First - I'm not directing this personally at any one individual.
This was an objective discussion on how I view the act of bidding "without" the intention of actually purchasing.
None of my remarks are to be taken personally - I was taking a moral high road position IMO.
Heck - bidding wars for no good reason happen all the time.
I hope no one is upset with me. That was not my intent.
And, I think you all "see" just fine. The blind man metaphor was misunderstood - all I meant was that in this particular case, we're not gonna change each other's minds.
As usual - good discussion. I've been gone for quite some time and my first discussion got me in trouble!
Last - I've always felt you guys are the best - and nothing's changed in my eyes. mike
So far as I know there is no better way to compare how badly two people want something than to compare their willingness to pay. It's not perfect, but it's the best gauge available. And if someone is willing to pay $10 for something, and another is willing to pay $15, then the person who wanted it more is the one who will get it. The 'reason' why you're willing to pay more couldn't be more irrelevant. One guy may want it to put in some kind of permanent collection and cherish it for all eternity. The other guy may want to burn it. Who cares? All that this discussion of motive does is cloud the issue.
<< <i>So far as I know there is no better way to compare how badly two people want something than to compare their willingness to pay. It's not perfect, but it's the best gauge available. And if someone is willing to pay $10 for something, and another is willing to pay $15, then the person who wanted it more is the one who will get it. The 'reason' why you're willing to pay more couldn't be more irrelevant. One guy may want it to put in some kind of permanent collection and cherish it for all eternity. The other guy may want to burn it. Who cares? All that this discussion of motive does is cloud the issue. >>
I agree. I made this point earlier, but not as well!
Motive was to protect the investment, how that is not relevant is beyond me.
What happens after the item is won could possibly be not relevant, to this discussion anyway.
the fact remains bidding on an item for the sole purpose of keeping it at a certain price with no intention of wanting to win it is motive enough for me to know that it is wrong.
<< <i> All that this discussion of motive does is cloud the issue. >>
I thought the issue was the motive of bidding up ebay items to protect an investment. >>
I must have missed it too. Boo, your two examples were bidders that placed bids with intent to purchase. The point in this matter is that he has zero intent to purchse, only artificially inflate the price.
Everyone has their opinions and I think this thread has hit a brick wall.
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> All that this discussion of motive does is cloud the issue. >>
I thought the issue was the motive of bidding up ebay items to protect an investment. >>
That's exactly what the issue is. One guy is willing to pay $100 to 'protect his investment'. Another guy is willing to pay $90 to hold and to cherish said collectible until the mountains crumble into the sea. This doesn't change the fact that the guy bidding $100 wants it more, so he wins it. .
If the person will pay for the card, he also WANTS it. People often WANT things for different reasons altogether. But the point of winning the auctions means that someone "wants" it more. If someone wants to buy a card to resell it, does he "want" it in a more morally justified way than the person who bids on a card to theoretically preserve its value? Of course not.
<< <i>If the person will pay for the card, he also WANTS it. People often WANT things for different reasons altogether. But the point of winning the auctions means that someone "wants" it more. If someone wants to buy a card to resell it, does he "want" it in a more morally justified way than the person who bids on a card to theoretically preserve its value? Of course not.
It's actually quite simple. >>
Excellent post. I agree 100%.
The fact that he is willing to pay $100 to maintain some kind of price floor, while the other guy is willing to pay $90 to put it into his personal collection, is not relevant IF you agree that willingness to pay is the best method we have for determining the value that an individual places on a given commodity.
If person A will pay $100, and person B will pay $90, then person A wants it more.
Boo that goes w/o saying. This OP stated from the very beginning that he bids on certain stuff ONLY to protect his investment. Not that he wants it more then the other guy. He only wants to make sure the 'other' guy pays up like he had to.
Of course if he 'wins' the auction he will take it. he said that too albiet reluctantly. Im not making this shlt up he said it.
Of course if a person bids more then someone else it can be construed that he wanted it more. sometimes at least that is the case.
Am I the only one who bids up items on ebay on items I have in my collection to try to preserve their value? I am talking about fairly uncommon items.. For instance, I have a nice 1939 playball wrapper. It's worth $150-$200. You don't see them very offen on ebay. When one shows up, I make sure it doesn't end up closing at $50. I will bid it up ( hopefully not get stuck) and hopefully keep it's value propped up.Another example would be vintage world series and all star programs..... Am I the only one who does this?
Not sure where you said anything about book value Blaze.
or: Steve...cause when I eventually want to sell it, I am afraid the market value will be defiined by the recent closing prices.. For instance, I have an un-used centennial of baseball ticket. Whenever I see a stub for sale, I cringe when I see it going for small bucks...
Again no mnetion of book value Blaze.
I can quote you prolly 5 times and not once did you mention book value, as a matter of fact you made it a point to state that the stuff you collect has no book value.
These are YOUR words not mine. perhaps you should think twice before you post.
On one side: Blindflyer (me) Grote Boopotts jmkbk Blaze
We believe that a buyer has a right to bid on an item so long as he is willing to pay for it and is not in cahoots with a seller. His motive for bidding is irrelevent so long as he is a legitimate buyer.
On the other side: Stone WinPitcher ..and about 40 others
They believe their is some sort of "moral highroad" that should be followed when buying. Only those buyers who have "proper" intentions for bidding should be allowed to do so. What is deemed "proper" defines a wrong bidder from a right one.
The bottom line: You simply CANNOT argue logic and black/white facts when morality is the cornerstone for the other's argument. Morality is a complete and utter interpretation. It is not grounded in anything but one's belief, and thus this argument, while enjoyable and stimulating, will never and can never go anywhere.
I sleep well at night knowing in my heart of hearts that my position on this issue is logical and appropriate. Those who disagree based on their morality are entitled to do so and I hold no ill-will towards them. It is simply an impass --- similar to that between a Christian and Agnostic when discussing faith.
Have a good night, fellas.
-Tom
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
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
Blaze who the hell are you to think that you control the true value of anything? The true value is what it will sell for. If you want to 'inflate' the price so yours retains value YOU ARE MAKING SURE the other buyer PAYS UP!
<< <i>If the person will pay for the card, he also WANTS it. People often WANT things for different reasons altogether. But the point of winning the auctions means that someone "wants" it more. If someone wants to buy a card to resell it, does he "want" it in a more morally justified way than the person who bids on a card to theoretically preserve its value? Of course not.
It's actually quite simple. >>
I'd just like to quote this one more time because I think it's an excellent summation of the argument. If person 'A' will pay $100 for the card, then the card is also 'worth' $100 to him. It doesnt' matter WHY it's worth that to him. Maybe it's worth that because he wants the card. Maybe he wants it because he wants other people to see what he paid for it, and therefore establish a price floor. Maybe it's a combination of these factors and others we haven't discussed. But the point is that this distinction is not important, and, in fact, CAN'T be important if we are going to live in a free market society.
Blindflyer you are missing the point. yes people can argue why they bid on things, to get a 2nd copy, to get one for trade, to get one and average down are all ok and the 40 others understood that and agreed.
What we did not agree with was bidding soley to inflate an item so as to keep an artificial value.
of course their are many LEGIT reasons why people bid on things etc, this though was not legit.
<< <i>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
Blaze who the hell are you to think that you control the true value of anything? The true value is what it will sell for. If you want to 'inflate' the price so yours retains value YOU ARE MAKING SURE the other buyer PAYS UP!
Steve >>
No, this is NOT true. He's making sure that if the other bidder wins it he will pay a price that is $.01 (or whatever increment is appropriate) above what Blaze is willing to pay for it, which is entirely different than making sure the other buyer 'pays up'. These two things do not mean the same thing.
If the person will pay for the card, he also WANTS it.
Boo i agree, and in this case he wants it just cuz he DOES not want the other person to get it cheaper then he did.
You are right in the grand scheme of things it does not matter, I was simply for once trying to stay on topic. and the topic was "does anyone else bid on things that they already have soley to keep the value up'?
<< <i>Blindflyer you are missing the point. yes people can argue why they bid on things, to get a 2nd copy, to get one for trade, to get one and average down are all ok and the 40 others understood that and agreed.
What we did not agree with was bidding soley to inflate an item so as to keep an artificial value.
of course their are many LEGIT reasons why people bid on things etc, this though was not legit.
Steve >>
Wha? There is no 'inflated' value. Where does this come from?? If Blaze wins the item than the 'value' remains at $100 or whatever. It's not inflated. That $100 is the maximum that someone was willing to pay (in this case Blaze) for this wrapper.
One guy is wants to pay $90 to put it into his collection. Another guy bids $100 to try and set a price precedent for future sales. What's the difference? Why would the 'reason' for these bids be at all important??
<< <i> If the person will pay for the card, he also WANTS it.
Boo i agree, and in this case he wants it just cuz he DOES not want the other person to get it cheaper then he did.
You are right in the grand scheme of things it does not matter, I was simply for once trying to stay on topic. and the topic was "does anyone else bid on things that they already have soley to keep the value up'?
Steve >>
I do agree that with regards to the original question everybody certainly has a right to their own opinion. Some people may think it's 'wrong' to bid on something that you don't really want. I can't see the logic behind that at all, but I do concede that we're all made up differently and that people can sometimes see the same issue differently.
I used your reply for it too. NONE you claim there is no book value only voodoo.
so you feel it is your responcibility to bid on these things so they retain value. Instead of letting the free market run its course, now if you said I bid on them in the hopes of averaging down my costs Id agree with you. you said you were afraid it would not sell for its true value. and that you wante dto make sure your retained its value. these are your exact words! and no philosphising by BOO is going to change anything.
not to make this personal Steve...BUT..... you quote me twice to show that I made no reference to book value but your 2 citations use the phrase: "keeps it VALUE" "I'm afraid the market VALUE..."
I have established that there is no book value to look up for these item....THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
2. The other bidder only bid to raise the price in keeping with what he thinks it should go for. He WAS willing to pay if you hadn't gone above but you should've only paid 15.50 for the item - if the other bidder hadn't intervened.
Now, how would ya feel in this situation?
I know - I would've been very disappointed. This is my whole point. A bidder who bids for the sole purpose of inflating the item is "interferring" with the auction.
Yes - the bidder has the right to do so. Yes - this probably goes on all the time.
I'm not even gonna make any value statements. I'm just saying I would be upset if I had to pay more than I should've for the item.
his logic was expressed in his original post. to make sure any other similar items that came up for sale sold for what he paid for his. ( or close to it) and if he won it that was ok but not ok or some BS
Steve --- you're moral highground here is an opinion --- completely and utterly illogical in my opinion... you do realize that you're determining when a bid is "proper" (and thus "right") and when it is improper (and thus "wrong").
Your entire arguement is based on YOUR moral compass. No one can argue against another's moral compass logically.
You mention "free market" --- well that's EXACTLY what Blaze is doing. He believes that by exercising his right to a free market and bidding on an item, he will help "preserve" it's value ... I actually disagree with the economic sense behind this (in most cases), but most certainly believe he has a right to do it.
My only hope at this point is for each side to see that this argument comes down to one side believing that the morality of what Blaze is doing makes it wrong, while the other side believes the logic of the free market society and rules set up within said society make the Blaze's strategy perfectly okay.
This argument will go nowhere.
-t
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
I want to sell a Babe Ruth ball with psa/dna authentication. I start the bidding at .99 but list in the "cookwares" listing. For some reason only 1 cook sees it and that's it. It sells for .99 In your world that was a good result...moral and just.
It doesn't matter if the book value is $0.38. Blaze has a right to bid on whatever he chooses for whatever amount he chooses so long as he's not in cahoots with the seller and is willing to pay for the item if he wins.
Stone, you're clear, but you keep reviewing to the "poor underbidder" --- it's a free market, if the underbidder really wants something he needs to be the winning builder. The intentions of his competiting bidders are irrelevent and not something any buyer is ever really privvy to. Sure, it's annoying when you go up against a competitive bidder like that --- but it's just as annoying as a seller when your item worth $200 only goes for $30. Both happen. It's just the way the free market works.
-t
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
I want to sell a Babe Ruth ball with psa/dna authentication. I start the bidding at .99 but list in the "cookwares" listing. For some reason only 1 cook sees it and that's it. It sells for .99 In your world that was a good result...moral and just. >>
Blaze - irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm not even making moral/value judgements anymore.
All I'm saying is - if I paid more for any item because someone bid - only to prop up the final hammer - I would be disappointed if I were told about it.
Plain and simple. But, I do understand your point.
On the Ruth ball - that would also be a disappointment but perhaps for another Ricky Lake Show. mike
<< <i>Sure, it's annoying when you go up against a competitive bidder like that --- but it's just as annoying as a seller when your item worth $200 only goes for $30. Both happen. It's just the way the free market works. >>
Tom
That's not a true competitive bidder in reality but I totally understand your position.
But, IMO, your whole position seems to be skewed as that of a seller rather than a buyer.
I'm not a seller and as a buyer my view is very slanted in that direction - I'll give ya that.
As I said - Tom and Blaze - this has been educational - and I don't have any hard feelings at all - and in theory I understand your POV.
You're both good guys - thanx for the discussion. Have a good week - boy I hate Mondays!!!! mike
Blaze as for the ruth ball you would not have to complete that deal because you listed it in the wrong place and thus no meeting of the minds occurred.
For a sale to be completed both buyer and seller have to be on the same page.
same thing had you listed the ball for 2.99 and not 2, 999.00 or something like that.
So to answer your question NO you do not have to complete that sale.
of course i am assuming that you listed it in cookwares by accident.
They believe their is some sort of "moral highroad" that should be followed when buying. Only those buyers who have "proper" intentions for bidding should be allowed to do so. What is deemed "proper" defines a wrong bidder from a right one.
The bottom line: You simply CANNOT argue logic and black/white facts when morality is the cornerstone for the other's argument. Morality is a complete and utter interpretation. It is not grounded in anything but one's belief, and thus this argument, while enjoyable and stimulating, will never and can never go anywhere.
I sleep well at night knowing in my heart of hearts that my position on this issue is logical and appropriate. Those who disagree based on their morality are entitled to do so and I hold no ill-will towards them. It is simply an impass --- similar to that between a Christian and Agnostic when discussing faith.
Have a good night, fellas.
-Tom
Well stated Tom. Obviously, there's a difference of opinion here, but I, like you, will sleep well tonight. I think this whole issue, frankly, has gotten a bit out of control. That's my opinion, too, and I'm sticking to it.
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, IMO, your whole position seems to be skewed as that of a seller rather than a buyer.
>>
Actually, I'm not skewed towards a seller. I'm a buyer and collector myself, not a seller (only every once in a while).
My stance is based on logic --- simply stating that bringing morality and "intention" into one buyer vs another is not a fair justification to call Blaze's strategy "wrong" ...
No big deal ... it was good discussion.
-t
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
<< <i>Tom that is the whole point I think you missed we did not bring in 'intention' he did!
Steve >>
Steve, your missing my point: His intention, though you may not like it, does not make what he's doing "wrong" based on the freek market system and the logic I've laid out.
If your moral compass feels his intention makes it wrong, then so be it.
My bottom line point is that his intention, regardless of what it is, is irrelevent to his right to do it.
-t
- Building these sets: ------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ ------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
I want to sell a Babe Ruth ball with psa/dna authentication. I start the bidding at .99 but list in the "cookwares" listing. For some reason only 1 cook sees it and that's it. It sells for .99 In your world that was a good result...moral and just. >>
most people don't search by catagory - those looking for Ruth psa/dna just enter that in the search box and if it's in cookware it would come up. but either way that would be a sale at .99 cents.
2. The other bidder only bid to raise the price in keeping with what he thinks it should go for. He WAS willing to pay if you hadn't gone above but you should've only paid 15.50 for the item - if the other bidder hadn't intervened.
Now, how would ya feel in this situation?
I know - I would've been very disappointed. This is my whole point. A bidder who bids for the sole purpose of inflating the item is "interferring" with the auction.
Yes - the bidder has the right to do so. Yes - this probably goes on all the time.
I'm not even gonna make any value statements. I'm just saying I would be upset if I had to pay more than I should've for the item.
Am I being clear? mike >>
Mike - if the person is not willing to pay the $100 as their top bid they should not enter $100 as max bid. with your situation above - there could have been many other snipe bids that did not register. had the person who was 'protecting their investment' not put in their bid there could have been other snipe bids that registered and the person could still have paid the $100.
Joel
I don't do what the OP is doing but I do look at my non winning bids as helping my stock investment in ebay.
most people don't search by catagory - those looking for Ruth psa/dna just enter that in the search box and if it's in cookware it would come up. but either way that would be a sale at .99 cents.
yes that is true, most people do search like that BUT I disagree about it being a sale. The seller could claim he listed it wrong. thus no meeting of the minds.
Comments
I just answered a PM on this whole thing.
First - I'm not directing this personally at any one individual.
This was an objective discussion on how I view the act of bidding "without" the intention of actually purchasing.
None of my remarks are to be taken personally - I was taking a moral high road position IMO.
Heck - bidding wars for no good reason happen all the time.
I hope no one is upset with me. That was not my intent.
And, I think you all "see" just fine. The blind man metaphor was misunderstood - all I meant was that in this particular case, we're not gonna change each other's minds.
As usual - good discussion. I've been gone for quite some time and my first discussion got me in
trouble!
Last - I've always felt you guys are the best - and nothing's changed in my eyes.
mike
enough about this thread... HOW BOUT THOSE MAVERICKS!!!!!!!!!!!
No big deal, I took it as a I always do, a great discussion.
No hard done here
joe
<< <i>So far as I know there is no better way to compare how badly two people want something than to compare their willingness to pay. It's not perfect, but it's the best gauge available. And if someone is willing to pay $10 for something, and another is willing to pay $15, then the person who wanted it more is the one who will get it. The 'reason' why you're willing to pay more couldn't be more irrelevant. One guy may want it to put in some kind of permanent collection and cherish it for all eternity. The other guy may want to burn it. Who cares? All that this discussion of motive does is cloud the issue. >>
I agree. I made this point earlier, but not as well!
<< <i> All that this discussion of motive does is cloud the issue. >>
I thought the issue was the motive of bidding up ebay items to protect an investment.
What happens after the item is won could possibly be not relevant, to this discussion anyway.
the fact remains bidding on an item for the sole purpose of keeping it at a certain price with no intention of wanting to win it is motive enough for me to know that it is wrong.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i> All that this discussion of motive does is cloud the issue. >>
I thought the issue was the motive of bidding up ebay items to protect an investment. >>
I must have missed it too. Boo, your two examples were bidders that placed bids with intent to purchase. The point in this matter is that he has zero intent to purchse, only artificially inflate the price.
Everyone has their opinions and I think this thread has hit a brick wall.
<< <i>
<< <i> All that this discussion of motive does is cloud the issue. >>
I thought the issue was the motive of bidding up ebay items to protect an investment. >>
That's exactly what the issue is. One guy is willing to pay $100 to 'protect his investment'. Another guy is willing to pay $90 to hold and to cherish said collectible until the mountains crumble into the sea. This doesn't change the fact that the guy bidding $100 wants it more, so he wins it.
.
maybe your guy boo but the OP does not want it, he only wanted to protect his investment and would only accept it if he had too.
Steve
<< <i>. This doesn't change the fact that the guy bidding $100 wants it more, so he wins it.
maybe your guy boo but the OP does not want it, he only wanted to protect his investment and would only accept it if he had too.
Steve >>
If person A will pay $100, and person B will pay $90, then person A wants it more.
It's actually quite simple.
<< <i>If the person will pay for the card, he also WANTS it. People often WANT things for different reasons altogether. But the point of winning the auctions means that someone "wants" it more. If someone wants to buy a card to resell it, does he "want" it in a more morally justified way than the person who bids on a card to theoretically preserve its value? Of course not.
It's actually quite simple. >>
Excellent post. I agree 100%.
The fact that he is willing to pay $100 to maintain some kind of price floor, while the other guy is willing to pay $90 to put it into his personal collection, is not relevant IF you agree that willingness to pay is the best method we have for determining the value that an individual places on a given commodity.
Boo that goes w/o saying. This OP stated from the very beginning that he bids on certain stuff ONLY to protect his investment. Not that he wants it more then the other guy. He only wants to make sure the 'other' guy pays up like he had to.
Of course if he 'wins' the auction he will take it. he said that too albiet reluctantly. Im not making this shlt up he said it.
Of course if a person bids more then someone else it can be construed that he wanted it more. sometimes at least that is the case.
Steve
"He only wants to make sure the 'other' guy pays up like he had to."
I want items to sell for what approaches BV
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Apr 2001
Thursday April 19, 2007 11:42 PM (NEW!)
Am I the only one who bids up items on ebay on items I have in my collection to try to preserve their value?
I am talking about fairly uncommon items.. For instance, I have a nice 1939 playball wrapper. It's worth $150-$200. You don't see them very offen on ebay. When one shows up, I make sure it doesn't end up closing at $50. I will bid it up ( hopefully not get stuck) and hopefully keep it's value propped up.Another example would be vintage world series and all star programs..... Am I the only one who does this?
Not sure where you said anything about book value Blaze.
or:
Steve...cause when I eventually want to sell it, I am afraid the market value will be defiined by the recent closing prices.. For instance, I have an un-used centennial of baseball ticket. Whenever I see a stub for sale, I cringe when I see it going for small bucks...
Again no mnetion of book value Blaze.
I can quote you prolly 5 times and not once did you mention book value, as a matter of fact you made it a point to state that the stuff you collect has no book value.
These are YOUR words not mine. perhaps you should think twice before you post.
Steve
On one side:
Blindflyer (me)
Grote
Boopotts
jmkbk
Blaze
We believe that a buyer has a right to bid on an item so long as he is willing to pay for it and is not in cahoots with a seller. His motive for bidding is irrelevent so long as he is a legitimate buyer.
On the other side:
Stone
WinPitcher
..and about 40 others
They believe their is some sort of "moral highroad" that should be followed when buying. Only those buyers who have "proper" intentions for bidding should be allowed to do so. What is deemed "proper" defines a wrong bidder from a right one.
The bottom line:
You simply CANNOT argue logic and black/white facts when morality is the cornerstone for the other's argument. Morality is a complete and utter interpretation. It is not grounded in anything but one's belief, and thus this argument, while enjoyable and stimulating, will never and can never go anywhere.
I sleep well at night knowing in my heart of hearts that my position on this issue is logical and appropriate. Those who disagree based on their morality are entitled to do so and I hold no ill-will towards them. It is simply an impass --- similar to that between a Christian and Agnostic when discussing faith.
Have a good night, fellas.
-Tom
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Blaze who the hell are you to think that you control the true value of anything? The true value is what it will sell for. If you want to 'inflate' the price so yours retains value YOU ARE MAKING SURE the other buyer PAYS UP!
Steve
<< <i>If the person will pay for the card, he also WANTS it. People often WANT things for different reasons altogether. But the point of winning the auctions means that someone "wants" it more. If someone wants to buy a card to resell it, does he "want" it in a more morally justified way than the person who bids on a card to theoretically preserve its value? Of course not.
It's actually quite simple. >>
I'd just like to quote this one more time because I think it's an excellent summation of the argument. If person 'A' will pay $100 for the card, then the card is also 'worth' $100 to him. It doesnt' matter WHY it's worth that to him. Maybe it's worth that because he wants the card. Maybe he wants it because he wants other people to see what he paid for it, and therefore establish a price floor. Maybe it's a combination of these factors and others we haven't discussed. But the point is that this distinction is not important, and, in fact, CAN'T be important if we are going to live in a free market society.
What we did not agree with was bidding soley to inflate an item so as to keep an artificial value.
of course their are many LEGIT reasons why people bid on things etc, this though was not legit.
Steve
<< <i>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
Blaze who the hell are you to think that you control the true value of anything? The true value is what it will sell for. If you want to 'inflate' the price so yours retains value YOU ARE MAKING SURE the other buyer PAYS UP!
Steve >>
No, this is NOT true. He's making sure that if the other bidder wins it he will pay a price that is $.01 (or whatever increment is appropriate) above what Blaze is willing to pay for it, which is entirely different than making sure the other buyer 'pays up'. These two things do not mean the same thing.
Boo i agree, and in this case he wants it just cuz he DOES not want the other person to get it cheaper then he did.
You are right in the grand scheme of things it does not matter, I was simply for once trying to stay on topic.
and the topic was "does anyone else bid on things that they already have soley to keep the value up'?
Steve
<< <i>Blindflyer you are missing the point. yes people can argue why they bid on things, to get a 2nd copy, to get one for trade, to get one and average down are all ok and the 40 others understood that and agreed.
What we did not agree with was bidding soley to inflate an item so as to keep an artificial value.
of course their are many LEGIT reasons why people bid on things etc, this though was not legit.
Steve >>
Wha? There is no 'inflated' value. Where does this come from?? If Blaze wins the item than the 'value' remains at $100 or whatever. It's not inflated. That $100 is the maximum that someone was willing to pay (in this case Blaze) for this wrapper.
One guy is wants to pay $90 to put it into his collection. Another guy bids $100 to try and set a price precedent for future sales. What's the difference? Why would the 'reason' for these bids be at all important??
Steve
<< <i> If the person will pay for the card, he also WANTS it.
Boo i agree, and in this case he wants it just cuz he DOES not want the other person to get it cheaper then he did.
You are right in the grand scheme of things it does not matter, I was simply for once trying to stay on topic.
and the topic was "does anyone else bid on things that they already have soley to keep the value up'?
Steve >>
I do agree that with regards to the original question everybody certainly has a right to their own opinion. Some people may think it's 'wrong' to bid on something that you don't really want. I can't see the logic behind that at all, but I do concede that we're all made up differently and that people can sometimes see the same issue differently.
and the answer is not $ 0.01 more than I paid for it
I used your reply for it too. NONE you claim there is no book value only voodoo.
so you feel it is your responcibility to bid on these things so they retain value. Instead of letting the free market run its course, now if you said I bid on them in the hopes of averaging down my costs Id agree with you. you said you were afraid it would not sell for its true value. and that you wante dto make sure your retained its value. these are your exact words! and no philosphising by BOO is going to change anything.
Is your name axtell by any chance?
There you got my answer 2x
Steve
you quote me twice to show that I made no reference to book value but your 2 citations use the phrase:
"keeps it VALUE"
"I'm afraid the market VALUE..."
I have established that there is no book value to look up for these item....THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
What if you bought an item for 100 bucks on ebay.
Later, God came down and said:
1. The real underbidder bid 15 bucks.
2. The other bidder only bid to raise the price in keeping with what he thinks it should go for. He WAS willing to pay if you hadn't gone above but you should've only paid 15.50 for the item - if the other bidder hadn't intervened.
Now, how would ya feel in this situation?
I know - I would've been very disappointed. This is my whole point. A bidder who bids for the sole purpose of inflating the item is "interferring" with the auction.
Yes - the bidder has the right to do so. Yes - this probably goes on all the time.
I'm not even gonna make any value statements. I'm just saying I would be upset if I had to pay more than I should've for the item.
Am I being clear?
mike
his logic was expressed in his original post. to make sure any other similar items that came up for sale sold for what he paid for his. ( or close to it) and if he won it that was ok but not ok or some BS
not that he wouldn't mind getting another etc,
he was very direct in his stance.
he know wants us to think he was misrepresented.
not a chance.
Steve
Yeah so? what are you trying to say?
if that is the point why do you bother then? why do you bid on them without wanting to win them???????
That is my point!
Steve
Steve --- you're moral highground here is an opinion --- completely and utterly illogical in my opinion... you do realize that you're determining when a bid is "proper" (and thus "right") and when it is improper (and thus "wrong").
Your entire arguement is based on YOUR moral compass. No one can argue against another's moral compass logically.
You mention "free market" --- well that's EXACTLY what Blaze is doing. He believes that by exercising his right to a free market and bidding on an item, he will help "preserve" it's value ... I actually disagree with the economic sense behind this (in most cases), but most certainly believe he has a right to do it.
My only hope at this point is for each side to see that this argument comes down to one side believing that the morality of what Blaze is doing makes it wrong, while the other side believes the logic of the free market society and rules set up within said society make the Blaze's strategy perfectly okay.
This argument will go nowhere.
-t
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Blaze I too do not want to make this personnal but i used the term "keep its value"
BECAUSE you said that in your very first post!
You said it I am only repeating what you said.
Steve
blaze can do as he wishes, he was the one that came here and asked for the opinion.
Of course mine is only mine.
I never said that he could not do as he pleased! I only gave my opinion that I felt it was LAME
am I clear now?
and furthermore one could argue that your posting is just as ridiculous, of course he can do as he pleases, he has made no bones about it.
Steve
I want to sell a Babe Ruth ball with psa/dna authentication. I start the bidding at .99 but list in the "cookwares" listing.
For some reason only 1 cook sees it and that's it. It sells for .99 In your world that was a good result...moral and just.
Book value has nothing to do with this. At all.
It doesn't matter if the book value is $0.38. Blaze has a right to bid on whatever he chooses for whatever amount he chooses so long as he's not in cahoots with the seller and is willing to pay for the item if he wins.
Stone, you're clear, but you keep reviewing to the "poor underbidder" --- it's a free market, if the underbidder really wants something he needs to be the winning builder. The intentions of his competiting bidders are irrelevent and not something any buyer is ever really privvy to. Sure, it's annoying when you go up against a competitive bidder like that --- but it's just as annoying as a seller when your item worth $200 only goes for $30. Both happen. It's just the way the free market works.
-t
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Both of you are perfectly clear.
As previously stated, we'll agree to disagree.
No hard feelings towards anyone here.
-t
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
<< <i>OK Mike how about this:
I want to sell a Babe Ruth ball with psa/dna authentication. I start the bidding at .99 but list in the "cookwares" listing.
For some reason only 1 cook sees it and that's it. It sells for .99 In your world that was a good result...moral and just. >>
Blaze - irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm not even making moral/value judgements anymore.
All I'm saying is - if I paid more for any item because someone bid - only to prop up the final hammer - I would be disappointed if I were told about it.
Plain and simple. But, I do understand your point.
On the Ruth ball - that would also be a disappointment but perhaps for another Ricky Lake Show.
mike
It is rather simple and it appears that the original question has gone off on tangents. Morality etc. the bottom line is simple:
the original question:
Does anyone bid up ebay items to protect their investment?
hmmmm BID UP....................to protect...............investment.
of course people can bid on stuff for a thousand different reasons, this OP gave 1.
Steve
<< <i>Sure, it's annoying when you go up against a competitive bidder like that --- but it's just as annoying as a seller when your item worth $200 only goes for $30. Both happen. It's just the way the free market works. >>
Tom
That's not a true competitive bidder in reality but I totally understand your position.
But, IMO, your whole position seems to be skewed as that of a seller rather than a buyer.
I'm not a seller and as a buyer my view is very slanted in that direction - I'll give ya that.
As I said - Tom and Blaze - this has been educational - and I don't have any hard feelings at all - and in theory I understand your POV.
You're both good guys - thanx for the discussion.
Have a good week - boy I hate Mondays!!!!
mike
For a sale to be completed both buyer and seller have to be on the same page.
same thing had you listed the ball for 2.99 and not 2, 999.00 or something like that.
So to answer your question NO you do not have to complete that sale.
of course i am assuming that you listed it in cookwares by accident.
Steve
The bottom line:
You simply CANNOT argue logic and black/white facts when morality is the cornerstone for the other's argument. Morality is a complete and utter interpretation. It is not grounded in anything but one's belief, and thus this argument, while enjoyable and stimulating, will never and can never go anywhere.
I sleep well at night knowing in my heart of hearts that my position on this issue is logical and appropriate. Those who disagree based on their morality are entitled to do so and I hold no ill-will towards them. It is simply an impass --- similar to that between a Christian and Agnostic when discussing faith.
Have a good night, fellas.
-Tom
Well stated Tom. Obviously, there's a difference of opinion here, but I, like you, will sleep well tonight. I think this whole issue, frankly, has gotten a bit out of control. That's my opinion, too, and I'm sticking to it.
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>
But, IMO, your whole position seems to be skewed as that of a seller rather than a buyer.
>>
Actually, I'm not skewed towards a seller. I'm a buyer and collector myself, not a seller (only every once in a while).
My stance is based on logic --- simply stating that bringing morality and "intention" into one buyer vs another is not a fair justification to call Blaze's strategy "wrong" ...
No big deal ... it was good discussion.
-t
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Steve
<< <i>Tom that is the whole point I think you missed we did not bring in 'intention' he did!
Steve >>
Steve, your missing my point:
His intention, though you may not like it, does not make what he's doing "wrong" based on the freek market system and the logic I've laid out.
If your moral compass feels his intention makes it wrong, then so be it.
My bottom line point is that his intention, regardless of what it is, is irrelevent to his right to do it.
-t
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
<< <i>OK Mike how about this:
I want to sell a Babe Ruth ball with psa/dna authentication. I start the bidding at .99 but list in the "cookwares" listing.
For some reason only 1 cook sees it and that's it. It sells for .99 In your world that was a good result...moral and just. >>
most people don't search by catagory - those looking for Ruth psa/dna just enter that in the search box and if it's in cookware it would come up. but either way that would be a sale at .99 cents.
<< <i>Again - I'll ask a simple question.
What if you bought an item for 100 bucks on ebay.
Later, God came down and said:
1. The real underbidder bid 15 bucks.
2. The other bidder only bid to raise the price in keeping with what he thinks it should go for. He WAS willing to pay if you hadn't gone above but you should've only paid 15.50 for the item - if the other bidder hadn't intervened.
Now, how would ya feel in this situation?
I know - I would've been very disappointed. This is my whole point. A bidder who bids for the sole purpose of inflating the item is "interferring" with the auction.
Yes - the bidder has the right to do so. Yes - this probably goes on all the time.
I'm not even gonna make any value statements. I'm just saying I would be upset if I had to pay more than I should've for the item.
Am I being clear?
mike >>
Mike - if the person is not willing to pay the $100 as their top bid they should not enter $100 as max bid. with your situation above - there could have been many other snipe bids that did not register. had the person who was 'protecting their investment' not put in their bid there could have been other snipe bids that registered and the person could still have paid the $100.
Joel
I don't do what the OP is doing but I do look at my non winning bids as helping my stock investment in ebay.
Ive never said he couldnt do anything, he can bid all he wants when he wants but if he comes here and asks opinion he gets it.
both sides
steve
yes that is true, most people do search like that BUT I disagree about it being a sale. The seller could claim he listed it wrong. thus no meeting of the minds.
Steve