Boo wrote "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??
It isn't Boo. It amazes me that sport card dealers and collectors continually tell people they do not know the correct way to collect. Nowhere did OP say he was not willing to buy the card. He did say he would prefer not to win the card, but there is a night and day difference in those words.
If bidder A wants to bid $100 on every player X rookie card in order to try to inflate/protect the value on them, (or whatever reason) more power to him. But to call that shilling, when the seller has no involvement, is to redefine the word.
Mark
edit to fix spelling....been working a show since thursday and my fingers are a little heavy over the keyboard.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>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.
Steve >>
Steve -
for a 7 days listing on ebay the seller would have plenty of time to correct the listing. I commonly use the 'relist' feature and sometimes change the item being sold and then it doesn't match the catagory. I would never claim 'no sale' because I sold I psa graded card that was listed in 'non graded' card for example.
so if a buyer makes a mistake on their bid amount they are expected to (and should) pay for the item. but if a seller makes a mistakes it's a 'no sale'. don't agree with that one. Joel
If a person sells the item on ebay it is sold and to back out is completely dishonest.
All bidder/sellers agree to follow ebay rules and all bidder and sellers have to confirm their listings/bids.
Mark
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Look, everyone has their own ethics. At this age (assuming everyone is +/- 30), it's hard to change the principals we grew up on. Some see it as okay while others feel it's unethical.
He's not doing anything illegal, it all comes down to personal perspective.
It is what it is.
Having said that, I think a better choice of words could have been used when calling someone's eithical judgement "illogical".
Blaze, please stop trying to justify what you do because all it's doing is prolonging this discussion that's going no where.
/ $0.02
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
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?
Am I being clear? mike >>
Mike,
I would like to respond to your hypothetical scenario. In this instance, I am 100% confident that I would be perfectly OK with your proposition. Why? Because the EXACT thing happened to me on eBay about 10 days ago.
It was for a 1993 Refractor of John Franco in PSA 10 (LINK) in which I purchased it for around $308. I knew FULL WELL that the eventual second bidder would be bidding in the $300+ range to "protect his investment," as he purchased the card for well over $300 several months ago. I bid what I wanted to pay, but no more and ended up winning the card for $308 or so. The "real underbidder" (according to you) was at $175. So, according to you, I "overpaid" by over $125. Had the $303.03 bidder purchased the card, he would have paid for it in a timely fashion, added it to his 2nd registry set, and that would have been the end of it. I would have had no reason to complain: No shilling; no worries.
This is the auction world. If the seller is willing to start an auction at no reserve, then people have the right to bid even if it is to drive up the price of the item. I sniped the auction and had no problem with where it ended. I obviously "wanted" the card more than the 2nd bidder "wanted" to drive the price up to protect his investment.
So, please know that I'm not being a hypocrite here -- it is exactly how I live and I have no problems with HONEST BIDDERS bidding for whatever reason they choose. There was obviously no link between the 2nd bidder and the seller.
calguy, you can keep adding to the conversation with all types of hypotheticals now I was simply answering the OP and his listing error.
We can what if all day long. I am not an attorney I was simply stating my opinion. In your latest what if I'd say I don't know.
I do know this though if a seller makes an error in listing he could get out of it via the meeting of the minds thingy I referred to earlier.
I hope I have been clear in this latest matter.
As for those that say he (OP) has a right to bid whatever and whenever and for whatever reasons I agree, I never said that he couldn't, However that was not the question here. the question was a simple one and was given very straightforward answers. How morality and ethics, and religion and all the other crap started is very typical.
Bottom line? IMO,and it is only an opinion, to bid on items with the sole purpose of artificially propping up prices is LAME. can it be done? of course, is it right? could be, is it wrong? possibly yes, possibly no, is it lame? YES.
This is the auction world. If the seller is willing to start an auction at no reserve, then people have the right to bid even if it is to drive up the price of the item
I agree, they can bid for a myriad of reasons. I do not think anyone here ever said that they couldn't. What many here said that they felt it either stupid, lame, unethical, etc etc etc. No one to my knowledge said that it could not be done. Those on the other side of the fence so to speak keep saying the same thing over and over like we do not understand you. WE DO!. believe me we do.
<< <i>He's not doing anything illegal, it all comes down to personal perspective. >>
I totally agree with this statement.
Bidding on an item to increase the hammer with NO intent of possibly buying the card is not illegal.
But, it sure is unethical IMO.
Why not bud out and let the market go where it will normally go by REAL competitive bidders - NO interferrence.
This is like viewing reality from the perspective of a liberal vs. a conservative. We both live in that world but one views it differently from the other.
BTW, this is not a discussion of my view is better than yours - it's JUST a discussion.
And for those who think it's gone too long - you're entitled to your opinion but don't take away our right to continue to discuss it.
Take this for what its worth. I am not pointing a moral finger at anyone. It is what it is.
I play golf with this one guy and he always seems to beat me by about 5 strokes. I like this guy a lot. Golf is more than the score. Its the BS along the way. I don't mind if he wins because I know the true value of his score.
During the course of 18 holes, my buddy takes a few muligans, tennis shoe wedges and free drops. He is real good at shaving strokes off his final score to make sure he scores under me. He's a competitor and has to win at any cost. One day we play in a tournament where his score is logged by the caddie. Amazingly I shoot an 94 and he shoots a 95. He is utterly speechless at how bad he plays and can't believe it. I told him I thought he played about as good as he usually does. No better, no worse. It is what it is.
What I fear is that when you finally try to sell your flag (which, by the way is a great looking item) you will not be able to inflate your price and you may be disappointed in the final price. I know, you'll set a reserve at or near what you have been trying to keep this items value at. I see the logic, but in the end just like my golfing buddy, you might be disappointed when its NOT you who decides the value but the actual buyers.
<< <i>Take this for what its worth. I am not pointing a moral finger at anyone. It is what it is.
I play golf with this one guy and he always seems to beat me by about 5 strokes. I like this guy a lot. Golf is more than the score. Its the BS along the way. I don't mind if he wins because I know the true value of his score.
During the course of 18 holes, my buddy takes a few muligans, tennis shoe wedges and free drops. He is real good at shaving strokes off his final score to make sure he scores under me. He's a competitor and has to win at any cost. One day we play in a tournament where his score is logged by the caddie. Amazingly I shoot an 94 and he shoots a 95. He is utterly speechless at how bad he plays and can't believe it. I told him I thought he played about as good as he usually does. No better, no worse. It is what it is.
What I fear is that when you finally try to sell your flag (which, by the way is a great looking item) you will not be able to inflate your price and you may be disappointed in the final price. I know, you'll set a reserve at or near what you have been trying to keep this items value at. I see the logic, but in the end just like my golfing buddy, you might be disappointed when its NOT you who decides the value but the actual buyers. >>
Wow. I have to say I admire your restraint. I don't think I could make it for three holes with a guy like that-- and I don't even play golf.
<< <i>He's not doing anything illegal, it all comes down to personal perspective. >>
I totally agree with this statement.
Bidding on an item to increase the hammer with NO intent of possibly buying the card is not illegal.
But, it sure is unethical IMO.
Why not bud out and let the market go where it will normally go by REAL competitive bidders - NO interferrence.
This is like viewing reality from the perspective of a liberal vs. a conservative. We both live in that world but one views it differently from the other.
BTW, this is not a discussion of my view is better than yours - it's JUST a discussion.
And for those who think it's gone too long - you're entitled to your opinion but don't take away our right to continue to discuss it.
mike >>
It most certainly is a discussion of whether or not your view is superior if you insist that the alternative view is unethical.
That's about how 3/4 of the golfers I know play. It's just part of the game. Shave a stroke here, shave a stroke there. In the end, they are only hurting themselves because they never get a TRUE score. They never know how good or bad they are. They don't know if they are getting better or worse. They are constantly making up scores for themselves.
This is exactly where I think our flag holder is at. Regardless of ethics, he has no idea what his items are worth. He is constantly making up a value that he thinks they are worth or they should be worth. Because this particular item is hard to evaluate, perhaps he sees no alternative. If he was gonna sell the item very soon, I could see keeping an eye on its value but I would want to KNOW the true value of the item. That way, I could make a better investment decision about selling the item.
If you really want to know the value of the item. Put it up for auction. Place a super high reserve and watch it go. That way, at least you will know the true value. It is what it is.
One must also consider the bidder is part of the market. Sport card trading is not regulated by the state or government, meaning you can form a monopoly on any card or set (or like item) if you have the funds to do so.
A good real life example of this is the 1993 Finest Mark McGwire Refractor, if you took one or two bidders out of the equation....it would go for less. That "lot less" is not it's true value, but rather what the last dozen or so have been sold for shows its value.
This kind of thing can of course backfire...market wise, if one or both bidders decide to go and collect Joe Montana cards.
And again, the bidder NEVER stated he had no intention of paying. We all do things we prefer we did not, go to work, mow the lawn, et al.
Mark
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
"What I fear is that when you finally try to sell your flag (which, by the way is a great looking item) you will not be able to inflate your price and you may be disappointed in the final price. I know, you'll set a reserve at or near what you have been trying to keep this items value at. I see the logic, but in the end just like my golfing buddy, you might be disappointed when its NOT you who decides the value but the actual buyers."
I was wanting to let this thread die a natural death, but I must again plea with you all to recognize that there is NO BOOK VALUE. The value is based on what it commonly has sold for in the past. When more that 1 interested bidder is looking at an item you get a more accurate hammer price than if only 1 ( IMHO).... with 5 interested parties you get a more accurate ( and not necessarily a higher) hammer price.
Blaze the 'no book value' thingy holds no water. case in point common psa 8 cards could book for 12.00 yet sell for hundreds because of low pop. a month ago a 65 Smith card that was once valued at 1000.00 dollars and has since gone down to 360.00 was hovering at around 500.00. half of its 'value' one came up and I was in the middle of selling my 65 set. I placed a bid of 299.99 not to help it hold value but to try and win it so I could flip it. It sold for 360. I bought mine for 650.00 Do I have to bid 500.00 everytime one comes up? No I do not care as i average out my purchases. The next one may very well sell for less then 360.00 but the fact remains in the past yr the card has gone down from a grand to 360.00.
Just because something has no book value per say does not give anyone licsense (IMO) to artificially inflate value by bidding so the one that they have retains its original value.
agreed, however..... if you could cite pop for the flag the analogy would be more accurate... Since memorabilia is a scarce commodity, I suggest that the price usually is determined by condition, providence, and the # of people interested in it at a given time...
<< <i>agreed, however..... if you could cite pop for the flag the analogy would be more accurate... Since memorabilia is a scarce commodity, I suggest that the price usually is determined by condition, providence, and the # of people interested in it at a given time... >>
Precisely. Interestingly, the highest graded 1913 Liberty Head Nickel was put on the block by the number 1 auction house earlier this year. It is ranked #2 in the 100 Greatest US Coins book and has a population of 5, all of which are well known in the hobby. It did not sell as the undisclosed minimum bid was not met. Was the seller looking to determine its value by setting a high minimum or was there just no interest (read competition) for the coin at this time? Not being too connected to the coin world, I don't know, but examples of this coin seem to trade every 5-10 years, so I'm sure there was a pretty good idea of the value.
On a side note, I read the auction description for the coin. It was about a 10 page essay that gave the history of all 5 pieces over the last -95 years. Pretty amazing stuff. One guy kept his in his pocket for years and used it to win bar bets. Talk about not being concerned about condition.
Boo, I understand the logical argument behind this bidding practice, in that if people only bid what they are willing to pay, they aren't overpaying.
However, here's something to consider--Someone that places erroneous bids on everything in site simply to prevent someone else from "getting it cheap"=world class jerk. If it's something JR Ewing on Dallas would do, it's probably unethical.
<< <i>Boo, I understand the logical argument behind this bidding practice, in that if people only bid what they are willing to pay, they aren't overpaying.
However, here's something to consider--Someone that places erroneous bids on everything in site simply to prevent someone else from "getting it cheap"=world class jerk. If it's something JR Ewing on Dallas would do, it's probably unethical. >>
This would largely depend on whether or not he honored those bids if he won the item. If he didn't, then it's just a headache for everyone. If he does, then he won those items because he values them more than the next guy.
Again, this is all predicated on the notion that willingness to pay is the best gauge available to determine the value that someone puts on something. If you don't think it is, then some alternative has to be offered.
My take is that if you are willing to pay what you bid, who gets hurt? If you win, you're forced to buy the item even though you don't necessarily want it, and the seller got the price that the market demands for at the time. It's not shilling because you're actually going to pay for it if you win. The only time you're artificially inflating the value of the item is when you are the one that wins it, in which case you are the one that bites the bullet. If someone else wins, they had a bidding price of an amount they were willing to pay, so you can't say the item brought more than market value.
Yes, of course, willingness to pay, legitimate transaction, the seller benefits, and all the rest. I'm not arguing that. I'm only making the point that the behavior is scummy, questionable, and pointless. With a large enough bankroll, and we see this time and time again (the media likes to comment on the spending habits of celebrities), people can do anything they wish with their money, but on that same token we can comment on it when it's presented to us as objective observors. It's really not the behavior itself that's at issue with me, it's the intent. Do you see a difference between someone that purchases every single wax wrapper they come across because they are amassing the world's largest collection of them, because they have a passion for them... and a guy who, blessed with endless riches, decides he is going to bid up every single wax wrapper in existance not because he wants or needs them, but is only motivated by his desire that someone else be deprived of a "good deal"? All I am saying is that in the latter instance, the guy is a jerk. He's free to do it to his heart's desire. I use my money to benefit myself (and sometimes, although rarely, others), but I don't use my money to deny others. I think there's a difference between spending money to help yourself and spending money to hurt someone else.
You're hurting the buyer and helping the seller. By socitey's standards I guess you're hurting the good guy and helping tha bad guy, but you're really just hurting one random person you don't know, and helping another random person you don't know. Seems like an eithical wash to me. But then you throw in the fact that you're protecting the value of your investment (or so the OP believes).
There are lots of rich people that pay ridiculous prices for stuff that I'd like to have, but are out of my range because others are willing to pay more. Getting pissed off because people spend their money for whatever reason they feel like seems like a waste of time.
Comments
It isn't Boo. It amazes me that sport card dealers and collectors continually tell people they do not know the correct way to collect. Nowhere did OP say he was not willing to buy the card. He did say he would prefer not to win the card, but there is a night and day difference in those words.
If bidder A wants to bid $100 on every player X rookie card in order to try to inflate/protect the value on them, (or whatever reason) more power to him. But to call that shilling, when the seller has no involvement, is to redefine the word.
Mark
edit to fix spelling....been working a show since thursday and my fingers are a little heavy over the keyboard.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>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.
Steve >>
Steve -
for a 7 days listing on ebay the seller would have plenty of time to correct the listing. I commonly use the 'relist' feature and sometimes change the item being sold and then it doesn't match the catagory. I would never claim 'no sale' because I sold I psa graded card that was listed in 'non graded' card for example.
so if a buyer makes a mistake on their bid amount they are expected to (and should) pay for the item. but if a seller makes a mistakes it's a 'no sale'. don't agree with that one.
Joel
All bidder/sellers agree to follow ebay rules and all bidder and sellers have to confirm their listings/bids.
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Steve
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
what if I am selling a Mickey Mantle and I spell Mickey's name Micky? can I claim 'no sale' on this due to the spelling error?
Joel
<< <i>Steve
what if I am selling a Mickey Mantle and I spell Mickey's name Micky? can I claim 'no sale' on this due to the spelling error?
Joel >>
We would have to infer intent, which makes all the difference in the world (apparently) in the eBay world.
Look, everyone has their own ethics. At this age (assuming everyone is +/- 30), it's hard to change the principals we grew up on. Some see it as okay while others feel it's unethical.
He's not doing anything illegal, it all comes down to personal perspective.
It is what it is.
Having said that, I think a better choice of words could have been used when calling someone's eithical judgement "illogical".
Blaze, please stop trying to justify what you do because all it's doing is prolonging this discussion that's going no where.
/ $0.02
<< <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?
Am I being clear?
mike >>
Mike,
I would like to respond to your hypothetical scenario. In this instance, I am 100% confident that I would be perfectly OK with your proposition. Why? Because the EXACT thing happened to me on eBay about 10 days ago.
It was for a 1993 Refractor of John Franco in PSA 10 (LINK) in which I purchased it for around $308. I knew FULL WELL that the eventual second bidder would be bidding in the $300+ range to "protect his investment," as he purchased the card for well over $300 several months ago. I bid what I wanted to pay, but no more and ended up winning the card for $308 or so. The "real underbidder" (according to you) was at $175. So, according to you, I "overpaid" by over $125. Had the $303.03 bidder purchased the card, he would have paid for it in a timely fashion, added it to his 2nd registry set, and that would have been the end of it. I would have had no reason to complain: No shilling; no worries.
This is the auction world. If the seller is willing to start an auction at no reserve, then people have the right to bid even if it is to drive up the price of the item. I sniped the auction and had no problem with where it ended. I obviously "wanted" the card more than the 2nd bidder "wanted" to drive the price up to protect his investment.
So, please know that I'm not being a hypocrite here -- it is exactly how I live and I have no problems with HONEST BIDDERS bidding for whatever reason they choose. There was obviously no link between the 2nd bidder and the seller.
Contract law.
calguy, you can keep adding to the conversation with all types of hypotheticals now I was simply answering the OP and his listing error.
We can what if all day long. I am not an attorney I was simply stating my opinion. In your latest what if I'd say I don't know.
I do know this though if a seller makes an error in listing he could get out of it via the meeting of the minds thingy I referred to earlier.
I hope I have been clear in this latest matter.
As for those that say he (OP) has a right to bid whatever and whenever and for whatever reasons I agree, I never said that he couldn't, However that was not the question here. the question was a simple one and was given very straightforward answers. How morality and ethics, and religion and all the other crap started is very typical.
Bottom line? IMO,and it is only an opinion, to bid on items with the sole purpose of artificially propping up prices is LAME. can it be done? of course, is it right? could be, is it wrong? possibly yes, possibly no, is it lame? YES.
Steve
I agree, they can bid for a myriad of reasons. I do not think anyone here ever said that they couldn't. What many here said that they felt it either stupid, lame, unethical, etc etc etc. No one to my knowledge said that it could not be done. Those on the other side of the fence so to speak keep saying the same thing over and over like we do not understand you. WE DO!. believe me we do.
Steve
I found this comment funny. I would think everything is 'graded'
maybe not with a number but surely if a seller has a wrapper or pennant or whatever he will describe the condition.
if he doesn't then the buyer surely will. and will base his bid on what he feels is the condition.
Steve
I have (11) 1978 Topps Baseball PSA 9s on ebay right now with an opening bid of $2.99 each!
Pleeeeeze, if anyone feels the need to protect their investment. These beauties are worth not a penny less than $10 each!
Put those $10 bids in just to protect those prior investments of yours, pleeeeeeze!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
<< <i>He's not doing anything illegal, it all comes down to personal perspective. >>
I totally agree with this statement.
Bidding on an item to increase the hammer with NO intent of possibly buying the card is not illegal.
But, it sure is unethical IMO.
Why not bud out and let the market go where it will normally go by REAL competitive bidders - NO interferrence.
This is like viewing reality from the perspective of a liberal vs. a conservative. We both live in that world but one views it differently from the other.
BTW, this is not a discussion of my view is better than yours - it's JUST a discussion.
And for those who think it's gone too long - you're entitled to your opinion but don't take away our right to continue to discuss it.
mike
I play golf with this one guy and he always seems to beat me by about 5 strokes. I like this guy a lot. Golf is more than the score. Its the BS along the way. I don't mind if he wins because I know the true value of his score.
During the course of 18 holes, my buddy takes a few muligans, tennis shoe wedges and free drops. He is real good at shaving strokes off his final score to make sure he scores under me. He's a competitor and has to win at any cost. One day we play in a tournament where his score is logged by the caddie. Amazingly I shoot an 94 and he shoots a 95. He is utterly speechless at how bad he plays and can't believe it. I told him I thought he played about as good as he usually does. No better, no worse. It is what it is.
What I fear is that when you finally try to sell your flag (which, by the way is a great looking item) you will not be able to inflate your price and you may be disappointed in the final price. I know, you'll set a reserve at or near what you have been trying to keep this items value at. I see the logic, but in the end just like my golfing buddy, you might be disappointed when its NOT you who decides the value but the actual buyers.
<< <i>Take this for what its worth. I am not pointing a moral finger at anyone. It is what it is.
I play golf with this one guy and he always seems to beat me by about 5 strokes. I like this guy a lot. Golf is more than the score. Its the BS along the way. I don't mind if he wins because I know the true value of his score.
During the course of 18 holes, my buddy takes a few muligans, tennis shoe wedges and free drops. He is real good at shaving strokes off his final score to make sure he scores under me. He's a competitor and has to win at any cost. One day we play in a tournament where his score is logged by the caddie. Amazingly I shoot an 94 and he shoots a 95. He is utterly speechless at how bad he plays and can't believe it. I told him I thought he played about as good as he usually does. No better, no worse. It is what it is.
What I fear is that when you finally try to sell your flag (which, by the way is a great looking item) you will not be able to inflate your price and you may be disappointed in the final price. I know, you'll set a reserve at or near what you have been trying to keep this items value at. I see the logic, but in the end just like my golfing buddy, you might be disappointed when its NOT you who decides the value but the actual buyers. >>
Wow. I have to say I admire your restraint. I don't think I could make it for three holes with a guy like that-- and I don't even play golf.
<< <i>
<< <i>He's not doing anything illegal, it all comes down to personal perspective. >>
I totally agree with this statement.
Bidding on an item to increase the hammer with NO intent of possibly buying the card is not illegal.
But, it sure is unethical IMO.
Why not bud out and let the market go where it will normally go by REAL competitive bidders - NO interferrence.
This is like viewing reality from the perspective of a liberal vs. a conservative. We both live in that world but one views it differently from the other.
BTW, this is not a discussion of my view is better than yours - it's JUST a discussion.
And for those who think it's gone too long - you're entitled to your opinion but don't take away our right to continue to discuss it.
mike >>
It most certainly is a discussion of whether or not your view is superior if you insist that the alternative view is unethical.
This is exactly where I think our flag holder is at. Regardless of ethics, he has no idea what his items are worth. He is constantly making up a value that he thinks they are worth or they should be worth. Because this particular item is hard to evaluate, perhaps he sees no alternative. If he was gonna sell the item very soon, I could see keeping an eye on its value but I would want to KNOW the true value of the item. That way, I could make a better investment decision about selling the item.
If you really want to know the value of the item. Put it up for auction. Place a super high reserve and watch it go. That way, at least you will know the true value. It is what it is.
A good real life example of this is the 1993 Finest Mark McGwire Refractor, if you took one or two bidders out of the equation....it would go for less. That "lot less" is not it's true value, but rather what the last dozen or so have been sold for shows its value.
This kind of thing can of course backfire...market wise, if one or both bidders decide to go and collect Joe Montana cards.
And again, the bidder NEVER stated he had no intention of paying. We all do things we prefer we did not, go to work, mow the lawn, et al.
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I disagree, maybe you can expand on that opinion Boo.
I can see where someone can say that he feels X and just cuz it is a differing view then yours does not make it superior. IMO anyway.
Or does it go without saying that if someone is unethical the other view is superior? And if that was your thinking i disagree.
In any event 2 sides can have differing views and neither can be right nor wrong for that matter.
Steve
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I was wanting to let this thread die a natural death, but I must again plea with you all to recognize that there is NO BOOK VALUE. The value is based on what it commonly has sold for in the past.
When more that 1 interested bidder is looking at an item you get a more accurate hammer price than if only 1 ( IMHO).... with 5 interested parties you get a more accurate ( and not necessarily a higher) hammer price.
Just because something has no book value per say does not give anyone licsense (IMO) to artificially inflate value by bidding so the one that they have retains its original value.
Steve
if you could cite pop for the flag the analogy would be more accurate...
Since memorabilia is a scarce commodity, I suggest that the price usually is determined by condition, providence, and the # of people interested in it at a given time...
<< <i>It most certainly is a discussion of whether or not your view is superior if you insist that the alternative view is unethical. >>
Boo
Something is either ethical or not - it's only my opinion. And many would either agree - or not.
I'm not setting myself up as a "superior" judge - just voicing my opinion.
mike
<< <i>agreed, however.....
if you could cite pop for the flag the analogy would be more accurate...
Since memorabilia is a scarce commodity, I suggest that the price usually is determined by condition, providence, and the # of people interested in it at a given time... >>
Precisely. Interestingly, the highest graded 1913 Liberty Head Nickel was put on the block by the number 1 auction house earlier this year. It is ranked #2 in the 100 Greatest US Coins book and has a population of 5, all of which are well known in the hobby. It did not sell as the undisclosed minimum bid was not met. Was the seller looking to determine its value by setting a high minimum or was there just no interest (read competition) for the coin at this time? Not being too connected to the coin world, I don't know, but examples of this coin seem to trade every 5-10 years, so I'm sure there was a pretty good idea of the value.
On a side note, I read the auction description for the coin. It was about a 10 page essay that gave the history of all 5 pieces over the last -95 years. Pretty amazing stuff. One guy kept his in his pocket for years and used it to win bar bets. Talk about not being concerned about condition.
However, here's something to consider--Someone that places erroneous bids on everything in site simply to prevent someone else from "getting it cheap"=world class jerk. If it's something JR Ewing on Dallas would do, it's probably unethical.
<< <i>Boo, I understand the logical argument behind this bidding practice, in that if people only bid what they are willing to pay, they aren't overpaying.
However, here's something to consider--Someone that places erroneous bids on everything in site simply to prevent someone else from "getting it cheap"=world class jerk. If it's something JR Ewing on Dallas would do, it's probably unethical. >>
This would largely depend on whether or not he honored those bids if he won the item. If he didn't, then it's just a headache for everyone. If he does, then he won those items because he values them more than the next guy.
Again, this is all predicated on the notion that willingness to pay is the best gauge available to determine the value that someone puts on something. If you don't think it is, then some alternative has to be offered.
Lee
There are lots of rich people that pay ridiculous prices for stuff that I'd like to have, but are out of my range because others are willing to pay more. Getting pissed off because people spend their money for whatever reason they feel like seems like a waste of time.
Lee