree to...
mike
<< <i>I guess I don't view this as an "ethics issue" --- but as an "investment/economics issue"
... Say I owned an authentic painting (one, of say, a series of 10 different paintings) by a famous artist -- and bought it for $1.5m. Two years later, another collector decides to sell another painting from that same series. He's sets an auction price at $400k.
As an INVESTOR with a vested interest in the price/value of each of those10 paintings, I would most certainly look at doing all I can (legally, mind you) to preserve the value of the painting I own. If that means bidding on the other painting in hopes of driving up the price, than so be it.
It comes down to capitalism and economics. I think there is very healthy debate as to whether blaze's strategy makes good economic sense ... but sitting on a soapbox, wronging him, and calling his move "unethical" (and some of you calling it fraud, etc) is ridiculous in my opinion.
People buy and bid against each other for different reasons all the time (to give as a gift, to flip for profit, to invest, to crack and resubmit, to add to registry set, etc). Just b/c one buyer's reason for bidding on an item is different than yours does not make him unethical or wrong. ... so long as he's a buyer on the same playing field as everyone else (i.e. not in cahoots with the seller) ... what is the problem?
-t
EDITED TO ADD: One other thought. The guy who supposedly owns a bunch of unopened '75 Mini cases and slowly "feeds" them to the market over several years ..... that guy does that to ensure the market isn't saturated and thus the values remain high. This is just another example of the "investment/economics" side of the hobby. Based on what you guys are saying, is this guy being unethical for b/c the value of all product is "artificially" high b/c he has so much of it stashed away and thus it not counted in the supply? >>
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!YES!!!!!!!!!!!!YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could not have( and have not ) stated my feelings properly. I want to make this point again which everyone..and especially Mike....seems to gloss over.
MEMORABILIA IS NOT A VOLUME TRADED COMMODITY. I have stressed as many ways as I thought possible that the price of an item is sensitive to the number of buyers looking to buy it at that moment in time. If I see that centennial flag listed and only 1 buyer is looking at it it WILL NOT SELL FOR IT'S TRUE VALUE. This is not about screwing the eventual buyer. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We can argue about whether 2 buyers vs 5 buyers yields a more "accurate" closing price, but to think that the hypothetical $150 wrapper that sells to the one bidder for $50 means I overpaid for mine...and that if I try to make sure that it goes for an amount approximating the BV that I have concocted in my head( since you would have a hard time finding it in any price guide)... is not screwing anyone.
I have sat back and read a bunch of santimonous moralizing. I asked and still ask......WHAT IS THE BOOK VALUE OF THE FLAG??????????
Dan can direct anyonne interested in to a larger version that sold for $6000. If I don't want to see another one listed currently go for $200...that's my perogative and the eventual buyer is not a victim.
As has been stated many times, and has cause me to reconsider what I am doing, is to question the economics of what I am doing. I have made this point off-line to a board member that I think is worth clarifying...I do not roam the internet scouring here and there looking for items I own and bid them up. It is an infrequent occurence. But if I am looking at WS programs for example and see a 1944 program ( of which I have 5) and it is nice and would be a nice addition if "I got stuck"....I will bid it up. If I win, then my hard earned money that might have been used on something else goes to the seller of something I already have a bunch of. It's that simple. But I don't want that program being sold on the cheap...cause that could affect the BV ( altho it probably wouldn't since I have al;ready argued that the price guides are crap and voodoo)
Please let me apologize in advance if I am being defensive. As one poster said....by bringing this up I need to be prepared for the answer. But what I asked if anyone else does this....and appently no-one else does. That is what I wanted to know. But being lectured about fraud, and about shill bidding and about being un-ethical struck a nerve. And isn't fair.....in my opinion.
<< <i> BUT...he is NOT trying to win it. I think that is a major point of this discussion.
That is probably true, but he is willing to pay for it if he does win. How is this any different from a collector who bids $50 on a PSA 9 card with a SMR value of $300, not because he necessarily wants to win it, but only because he wants to flip it and make a profit?
I'm not saying that blaze's strategy is sound, only that he is not being unethical if he has every intention of paying for the item if he wins it and he's not in cahoots with the seller. That's what the free marketplace is all about, IMO. >>
Again, he WILL pay for it.
But that's NOT his intention - his intention is NOT TO WIN THE ITEM - only run up the price.
Why is this so hard to see? Again - he will pay for it - fine - but he DOESN'T intend to buy it. THE UNDERBIDDER IS GETTING SCREWED.
And trying to buy something as cheap as possible whether to keep or flip has no bearing on this issue what so ever IMO.
mike
edit: In essence, you might want 2 copies of a card, but don't want to pay 100% of the first price. What is wrong with trying to get a "good price" for an auction?
<< <i>But being lectured about fraud, and about shill bidding and about being un-ethical struck a nerve. And isn't fair.....in my opinion. >>
Blaze
I don't care what you call these items - I don't care what others call these items. I don't care if it's a Blue Moose for sale.
If you bid on an item - ONLY to run it up - whether you pay for it or not - your INTENT is NOT to get the item only protect the value of YOUR blue moose.
The underbidder has to pay more. That's not fair. You're preventing that person from getting a "buy" and that's just plain bidding interference.
Whether the item is common or uncommon - IMO - is irrelevant to the act.
Nobody is lecturing you - in fact - why did you come here and ask?
If you thinks it's ok - why ask whether others are doing it. What's the difference?
This sounds like one of those dirty little ebay secrets that should've remained just that way - secret.
mike
As I said to Tom - in essence - I'm not gonna make a blind man see.
Being "willing to pay" is irrelevant if the only reason for bidding is to run up the final hammer.
If ya can't see this? The discussion is over.
That's OK. I'm not calling anyone a crook or anything. And like Tom - we can agree to...
mike
Stone,
We obviously have a difference of opinion here, so I agree with Tom, that we can agree to disagree, etc, etc. I assure you, too, that I can see just fine, thank you!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>So on eBay, stone, in order to really want the item, you have to WIN it? Aren't there degrees of desire, hence, an ultimate top bidder? I don't think anyone on here said they'd be PISSED if they win the item for 70% of their first purchase price.
edit: In essence, you might want 2 copies of a card, but don't want to pay 100% of the first price. What is wrong with trying to get a "good price" for an auction? >>
If this is directed at me - I don't understand your question?
What I said is very simple. If someone bids on an item and DOES NOT intend to buy it - only RUN UP THE FINAL PRICE - that's not fair to the underbidder.
The person in this case - who is running up the bid - could wind up being stuck and will honor the act by purchasing it - how valiant of them!
When I buy an item on ebay - I want to believe the competition was fair and that the final price wasn't affected by a bidder who only wanted to run it up to protect book values.
If there's still confusion on this - feel free to PM me - no problem.
mike