If we KNEW for a fact that we were the only bidders, then perhaps there would be something to discuss. However, we have no control over anyone other than ourselves. Our choice to bid or not bid has ZERO effect on whether anyone else will bid on a particular item. It is completely outside of our span of control what other people might do or not do.
We share lists of what we have as common needs and take turns. That is certainly NOT breaking any laws, and even if we knew we were the only potential bidders for an item there is definitely no requirement on Ebay or in any AH rules that require registered bidders to to bid for any item that is up for auction just because they are registered bidders and need the item for a registry set (it's not like its Obamacare we're involved with here, is it?).
<< <i>If we KNEW for a fact that we were the only bidders, then perhaps there would be something to discuss. However, we have no control over anyone other than ourselves. Our choice to bid or not bid has ZERO effect on whether anyone else will bid on a particular item. It is completely outside of our span of control what other people might do or not do.
We share lists of what we have as common needs and take turns. That is certainly NOT breaking any laws, and even if we knew we were the only potential bidders for an item there is definitely no requirement on Ebay or in any AH rules that require registered bidders to to bid for any item that is up for auction just because they are registered bidders and need the item for a registry set (it's not like its Obamacare we're involved with here, is it?). >>
Dave, I truly understand what you are saying and I 100% sure ebay or any AH is not going to do anything to you what so ever. Just as they can not do anything to you if you were to bid on your friends item (as in shill bidding). And I also understand your feelings that this is your little way to combat the shilling that goes on at auctions. It doesn't matter to me at all, but I am just saying that according to what you wrote above, it is against the law, that is all I am saying.
The one other thing that I am saying though is if you feel shilling is wrong, you probably should feel that collusion is wrong also, otherwise you would probably be labeled a hypocrite? Right or Wrong?
<< <i>If we KNEW for a fact that we were the only bidders, then perhaps there would be something to discuss. However, we have no control over anyone other than ourselves. Our choice to bid or not bid has ZERO effect on whether anyone else will bid on a particular item. It is completely outside of our span of control what other people might do or not do.
We share lists of what we have as common needs and take turns. That is certainly NOT breaking any laws, and even if we knew we were the only potential bidders for an item there is definitely no requirement on Ebay or in any AH rules that require registered bidders to to bid for any item that is up for auction just because they are registered bidders and need the item for a registry set (it's not like its Obamacare we're involved with here, is it?). >>
Dave, I truly understand what you are saying and I 100% sure ebay or any AH is not going to do anything to you what so ever. Just as they can not do anything to you if you were to bid on your friends item (as in shill bidding). And I also understand your feelings that this is your little way to combat the shilling that goes on at auctions. It doesn't matter to me at all, but I am just saying that according to what you wrote above, it is against the law, that is all I am saying.
The one other thing that I am saying though is if you feel shilling is wrong, you probably should feel that collusion is wrong also, otherwise you would probably be labeled a hypocrite? Right or Wrong? >>
This is actually turning into an interesting discussion.
Two people taking turns is not collusion nor is it against any laws. Collusion is when all the oil companies or airline fix prices to manipulate what is supposed to be a free market. Or when MLB owners make a unanimous agreement to not take players from each other through free agency or set salary limits to prevent the players from getting fair market value.
Our choice to take turns in no way influences or precludes anyone else from participating or bidding at any level they are comfortable bidding at. No other bidder is disadvantaged just because one of us decides to sit out.
As for the "no manipulation" rule you listed, from a bidder perspective that is clearly about active bidders teaming up to somehow improve their chances of winning an item or put other bidders at a disadvantage in some way. One person choosing to sit out voluntarily on an item in no way disadvantages any other bidders nor does it give an advantage to the person who knows that someone is voluntarily sitting out since there is no way to know how many other bidders might exist, who they are or how high they are willing to bid.
As to it being cheating the seller, I must disagree. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of items up for auction that I'd want at any given time. Like most people, I cant afford to bid on every single one of them all at once. If I am cheating honest sellers by deliberately sitting out on an item I know a friend is bidding on, then couldn't I use the same logic and say that by bidding on that item I am cheating honest sellers of other items that I did not bid on because I was chasing the first item? And again, by not participating on an item it in no way limits or restricts (or encourages) anyone else to participate or stay out in any way that it gives an advantage. Who knows, if I stayed in and bid too then perhaps a person would back off because there were too many people bidding in their mind versus staying around and getting into a 2-way bidding war? There's no way to know with any certainty whether taking turns the way we do helps or hurts in any particular situation. It's all just conjecture.
What I do know, is that I don't have a need for immediate satisfaction so I have no problems taking turns with my friends.
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this (and from others), as I always try to maintain an open mind and try to be equitable in all of my dealings.
<< <i>That's a very nice rationalization, but that's all it is. What you are doing IS collusion and that's not really even open to debate. If you personally have no qualms about engaging in the activity, then so be it. But it IS collusion, make no mistake. >>
<< <i>That's a very nice rationalization, but that's all it is. What you are doing IS collusion and that's not really even open to debate. If you personally have no qualms about engaging in the activity, then so be it. But it IS collusion, make no mistake. >>
If we were talking about the price of oil, then two people's decision that 1 would avoid bidding would have no influence on the outcome of a sale/Auction. However, we're talking about baseball card auctions, and sometimes (maybe even Most of the time), removing only 1 bidder from an auction will have a material impact on the final hammer price. This is especially true if the bidder in question is someone who, without your instructions, could reasonably be expected to be the winning bidder of that auction.
<< <i>That's a very nice rationalization, but that's all it is. What you are doing IS collusion and that's not really even open to debate. If you personally have no qualms about engaging in the activity, then so be it. But it IS collusion, make no mistake. >>
<< <i>That's a very nice rationalization, but that's all it is. What you are doing IS collusion and that's not really even open to debate. If you personally have no qualms about engaging in the activity, then so be it. But it IS collusion, make no mistake. >>
You may disagree that the legal definition of collusion doesn't apply to this circumstance but.... Making an agreement with one or more people on a strategy with the intent to get a reduced price without coordinating with the Seller is the basic premise of collusion. Obviously, it's not to the extreme of say MLB free agency cases but still.
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 appreciate seeing all of the thoughts. Based on that input I researched this further through the National Auctioneers Association. Here's some reference links that might be of interest:
This is definitely not an act of collusion. And as for it to be considered "bid rigging" what seems to be required is that the friends are both actively bidding and then one stops explicitly because they dont want to "run up" the price against a friend. However, if one of the two never entered the bidding to begin with, it does not appear to cross the threshold.
I'll keep digging on this and see what else I can find.
<< <i>I appreciate seeing all of the thoughts. Based on that input I researched this further through the National Auctioneers Association. Here's some reference links that might be of interest:
This is definitely not an act of collusion. And as for it to be considered "bid rigging" what seems to be required is that the friends are both actively bidding and then one stops explicitly because they dont want to "run up" the price against a friend. However, if one of the two never entered the bidding to begin with, it does not appear to cross the threshold.
I'll keep digging on this and see what else I can find. >>
There is no collusion if one of the potential bidders simply sits out an auction. Unless there was an action taken with fraudulent intent, ie running the bid up to a certain point then stopping abruptly at a predetermined point, there can be no collusion. You cannot accuse someone of a fraudulent act when there was no act.
Frank Merz and I used to do this all the time when we were both chasing 1977 PSA 10s. We got tired of bidding against each other all the time. We did not defraud the seller, nor did we take specific bidding actions that would circumvent policies, etc. One if us just decided to sit out. Which is our right as a buyer.
As mentioned earlier, if this is collusion, the only legal remedy is to require every collector of an issue to place a reasonable bid on every card in that issue each time one becomes available. That would be absurd
I understand where you're coming from, Hammered. I'm not a lawyer nor stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do know one that could successfully argue the counter-point.
edited to add: you did a pretty massive edit there, Hammered. I'll edit your quote as well....
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
This is certainly not "illegal". Whether it is against someone's TOS is another issue, but of no consequence since there is absolutely no way for an AH to know the intentions of the billions of people across the world who did not bid on a specific item. Whether it is unethical or "collusion" is an interesting question. I'm open to thinking more about this, but my initial thought is that there cannot be something implicitly good/bad about not bidding on something. There are scenarios where I choose not to bid on stuff that I want all the time that could theoretically hurt the consignor. For example, I generally don't bid on PWCC auctions because I know that there will be no bargains to be had. Am I now colluding with someone? If I'm at a live auction and I see Donald Spence standing there with a brief case of cash bidding on something I'd like, I'm not getting involved. Did I do something unethical? I don't think so. Now I also see that in both of those scenarios that there was no communication before/during between the other bidder and myself. Perhaps that's the difference. I'll have to think about this some more. In the end, there is absolutely nothing that could ever be done to stop something like this. Even if you had concrete evidence (emails, voicemails, etc.) that proved two potential bidders decided ahead of time not to both bid on an item, there is absolutely nothing illegal to prosecute. What if you uncovered this evidence of "collusion" before the actual event? Could the law now force the other bidder to bid on the auction because if he doesn't he's breaking the law? No.
Anyway, I know I rambled a bit, but this is really an interesting question that warrants some discussion from someone smarter than me. I'm leaning towards "not collusion", but I'm ready to be swayed by a strong position to the contrary.
I believe it is called "Bid Rigging". They had an episode of Little House on the Prarie, where the town had an auction and that occured. The town got their property back for $1.
Edit: Let's take this exact same action to an extreme. Let's say you're at a live auction and there are exactly 5 people there. They are all there for the same item and there are five of this item up for bid. They get together before the auction and decide to "alternate bidding on the items they want/need". They all agree and all five items go for the min bid. I think that most people would agree this is collusion and just seems dirty. Given that, what makes this action okay just because it's only two bidders among many more? If the action is wrong in the first scenario, it is wrong in the second. Discuss....
So far everything I am finding about bid rigging seems to involve bidder "rings" which are trying to buy for a lower price and then re-allocate what was won based on secondary auctions and sidepayments resulting from those secondary auctions to all those that were involved. Here's an interesting reference:
Looking into bid rotation now. But so far everything there seems to involve a situation where the group acting collectively results in a guaranteed outcome that is effectively dividing a market between themselves and excluding all others. Just because I sit out on an auction lot cannot have much of a bearing on the actions of any other potential bidder.
<< <i>Maybe "Bid Rotation", a type of "bid rigging"?
I'm starting to come around.
Edit: Let's take this exact same action to an extreme. Let's say you're at a live auction and there are exactly 5 people there. They are all there for the same item and there are five of this item up for bid. They get together before the auction and decide to "alternate bidding on the items they want/need". They all agree and all five items go for the min bid. I think that most people would agree this is collusion and just seems dirty. Given that, what makes this action okay just because it's only two bidders among many more? If the action is wrong in the first scenario, it is wrong in the second. Discuss.... >>
You have changed the scenario slightly. All 5 of your bidders are actively participating and there is no possibility of any other bidders competing with them. When I sit out on an auction lot I am choosing to not particpate at all. Further, there is no guarantee that there arent other bidders nor does my choice to sit out prevent anyone from participating.
I think a lot of this is semantics. For me, if two or more parties who would normally bid on a specific lot or lots convene and discuss refraining from bidding on said lot with the purpose of allowing one member to bid without competition so that the lone bidder wins the item at a reduced price, that is bid manipulation. All other aspects of the discussion are superfluous imo if the aforementioned scenario is met.
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>Maybe "Bid Rotation", a type of "bid rigging"?
I'm starting to come around.
Edit: Let's take this exact same action to an extreme. Let's say you're at a live auction and there are exactly 5 people there. They are all there for the same item and there are five of this item up for bid. They get together before the auction and decide to "alternate bidding on the items they want/need". They all agree and all five items go for the min bid. I think that most people would agree this is collusion and just seems dirty. Given that, what makes this action okay just because it's only two bidders among many more? If the action is wrong in the first scenario, it is wrong in the second. Discuss.... >>
You have changed the scenario slightly. All 5 of your bidders are actively participating and there is no possibility of any other bidders competing with them. When I sit out on an auction lot I am choosing to not particpate at all. Further, there is no guarantee that there arent other bidders nor does my choice to sit out prevent anyone from participating. >>
I'll grant it's slightly different. So what if we keep the same scenario, but only four bidders discuss the strategy while the other is out of the loop. Would you agree this would be collusion? If so, then even if you change the scenario to 2 people discussing the strategy in the face of 1000 other bidders, it would still be the same thing. The final price wouldn't necessarily change much if there are 1000 other bidders, but the act is still collusion (assuming the first scenario is collusion).
With all that, if I walk into an auction with my buddy and we are both interested in an item in a room with 100 bidders, I'm not likely to bid against him. I would not feel that I've done anything unethical in this situation. I really don't think it's as straight forward as grote wants it to be, but there's clearly a line somewhere where I would go from feeling like I didn't do anything wrong or hurt the seller to knowing I did something unethical and cost someone some money. Where's the line?
I'm not condemning 70sToppsfan for doing this as I think I probably would have done the same thing and never really considered whether it was unethical (and I'm still not certain it is). Maybe this is a character flaw with me, I'm open to that, but I don't think I'm a bad guy and like to think I act honorably in most situations.
<< <i>I think a lot of this is semantics. For me, if two or more parties who would normally bid on a specific lot or lots convene and discuss refraining from bidding on said lot with the purpose of allowing one member to bid without competition so that the lone bidder wins the item at a reduced price, that is bid manipulation. All other aspects of the discussion are superfluous imo if the aforementioned scenario is met. >>
If the two bidders somehow managed to exclude competition, as is required in your scenario above ("to bid without competition"), then that would (and should) be illegal. But one potential bidder sitting out in no way excludes bidding competition from anyone else who would care to join the bidding.
Back when the reg first started. I had some low pop 1972 High series BB commons graded 8-10s . And I sold a few to the top collectors of the set. And I had one guy contact me over the phone and he was trying to buy all the ones he needed. And a few that were like 1of1s I told him Id like to put up for auction because I saw several on ebay go for crazy prices. He then told me dont expect to ever see that again. Me and the top 5 collectors of this set made a deal where we wont bid againts each other, and we are now in rotation of who can bid on #1-100,101-201,202-303 ect. I was like really? I dont think yall own the market. I also told him i sold a few other cards to X set reg guy and he was pissed. He said dont talk to him but talk to me first next time. Hmmm I call BS, or you are allready trying to buy items you said you wouldnt. Sorry to bring this up but I found this thread similar to my story.
<< <i>I think a lot of this is semantics. For me, if two or more parties who would normally bid on a specific lot or lots convene and discuss refraining from bidding on said lot with the purpose of allowing one member to bid without competition so that the lone bidder wins the item at a reduced price, that is bid manipulation. All other aspects of the discussion are superfluous imo if the aforementioned scenario is met. >>
Very well said. +1
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
<< <i>Back when the reg first started. I had some low pop 1972 High series BB commons graded 8-10s . And I sold a few to the top collectors of the set. And I had one guy contact me over the phone and he was trying to buy all the ones he needed. And a few that were like 1of1s I told him Id like to put up for auction because I saw several on ebay go for crazy prices. He then told me dont expect to ever see that again. Me and the top 5 collectors of this set made a deal where we wont bid againts each other, and we are now in rotation of who can bid on #1-100,101-201,202-303 ect. I was like really? I dont think yall own the market. I also told him i sold a few other cards to X set reg guy and he was pissed. He said dont talk to him but talk to me first next time. Hmmm I call BS, or you are allready trying to buy items you said you wouldnt. Sorry to bring this up but I found this thread similar to my story. >>
<< <i>I think a lot of this is semantics. For me, if two or more parties who would normally bid on a specific lot or lots convene and discuss refraining from bidding on said lot with the purpose of allowing one member to bid without competition so that the lone bidder wins the item at a reduced price, that is bid manipulation. All other aspects of the discussion are superfluous imo if the aforementioned scenario is met. >>
If the two bidders somehow managed to exclude competition, as is required in your scenario above ("to bid without competition"), then that would (and should) be illegal. But one potential bidder sitting out in no way excludes bidding competition from anyone else who would care to join the bidding. >>
I think that's roughly what it really comes down to. For me the line gets crossed when someone knowingly does something that would (or has the intent to) prevent or limit others from participating or would effectively give me unfair control of the outcome. As I stated in an earlier post, there are usually dozens of auction lots I am interested in at any given time. Like almost all of us, I am not blessed enough to simply just bid on all of them. If I choose not to bid on one of them that I know a firend is going to bid on then I just bid on something else instead. Other than with Obamacare, I know of nothing that obligates a person to engage in a commercial activity that they do not choose to enagge in.
And again, as with the scenario about Don Spence showing up and discouraging other bidders by his mere presence does that mean he is cheating an honest seller? People have a right to participate or not participate. As long as one does not start participating and then unfairly backs out (as in the reference example I posted earlier) I am just not seeing it as an ethical violation.
<< <i>Back when the reg first started. I had some low pop 1972 High series BB commons graded 8-10s . And I sold a few to the top collectors of the set. And I had one guy contact me over the phone and he was trying to buy all the ones he needed. And a few that were like 1of1s I told him Id like to put up for auction because I saw several on ebay go for crazy prices. He then told me dont expect to ever see that again. Me and the top 5 collectors of this set made a deal where we wont bid againts each other, and we are now in rotation of who can bid on #1-100,101-201,202-303 ect. I was like really? I dont think yall own the market. I also told him i sold a few other cards to X set reg guy and he was pissed. He said dont talk to him but talk to me first next time. Hmmm I call BS, or you are allready trying to buy items you said you wouldnt. Sorry to bring this up but I found this thread similar to my story. >>
That's where the line gets crossed. Your experience is without question a collusion that is attempting to knowingly divide and restrict a market. My scenario does not prevent or limit anyone from participating, nor does it give me (or anyone else) any influence or control over the outcome.
Thanks for adding your thoughts and experiences to this discussion. I think we're all getting some new perspectives from this one (I know I certainly am), and that's a good thing.
To clarify my post above, I am not saying that such arrangement is necessarily a violation of law, only that it meets the criteria (in my eyes) for bid manipulation.
Sure, there are other bidders that may potentially enter the fray, but we all know that the bidding pool for many of these lots is thin to begin with, and in the case of vintage unopened or low pop/high end PSA graded cards, it is not uncommon for the same bidders (and underbidders) to chase after the same items, so taking one or more such potential bidders out of the equation is certainly possibly quite helpful in limiting the final bid price. Otherwise, why even discuss such an arrangement as a way to avoid "bidding against one another" or "not bidding each other up." In fact, if not for the bidder's potential benefit, why even discuss such an arrangement in the first place? whether or not the benefit is realized by the lone bidder, in terms of whether any other bidders fill the void left by the bidders who have refrained from bidding, is irrelevant, 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.
70fanatic, I respect the fact that you seem a genuinely thoughtful and decent guy. However, I feel you are slipping down the slope of rationalizing your own cognitive dissonance. Your original statement was made in response to BBG who mentioned that he and I were the sole aggressive bidders on many a 78 in the recent set-break. Therefore, if we could coordinate in the future we could lower our own cost - hypothetically.
I agree that there are many other potential bidders - but not that many. It would be easy to determine if the other major players have a card, need a card etc. So the market is quite small. In the 1975 minis there are only 2 people actively chasing 10s! We could easily manipulate prices downward if we wanted. One can hypothetically argue that if we colluded anyone else could jump in but IMO whether it is illegal or not or whatever definition one wants to put on this - it just does not smell right to me morally or ethically. Therefore, I wont do it and I wont spend time trying to rationalize it. In the same vein Obamacare smells like a 1 week old soiled diaper but for the other extreme reason of forced coercion.
Also, I will not presume that every seller is out to defraud me or concoct an elaborate shilling system, therefore, there is no need for me to actively pursue a counter-strategy. If this means I end up paying more than so be it. I am responsible for my bids.
EDIT: But I want to say that I REALLY understand your reasoning. For me, I am quite sure that in some years people have learned my bidding habits and chip up my cost to protect their set and increase the perceived value of their own cards, in other years, some people are just very aggressive and routinely beat me. It is a brutal game we are playing gentlemen and not for the weak of heart!
70 ToppsFanatic, One of your points that use continue using is that it is "not wrong for somebody to drop out of an auction" Nobody that has debated the other side has said it's wrong. A bidder can stop bidding any time they choose, EXCEPT, when they have previously communicated with another bidder and have planned to not bid on an item in hopes that one of you can win it cheaper. Now most likely, you and that other person are going to be the only two people in the world that knows why one of you did not bid this time. You can sit here and rationalize and say "well, maybe I did not want this item today, or any other story you want, but you and that other person knows! Just as in shill bidding, the shiller is most likely the only person that knows! But that doesn't make it any less illegal, or less bad. It only makes it less likely to be discovered.
Once again, I do not think this is a huge deal. I'm just saying if you don't like shilling, you shouldn't like collusion.
edit to clarify: earlier I said auctions were regulated by the Feds, I think that was wrong, they are regulated by the state.
Once again, I do not think this is a huge deal. I'm just saying if you don't like shilling, you shouldn't like collusion. >>
Captures my view perfectly. Much of all this is part of the game. I can't control others, I can only control my bid. I look at it as the cost of doing business. If any of you have travelled or done business in Nigeria, it would be an eye-opener. We are cub-scouts compared to that country.
<< <i>70 ToppsFanatic, One of your points that use continue using is that it is "not wrong for somebody to drop out of an auction" Nobody that has debated the other side has said it's wrong. A bidder can stop bidding any time they choose, EXCEPT, when they have previously communicated with another bidder and have planned to not bid on an item in hopes that one of you can win it cheaper. Now most likely, you and that other person are going to be the only two people in the world that knows why one of you did not bid this time. You can sit here and rationalize and say "well, maybe I did not want this item today, or any other story you want, but you and that other person knows! Just as in shill bidding, the shiller is most likely the only person that knows! But that doesn't make it any less illegal, or less bad. It only makes it less likely to be discovered.
Once again, I do not think this is a huge deal. I'm just saying if you don't like shilling, you shouldn't like collusion.
edit to clarify: earlier I said auctions were regulated by the Feds, I think that was wrong, they are regulated by the state. >>
Not quite what I have said. I have already posted the link to the example where someone starts bidding and then drops out solely to avoid adding to the sale price to help out a friend. There are many valid reasons to stop bidding once you start, but that one is most definitely NOT valid. But I do not see choosing to "drop out" before the auction even starts as the same (regardless of who knows about it in advance or doesn't) or even as a similar action. Nor could anyone make a definitive case either way that it influenced the outcome positively or negatively or that it made no appreciable difference.
What I do know is that my choice to sit on the side does not limit or restrict any other participant or create any advantage for anyone involved (unless someone has complete knowledge of everyone else who is participating against them, what their bidding strategies are, what else they are bidding, how they prioritize the lot in question relative to the other things they are pursuing, etc.).
I'll also point out an example from this very message board for your consideration. In the Jan 2012 MH auction there was a full case of unopened 1975 Topps mini boxes available. I posted to this message board that I was going to bid on it with the intent of trying to win it for a board break (in hindsight based on this thread I now see that as kind of a bidder ring and will not be doing something like that again). I did not reveal any specific details of how I would bid, but I believe that I did comment something to the effect that everyone was obviously free to do as they wished, but anyone who chose to bid could be driving up the price for everyone if I ended up as the successful bidder.
Would you believe that not a single person raised this as an issue then??? Further, the AH never raised it as an issue with me either (and as it turned out there was a direct contact with the AH a few months later regarding that case for a totally unrelated reason and this topic/concern never even came up).
Now, as a result of this thread some people may have had a change of opinion (and I think it a good thing that we can exchange ideas here such that we end up actually changing some peoples' minds as a result). But I am having difficulty trying to equate a deliberate action to deceive others and a non-action that puts no one (any other bidder or even the seller) in a clear position of advantage or disadvantage. There is just no way to know whether by staying out of bidding on a lot the seller ends up with a lesser final price or perhaps someone who is bidding gets a little more aggresive than they otherwise would if there had been 1 more bidder involved and the seller ends up better off. Maybe it ends up having no impact whatsoever. It's pure speculation and conjecture any way you try to analyze it.
The fact of the matter is that as buyers we all hope to have the best chance of winning at the lowest prices possible, and as sellers we are all hoping to get the best prices possible. That's just human nature. Look at how people "mine" the registry sets that are publicly viewable to try and figure out who needs what and then they set BIN prices far in excess of any recent prices that have been paid. Though such actions work against my interests as a buyer, I cant label that action as unfair or unethical either (though some might consider it as a form of price fixing). How about sniping at the last moment? Some might consider it unfair or unethical, while others view it as an valid and effective strategy to win. Just because the Ebay platform allows it does that make it "ok" to do it (mind you, I do not view it as unfair or unethical)?
I still keep coming back to the view that the line gets crossed when someone is taking deliberate action to KNOWINGLY deceive, limit, prevent, etc. a free market from operating as such or to KNOWINGLY gain (or give someone) an unfair advantage (or KNOWINGLY put others at an unfair disadvantage) when that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it and you'll have won me over.
My contention is that there isn't a way to determine whether my choice of inaction hurts, helps or has no meaningful effect in any given instance. It could do any of these three, but there are just too many outside factors for anyone to know which of these outcomes might happen, is happening or ultimately happened with complete hindsight available. Thus, since there is no way to know with any given instance the playing field remains level and it does not cross the line.
when that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it and you'll have won me over.
I don't think it's a question of certainty, David. But as a potential bidder, I know my chances of winning a card (or pack or box) at a lower price are going to be that much greater if other potential bidders who would otherwise be bidding against me decide to sit out for my potential benefit. It's a simple as that. Heck, if Henry alone could be convinced to sit on the sidelines for some of those high grade 75 mini cards, prices would plummet overnight, LOL...
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>when that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it and you'll have won me over.
I don't think it's a question of certainty, David. But as a potential bidder, I know my chances of winning a card (or pack or box) at a lower price are going to be that much greater if other potential bidders who would otherwise be bidding against me decide to sit out for my potential benefit. It's a simple as that. Heck, if Henry alone could be convinced to sit on the sidelines for some of those high grade 75 mini cards, prices would plummet overnight, LOL... >>
Wont happen Tim people 'gotta pony up to sit at that table! I've done my calculations and that set is gold!
In response your the question, there is a difference between inaction (like missing a bid because wife demands attention) and collaborative efforts (like the MLB owners colluding not to bid on Jack Morris). Again, to each his own IMO, I am personally not judging you on this. If the market continues to heat-up like this it is irrelevant because there will be too many players involved.
<< <i>Collusion is such an ugly word. Let's call it "empathy bidding". >>
Let's call it 'seller can do everything in their power to maximize the hammer price, and buyers can do everything in their power to minimize it'. And then we can all shut up.
"I still keep coming back to the view that the line gets crossed when someone is taking deliberate action to KNOWINGLY deceive, limit, prevent, etc. a free market from operating as such or to KNOWINGLY gain (or give someone) an unfair advantage (or KNOWINGLY put others at an unfair disadvantage) when that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it and you'll have won me over."
This logic seems tortured. It's kind of like a guy who gets arrested for DUI saying that there was no way to know for certain that he was going to hurt anyone.
Whether or not the price is affected in the end is immaterial. The act of coming to an agreement with another bidder with the intent of affecting the ending price of the auction is the problem.
What you're doing is coming to an agreement which states, in essence, I'll go after this one if you don't, and you go after the next one. That way, the prices will be lower for both of us!
In essence you're making a contract with another collector to restrain the free market. If there were no way that it would affect the ending price (restrain the free market), there would be no reason to agree not to bid.
<< <i>"I still keep coming back to the view that the line gets crossed when someone is taking deliberate action to KNOWINGLY deceive, limit, prevent, etc. a free market from operating as such or to KNOWINGLY gain (or give someone) an unfair advantage (or KNOWINGLY put others at an unfair disadvantage) when that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it and you'll have won me over."
This logic seems tortured. It's kind of like a guy who gets arrested for DUI saying that there was no way to know for certain that he was going to hurt anyone.
Whether or not the price is affected in the end is immaterial. The act of coming to an agreement with another bidder with the intent of affecting the ending price of the auction is the problem.
What you're doing is coming to an agreement which states, in essence, I'll go after this one if you don't, and you go after the next one. That way, the prices will be lower for both of us!
In essence you're making a contract with another collector to restrain the free market. If there were no way that it would affect the ending price (restrain the free market), there would be no reason to agree not to bid. >>
A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely.
<< <i> A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely. >>
Methinks you misunderstand free market economics and the benefits of open competition. Adam Smith 1776 is a good start
<< <i> A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely. >>
Methinks you misunderstand free market economics and the benefits of open competition. Adam Smith 1776 is a good start >>
Thanks for the tip; economics has always confused me.
<< <i> A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely. >>
Methinks you misunderstand free market economics and the benefits of open competition. Adam Smith 1776 is a good start >>
Thanks for the tip; economics has always confused me. >>
ditto, phd level economics is 100% modeling and math. McAdams had the most important quote talking about oil trades. It is important to differentiate corn (efficient market), oil trades (semi-efficient market due to OPEC), and high end psa 9-10 collecting (inefficient market). Free market economies require 2 main things. 1. Large number of independent actors, 2. Independent actors acting in their own self interest. Under these conditions one can say the "market clears" The issue debated here is one that can be studied under game economic theory with few actors who can conceivably manipulate the markets (MLB baseball in the late 1980s). When there are from 2 to 5 major actors then free markets don't exist by definition. That is why card collecting should be seen first and second as a hobby, only churners (dealers) or 4SC who has access to Fritsch's hoard (my theory) can be assured of profits. IMO I look at my collection as a lifelong pursuit and hobby. But, I would not be investing in the high end cards if I did not see the probability of solid returns and diminishing supply looking 7-12 years out. Basically, my thinking is that it is better to buy these cards while they are relatively cheap than pursue them in 2025 when I am nearing retirement and they are much scarcer (market based scarcity not numbers based scarcity). I could be wrong and these all go the other way, but that is the fun of it.
But, I would not be investing in the high end cards if I did not see the probability of solid returns and diminishing supply looking 7-12 years out. Basically, my thinking is that it is better to buy these cards while they are relatively cheap than pursue them in 2025 when I am nearing retirement and they are much scarcer (market based scarcity not numbers based scarcity).
This was the same logic used by the guys buying 1997 Tiger Woods rookies for $10k and things of the like.
You're gambling on the staying power of PSA, not the hobby, the set, the player.... There was a time when an SGC 98 and GAI 10 sold for the same as a PSA 10. If a new, better grading company comes along or collectors simply get tired of grading companies, registries, etc...., the significant premium your low pop PSA 9s and 10s carry will be all but gone. Yes, a perfectly centered and sharp George Brett rookie will always sell for a ton of money. But will collectors still care about perfect no-name commons in 15 years? Who knows, but it is far from a certainty that there will be guys such as yourself and BBG hunting down complete high grade 70s sets down the road and willing to spend the coin you are. There is a reasonable chance that once you guys get out of the hunt there will be nobody to replace you and competition will significantly decrease. Or maybe more collectors will jump in the fray and your theory will prove true. Who knows, but while I think the hobby will continue to strive for another generation or so (until kids grow up and we die) I think it is faulty logic to assume that PSA slabs will always carry a big premium. Say PSA gets bought out and taken over by a company that mismanages it and they go down the same road as GAI; will your pop 1 PSA 10 75 mini common still be worth $1500? Will you have to cross it over to another company to regain that value? Will collectors stop caring about slabs at that point and all the TPG's will go under?
There is a lot that can happen for things to go either way for folks investing in slabs even if the hobby itself is able to maintain.
Comments
"Live everyday, don't throw it away"
However, we have no control over anyone other than ourselves. Our choice to bid or not bid has ZERO effect
on whether anyone else will bid on a particular item. It is completely outside of our span of control what other
people might do or not do.
We share lists of what we have as common needs and take turns. That is certainly NOT breaking any laws, and
even if we knew we were the only potential bidders for an item there is definitely no requirement on Ebay or in any
AH rules that require registered bidders to to bid for any item that is up for auction just because they are registered
bidders and need the item for a registry set (it's not like its Obamacare we're involved with here, is it?).
Dave
<< <i>If we KNEW for a fact that we were the only bidders, then perhaps there would be something to discuss.
However, we have no control over anyone other than ourselves. Our choice to bid or not bid has ZERO effect
on whether anyone else will bid on a particular item. It is completely outside of our span of control what other
people might do or not do.
We share lists of what we have as common needs and take turns. That is certainly NOT breaking any laws, and
even if we knew we were the only potential bidders for an item there is definitely no requirement on Ebay or in any
AH rules that require registered bidders to to bid for any item that is up for auction just because they are registered
bidders and need the item for a registry set (it's not like its Obamacare we're involved with here, is it?). >>
Dave, I truly understand what you are saying and I 100% sure ebay or any AH is not going to do anything to you what so ever. Just as they can not do anything to you if you were to bid on your friends item (as in shill bidding). And I also understand your feelings that this is your little way to combat the shilling that goes on at auctions. It doesn't matter to me at all, but I am just saying that according to what you wrote above, it is against the law, that is all I am saying.
The one other thing that I am saying though is if you feel shilling is wrong, you probably should feel that collusion is wrong also, otherwise you would probably be labeled a hypocrite? Right or Wrong?
<< <i>
<< <i>If we KNEW for a fact that we were the only bidders, then perhaps there would be something to discuss.
However, we have no control over anyone other than ourselves. Our choice to bid or not bid has ZERO effect
on whether anyone else will bid on a particular item. It is completely outside of our span of control what other
people might do or not do.
We share lists of what we have as common needs and take turns. That is certainly NOT breaking any laws, and
even if we knew we were the only potential bidders for an item there is definitely no requirement on Ebay or in any
AH rules that require registered bidders to to bid for any item that is up for auction just because they are registered
bidders and need the item for a registry set (it's not like its Obamacare we're involved with here, is it?). >>
Dave, I truly understand what you are saying and I 100% sure ebay or any AH is not going to do anything to you what so ever. Just as they can not do anything to you if you were to bid on your friends item (as in shill bidding). And I also understand your feelings that this is your little way to combat the shilling that goes on at auctions. It doesn't matter to me at all, but I am just saying that according to what you wrote above, it is against the law, that is all I am saying.
The one other thing that I am saying though is if you feel shilling is wrong, you probably should feel that collusion is wrong also, otherwise you would probably be labeled a hypocrite? Right or Wrong? >>
This is actually turning into an interesting discussion.
Two people taking turns is not collusion nor is it against any laws. Collusion is when all the oil companies or airline fix prices to manipulate what is supposed to be a free
market. Or when MLB owners make a unanimous agreement to not take players from each other through free agency or set salary limits to prevent the players from
getting fair market value.
Our choice to take turns in no way influences or precludes anyone else from participating or bidding at any level they are comfortable bidding at. No other bidder is disadvantaged just because one of us decides to sit out.
As for the "no manipulation" rule you listed, from a bidder perspective that is clearly about active bidders teaming up to somehow improve their chances of winning an item or put other bidders at a disadvantage in some way. One person choosing to sit out voluntarily on an item in no way disadvantages any other bidders nor does it give an advantage to the person who knows that someone is voluntarily sitting out since there is no way to know how many other bidders might exist, who they are or how high they are willing to bid.
As to it being cheating the seller, I must disagree. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of items up for auction that I'd want at any given time. Like most people, I cant afford to bid on every single one of them all at once. If I am cheating honest sellers by deliberately sitting out on an item I know a friend is bidding on, then couldn't I use the same logic and say that by bidding on that item I am cheating honest sellers of other items that I did not bid on because I was chasing the first item? And again, by not participating on an item it in no way limits or restricts (or encourages) anyone else to participate or stay out in any way that it gives an advantage. Who knows, if I stayed in and bid too then perhaps a person would back off because there were too many people bidding in their mind versus staying around and getting into a 2-way bidding war? There's no way to know with any certainty whether taking turns the way we do helps or hurts in any particular situation. It's all just conjecture.
What I do know, is that I don't have a need for immediate satisfaction so I have no problems taking turns with my friends.
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this (and from others), as I always try to maintain an open mind and try to be equitable in all of my dealings.
Cheers
Dave
<< <i>That's a very nice rationalization, but that's all it is. What you are doing IS collusion and that's not really even open to debate. If you personally have no qualms about engaging in the activity, then so be it. But it IS collusion, make no mistake. >>
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
<< <i>That's a very nice rationalization, but that's all it is. What you are doing IS collusion and that's not really even open to debate. If you personally have no qualms about engaging in the activity, then so be it. But it IS collusion, make no mistake. >>
Well said.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>That's a very nice rationalization, but that's all it is. What you are doing IS collusion and that's not really even open to debate. If you personally have no qualms about engaging in the activity, then so be it. But it IS collusion, make no mistake. >>
Well said.
<< <i>That's a very nice rationalization, but that's all it is. What you are doing IS collusion and that's not really even open to debate. If you personally have no qualms about engaging in the activity, then so be it. But it IS collusion, make no mistake. >>
Here's some reference links that might be of interest:
http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/what-is-collusion-at-an-auction/
http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/can-friends-commit-bid-rigging/
This is definitely not an act of collusion. And as for it to be considered "bid rigging" what seems to be required is that
the friends are both actively bidding and then one stops explicitly because they dont want to "run up" the price against a
friend. However, if one of the two never entered the bidding to begin with, it does not appear to cross the threshold.
I'll keep digging on this and see what else I can find.
Dave
<< <i>I appreciate seeing all of the thoughts. Based on that input I researched this further through the National Auctioneers Association.
Here's some reference links that might be of interest:
http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/what-is-collusion-at-an-auction/
http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/can-friends-commit-bid-rigging/
This is definitely not an act of collusion. And as for it to be considered "bid rigging" what seems to be required is that
the friends are both actively bidding and then one stops explicitly because they dont want to "run up" the price against a
friend. However, if one of the two never entered the bidding to begin with, it does not appear to cross the threshold.
I'll keep digging on this and see what else I can find. >>
You might be digging in the wrong backyard here..
Needs'
1972 Football-9's high#'s
1965 Football-8's
1958 Topps FB-7-8
Frank Merz and I used to do this all the time when we were both chasing 1977 PSA 10s. We got tired of bidding against each other all the time. We did not defraud the seller, nor did we take specific bidding actions that would circumvent policies, etc.
One if us just decided to sit out. Which is our right as a buyer.
As mentioned earlier, if this is collusion, the only legal remedy is to require every collector of an issue to place a reasonable bid on every card in that issue each time one becomes available. That would be absurd
edited to add: you did a pretty massive edit there, Hammered. I'll edit your quote as well....
Anyway, I know I rambled a bit, but this is really an interesting question that warrants some discussion from someone smarter than me. I'm leaning towards "not collusion", but I'm ready to be swayed by a strong position to the contrary.
Jbox.
I'm starting to come around.
Edit: Let's take this exact same action to an extreme. Let's say you're at a live auction and there are exactly 5 people there. They are all there for the same item and there are five of this item up for bid. They get together before the auction and decide to "alternate bidding on the items they want/need". They all agree and all five items go for the min bid. I think that most people would agree this is collusion and just seems dirty. Given that, what makes this action okay just because it's only two bidders among many more? If the action is wrong in the first scenario, it is wrong in the second. Discuss....
and then re-allocate what was won based on secondary auctions and sidepayments resulting from those secondary
auctions to all those that were involved. Here's an interesting reference:
http://www.johnasker.com/PalgraveBiddingRings091028.pdf
Looking into bid rotation now. But so far everything there seems to involve a situation where the group acting collectively
results in a guaranteed outcome that is effectively dividing a market between themselves and excluding all others. Just because
I sit out on an auction lot cannot have much of a bearing on the actions of any other potential bidder.
Research continuing....
Dave
<< <i>Maybe "Bid Rotation", a type of "bid rigging"?
I'm starting to come around.
Edit: Let's take this exact same action to an extreme. Let's say you're at a live auction and there are exactly 5 people there. They are all there for the same item and there are five of this item up for bid. They get together before the auction and decide to "alternate bidding on the items they want/need". They all agree and all five items go for the min bid. I think that most people would agree this is collusion and just seems dirty. Given that, what makes this action okay just because it's only two bidders among many more? If the action is wrong in the first scenario, it is wrong in the second. Discuss.... >>
You have changed the scenario slightly. All 5 of your bidders are actively participating and there is no possibility of any other bidders competing with them.
When I sit out on an auction lot I am choosing to not particpate at all. Further, there is no guarantee that there arent other bidders nor does my choice to
sit out prevent anyone from participating.
Dave
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>
<< <i>Maybe "Bid Rotation", a type of "bid rigging"?
I'm starting to come around.
Edit: Let's take this exact same action to an extreme. Let's say you're at a live auction and there are exactly 5 people there. They are all there for the same item and there are five of this item up for bid. They get together before the auction and decide to "alternate bidding on the items they want/need". They all agree and all five items go for the min bid. I think that most people would agree this is collusion and just seems dirty. Given that, what makes this action okay just because it's only two bidders among many more? If the action is wrong in the first scenario, it is wrong in the second. Discuss.... >>
You have changed the scenario slightly. All 5 of your bidders are actively participating and there is no possibility of any other bidders competing with them.
When I sit out on an auction lot I am choosing to not particpate at all. Further, there is no guarantee that there arent other bidders nor does my choice to
sit out prevent anyone from participating. >>
I'll grant it's slightly different. So what if we keep the same scenario, but only four bidders discuss the strategy while the other is out of the loop. Would you agree this would be collusion? If so, then even if you change the scenario to 2 people discussing the strategy in the face of 1000 other bidders, it would still be the same thing. The final price wouldn't necessarily change much if there are 1000 other bidders, but the act is still collusion (assuming the first scenario is collusion).
With all that, if I walk into an auction with my buddy and we are both interested in an item in a room with 100 bidders, I'm not likely to bid against him. I would not feel that I've done anything unethical in this situation. I really don't think it's as straight forward as grote wants it to be, but there's clearly a line somewhere where I would go from feeling like I didn't do anything wrong or hurt the seller to knowing I did something unethical and cost someone some money. Where's the line?
I'm not condemning 70sToppsfan for doing this as I think I probably would have done the same thing and never really considered whether it was unethical (and I'm still not certain it is). Maybe this is a character flaw with me, I'm open to that, but I don't think I'm a bad guy and like to think I act honorably in most situations.
Jbox
<< <i>I think a lot of this is semantics. For me, if two or more parties who would normally bid on a specific lot or lots convene and discuss refraining from bidding on said lot with the purpose of allowing one member to bid without competition so that the lone bidder wins the item at a reduced price, that is bid manipulation. All other aspects of the discussion are superfluous imo if the aforementioned scenario is met. >>
If the two bidders somehow managed to exclude competition, as is required in your scenario above ("to bid without competition"), then that would (and should) be illegal. But one potential bidder sitting out in no way excludes bidding competition from anyone else who would care to join the bidding.
Sorry to bring this up but I found this thread similar to my story.
<< <i>I think a lot of this is semantics. For me, if two or more parties who would normally bid on a specific lot or lots convene and discuss refraining from bidding on said lot with the purpose of allowing one member to bid without competition so that the lone bidder wins the item at a reduced price, that is bid manipulation. All other aspects of the discussion are superfluous imo if the aforementioned scenario is met. >>
Very well said. +1
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
<< <i>Back when the reg first started. I had some low pop 1972 High series BB commons graded 8-10s . And I sold a few to the top collectors of the set. And I had one guy contact me over the phone and he was trying to buy all the ones he needed. And a few that were like 1of1s I told him Id like to put up for auction because I saw several on ebay go for crazy prices. He then told me dont expect to ever see that again. Me and the top 5 collectors of this set made a deal where we wont bid againts each other, and we are now in rotation of who can bid on #1-100,101-201,202-303 ect. I was like really? I dont think yall own the market. I also told him i sold a few other cards to X set reg guy and he was pissed. He said dont talk to him but talk to me first next time. Hmmm I call BS, or you are allready trying to buy items you said you wouldnt.
Sorry to bring this up but I found this thread similar to my story. >>
Interesting. This seems wrong to me.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think a lot of this is semantics. For me, if two or more parties who would normally bid on a specific lot or lots convene and discuss refraining from bidding on said lot with the purpose of allowing one member to bid without competition so that the lone bidder wins the item at a reduced price, that is bid manipulation. All other aspects of the discussion are superfluous imo if the aforementioned scenario is met. >>
If the two bidders somehow managed to exclude competition, as is required in your scenario above ("to bid without competition"), then that would (and should) be illegal. But one potential bidder sitting out in no way excludes bidding competition from anyone else who would care to join the bidding. >>
I think that's roughly what it really comes down to. For me the line gets crossed when someone knowingly does something that would (or has the intent to) prevent or limit others from participating or would effectively give me unfair control of the outcome. As I stated in an earlier post, there are usually dozens of auction lots I am interested in at any given time. Like almost all of us, I am not blessed enough to simply just bid on all of them. If I choose not to bid on one of them that I know a firend is going to bid on then I just bid on something else instead. Other than with Obamacare, I know of nothing that obligates a person to engage in a commercial activity that they do not choose to enagge in.
And again, as with the scenario about Don Spence showing up and discouraging other bidders by his mere presence does that mean he is cheating an honest seller? People have a right to participate or not participate. As long as one does not start participating and then unfairly backs out (as in the reference example I posted earlier) I am just not seeing it as an ethical violation.
Dave
<< <i>Back when the reg first started. I had some low pop 1972 High series BB commons graded 8-10s . And I sold a few to the top collectors of the set. And I had one guy contact me over the phone and he was trying to buy all the ones he needed. And a few that were like 1of1s I told him Id like to put up for auction because I saw several on ebay go for crazy prices. He then told me dont expect to ever see that again. Me and the top 5 collectors of this set made a deal where we wont bid againts each other, and we are now in rotation of who can bid on #1-100,101-201,202-303 ect. I was like really? I dont think yall own the market. I also told him i sold a few other cards to X set reg guy and he was pissed. He said dont talk to him but talk to me first next time. Hmmm I call BS, or you are allready trying to buy items you said you wouldnt.
Sorry to bring this up but I found this thread similar to my story. >>
That's where the line gets crossed. Your experience is without question a collusion that is attempting to knowingly divide and restrict a market. My scenario does not prevent or limit anyone from participating, nor does it give me (or anyone else) any influence or control over the outcome.
Thanks for adding your thoughts and experiences to this discussion. I think we're all getting some new perspectives from this one (I know I certainly am), and that's a good thing.
Dave
Not sure why, but I cringe when I see the words "legal" and "illegal" on this board.
Sure, there are other bidders that may potentially enter the fray, but we all know that the bidding pool for many of these lots is thin to begin with, and in the case of vintage unopened or low pop/high end PSA graded cards, it is not uncommon for the same bidders (and underbidders) to chase after the same items, so taking one or more such potential bidders out of the equation is certainly possibly quite helpful in limiting the final bid price. Otherwise, why even discuss such an arrangement as a way to avoid "bidding against one another" or "not bidding each other up." In fact, if not for the bidder's potential benefit, why even discuss such an arrangement in the first place? whether or not the benefit is realized by the lone bidder, in terms of whether any other bidders fill the void left by the bidders who have refrained from bidding, is irrelevant, 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.
I agree that there are many other potential bidders - but not that many. It would be easy to determine if the other major players have a card, need a card etc. So the market is quite small. In the 1975 minis there are only 2 people actively chasing 10s! We could easily manipulate prices downward if we wanted. One can hypothetically argue that if we colluded anyone else could jump in but IMO whether it is illegal or not or whatever definition one wants to put on this - it just does not smell right to me morally or ethically. Therefore, I wont do it and I wont spend time trying to rationalize it. In the same vein Obamacare smells like a 1 week old soiled diaper but for the other extreme reason of forced coercion.
Also, I will not presume that every seller is out to defraud me or concoct an elaborate shilling system, therefore, there is no need for me to actively pursue a counter-strategy. If this means I end up paying more than so be it. I am responsible for my bids.
EDIT: But I want to say that I REALLY understand your reasoning. For me, I am quite sure that in some years people have learned my bidding habits and chip up my cost to protect their set and increase the perceived value of their own cards, in other years, some people are just very aggressive and routinely beat me. It is a brutal game we are playing gentlemen and not for the weak of heart!
One of your points that use continue using is that it is "not wrong for somebody to drop out of an auction" Nobody that has debated the other side has said it's wrong. A bidder can stop bidding any time they choose, EXCEPT, when they have previously communicated with another bidder and have planned to not bid on an item in hopes that one of you can win it cheaper. Now most likely, you and that other person are going to be the only two people in the world that knows why one of you did not bid this time. You can sit here and rationalize and say "well, maybe I did not want this item today, or any other story you want, but you and that other person knows! Just as in shill bidding, the shiller is most likely the only person that knows! But that doesn't make it any less illegal, or less bad. It only makes it less likely to be discovered.
Once again, I do not think this is a huge deal. I'm just saying if you don't like shilling, you shouldn't like collusion.
edit to clarify: earlier I said auctions were regulated by the Feds, I think that was wrong, they are regulated by the state.
<< <i>
Once again, I do not think this is a huge deal. I'm just saying if you don't like shilling, you shouldn't like collusion. >>
<< <i>70 ToppsFanatic,
One of your points that use continue using is that it is "not wrong for somebody to drop out of an auction" Nobody that has debated the other side has said it's wrong. A bidder can stop bidding any time they choose, EXCEPT, when they have previously communicated with another bidder and have planned to not bid on an item in hopes that one of you can win it cheaper. Now most likely, you and that other person are going to be the only two people in the world that knows why one of you did not bid this time. You can sit here and rationalize and say "well, maybe I did not want this item today, or any other story you want, but you and that other person knows! Just as in shill bidding, the shiller is most likely the only person that knows! But that doesn't make it any less illegal, or less bad. It only makes it less likely to be discovered.
Once again, I do not think this is a huge deal. I'm just saying if you don't like shilling, you shouldn't like collusion.
edit to clarify: earlier I said auctions were regulated by the Feds, I think that was wrong, they are regulated by the state. >>
Not quite what I have said. I have already posted the link to the example where someone starts bidding and then drops out solely to avoid
adding to the sale price to help out a friend. There are many valid reasons to stop bidding once you start, but that one is most definitely NOT
valid. But I do not see choosing to "drop out" before the auction even starts as the same (regardless of who knows about it in advance or doesn't)
or even as a similar action. Nor could anyone make a definitive case either way that it influenced the outcome positively or negatively or that it made
no appreciable difference.
What I do know is that my choice to sit on the side does not limit or restrict any other participant or create any advantage for anyone involved (unless
someone has complete knowledge of everyone else who is participating against them, what their bidding strategies are, what else they are bidding, how
they prioritize the lot in question relative to the other things they are pursuing, etc.).
I'll also point out an example from this very message board for your consideration. In the Jan 2012 MH auction there was a full case of unopened
1975 Topps mini boxes available. I posted to this message board that I was going to bid on it with the intent of trying to win it for a board
break (in hindsight based on this thread I now see that as kind of a bidder ring and will not be doing something like that again). I did not reveal any
specific details of how I would bid, but I believe that I did comment something to the effect that everyone was obviously free to do as they wished, but
anyone who chose to bid could be driving up the price for everyone if I ended up as the successful bidder.
Would you believe that not a single person raised this as an issue then??? Further, the AH never raised it as an issue with me either (and as it turned
out there was a direct contact with the AH a few months later regarding that case for a totally unrelated reason and this topic/concern never even came up).
Now, as a result of this thread some people may have had a change of opinion (and I think it a good thing that we can exchange ideas here such
that we end up actually changing some peoples' minds as a result). But I am having difficulty trying to equate a deliberate action to deceive others
and a non-action that puts no one (any other bidder or even the seller) in a clear position of advantage or disadvantage. There is just no way to know
whether by staying out of bidding on a lot the seller ends up with a lesser final price or perhaps someone who is bidding gets a little more aggresive
than they otherwise would if there had been 1 more bidder involved and the seller ends up better off. Maybe it ends up having no impact whatsoever.
It's pure speculation and conjecture any way you try to analyze it.
The fact of the matter is that as buyers we all hope to have the best chance of winning at the lowest prices possible, and as sellers we are all hoping to
get the best prices possible. That's just human nature. Look at how people "mine" the registry sets that are publicly viewable to try and figure out
who needs what and then they set BIN prices far in excess of any recent prices that have been paid. Though such actions work against my interests as a
buyer, I cant label that action as unfair or unethical either (though some might consider it as a form of price fixing). How about sniping at the last moment?
Some might consider it unfair or unethical, while others view it as an valid and effective strategy to win. Just because the Ebay platform allows it does
that make it "ok" to do it (mind you, I do not view it as unfair or unethical)?
I still keep coming back to the view that the line gets crossed when someone is taking deliberate action to KNOWINGLY deceive, limit, prevent, etc. a free
market from operating as such or to KNOWINGLY gain (or give someone) an unfair advantage (or KNOWINGLY put others at an unfair disadvantage) when
that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it
and you'll have won me over.
My contention is that there isn't a way to determine whether my choice of inaction hurts, helps or has no meaningful effect in any given instance. It could do
any of these three, but there are just too many outside factors for anyone to know which of these outcomes might happen, is happening or ultimately happened
with complete hindsight available. Thus, since there is no way to know with any given instance the playing field remains level and it does not cross the line.
Cheers
Dave
that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it
and you'll have won me over.
I don't think it's a question of certainty, David. But as a potential bidder, I know my chances of winning a card (or pack or box) at a lower price are going to be that much greater if other potential bidders who would otherwise be bidding against me decide to sit out for my potential benefit. It's a simple as that. Heck, if Henry alone could be convinced to sit on the sidelines for some of those high grade 75 mini cards, prices would plummet overnight, LOL...
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>when
that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it
and you'll have won me over.
I don't think it's a question of certainty, David. But as a potential bidder, I know my chances of winning a card (or pack or box) at a lower price are going to be that much greater if other potential bidders who would otherwise be bidding against me decide to sit out for my potential benefit. It's a simple as that. Heck, if Henry alone could be convinced to sit on the sidelines for some of those high grade 75 mini cards, prices would plummet overnight, LOL... >>
Wont happen Tim
In response your the question, there is a difference between inaction (like missing a bid because wife demands attention) and collaborative efforts (like the MLB owners colluding not to bid on Jack Morris). Again, to each his own IMO, I am personally not judging you on this. If the market continues to heat-up like this it is irrelevant because there will be too many players involved.
<< <i>Collusion is such an ugly word. Let's call it "empathy bidding". >>
Let's call it 'seller can do everything in their power to maximize the hammer price, and buyers can do everything in their power to minimize it'. And then we can all shut up.
market from operating as such or to KNOWINGLY gain (or give someone) an unfair advantage (or KNOWINGLY put others at an unfair disadvantage) when
that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it
and you'll have won me over."
This logic seems tortured. It's kind of like a guy who gets arrested for DUI saying that there was no way to know for certain that he was going to hurt anyone.
Whether or not the price is affected in the end is immaterial. The act of coming to an agreement with another bidder with the intent of affecting the ending price of the auction is the problem.
What you're doing is coming to an agreement which states, in essence, I'll go after this one if you don't, and you go after the next one. That way, the prices will be lower for both of us!
In essence you're making a contract with another collector to restrain the free market. If there were no way that it would affect the ending price (restrain the free market), there would be no reason to agree not to bid.
<< <i>"I still keep coming back to the view that the line gets crossed when someone is taking deliberate action to KNOWINGLY deceive, limit, prevent, etc. a free
market from operating as such or to KNOWINGLY gain (or give someone) an unfair advantage (or KNOWINGLY put others at an unfair disadvantage) when
that market operates. Help me make the connection to know that my choice of inaction is CERTAIN to cause harm to the market or someone involved in it
and you'll have won me over."
This logic seems tortured. It's kind of like a guy who gets arrested for DUI saying that there was no way to know for certain that he was going to hurt anyone.
Whether or not the price is affected in the end is immaterial. The act of coming to an agreement with another bidder with the intent of affecting the ending price of the auction is the problem.
What you're doing is coming to an agreement which states, in essence, I'll go after this one if you don't, and you go after the next one. That way, the prices will be lower for both of us!
In essence you're making a contract with another collector to restrain the free market. If there were no way that it would affect the ending price (restrain the free market), there would be no reason to agree not to bid. >>
A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely.
<< <i> A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely. >>
Methinks you misunderstand free market economics and the benefits of open competition. Adam Smith 1776 is a good start
That was my '78 set that Brent just auctioned: 'Saturday Night Fever' on the Registry (it's retired now). He did a phenomenal job, to say the least.
My only complaint: if only he would have doctored the scan on that Speier. Think of the price that card might have generated.
Cheers!
Nick
<< <i>
<< <i> A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely. >>
Methinks you misunderstand free market economics and the benefits of open competition. Adam Smith 1776 is a good start >>
Thanks for the tip; economics has always confused me.
<< <i>I just picked my self off the floor.
That was my '78 set that Brent just auctioned: 'Saturday Night Fever' on the Registry (it's retired now). He did a phenomenal job, to say the least.
My only complaint: if only he would have doctored the scan on that Speier. Think of the price that card might have generated.
Cheers!
Nick >>
wow and how are you doing? Long time .... congrats. What an awesome set
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>I just picked my self off the floor.
That was my '78 set that Brent just auctioned: 'Saturday Night Fever' on the Registry (it's retired now). He did a phenomenal job, to say the least.
My only complaint: if only he would have doctored the scan on that Speier. Think of the price that card might have generated.
Cheers!
Nick >>
So how much did you make off the '78 set, or are you gonna make me add up all the sold prices?
lol ...... I did not watch the sale as I JUST got back in here but what I am wondering is how all of the common commons did.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely. >>
Methinks you misunderstand free market economics and the benefits of open competition. Adam Smith 1776 is a good start >>
Thanks for the tip; economics has always confused me. >>
IMO I look at my collection as a lifelong pursuit and hobby. But, I would not be investing in the high end cards if I did not see the probability of solid returns and diminishing supply looking 7-12 years out. Basically, my thinking is that it is better to buy these cards while they are relatively cheap than pursue them in 2025 when I am nearing retirement and they are much scarcer (market based scarcity not numbers based scarcity). I could be wrong and these all go the other way, but that is the fun of it.
This was the same logic used by the guys buying 1997 Tiger Woods rookies for $10k and things of the like.
You're gambling on the staying power of PSA, not the hobby, the set, the player.... There was a time when an SGC 98 and GAI 10 sold for the same as a PSA 10. If a new, better grading company comes along or collectors simply get tired of grading companies, registries, etc...., the significant premium your low pop PSA 9s and 10s carry will be all but gone. Yes, a perfectly centered and sharp George Brett rookie will always sell for a ton of money. But will collectors still care about perfect no-name commons in 15 years? Who knows, but it is far from a certainty that there will be guys such as yourself and BBG hunting down complete high grade 70s sets down the road and willing to spend the coin you are. There is a reasonable chance that once you guys get out of the hunt there will be nobody to replace you and competition will significantly decrease. Or maybe more collectors will jump in the fray and your theory will prove true. Who knows, but while I think the hobby will continue to strive for another generation or so (until kids grow up and we die) I think it is faulty logic to assume that PSA slabs will always carry a big premium. Say PSA gets bought out and taken over by a company that mismanages it and they go down the same road as GAI; will your pop 1 PSA 10 75 mini common still be worth $1500? Will you have to cross it over to another company to regain that value? Will collectors stop caring about slabs at that point and all the TPG's will go under?
There is a lot that can happen for things to go either way for folks investing in slabs even if the hobby itself is able to maintain.
Lee
WHAT UP
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240