JR, Bruce, et al, Yes this is very true. But then all internet auction houses know what bidders have bid, don't they?
Or do some not have access to the full back end so they know what the max bid is by any of their bidders? Are their actually any real laws related to internet auctions? Phil -----Original Message----- From: James Richard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 02:23 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] another day, another lawsuit, but this one's a little different Phil, There's a very real difference today compared to the shill-bidding of the past. Prior to internet bidding, there was no way for the "house shill" to *know* what the other bidders were willing to pay as their maximum bid. So it was much harder for a shill to keep pushing up the price unless the house wanted to get stuck with a lot of wins. A shill who won too many auctions was soon looking for employment elsewhere. But with computerized auctions and people being encouraged to enter their "maximum bid" prior to the last second, it is too easy for the house to KNOW what the other bidders are willing to pay and so only shill them up to that point (or perhaps just a tiny bit below it for appearance's sake). I think it is astounding for the President of Heritage to admit the shill won "only 1% to 2%" of the items it bid on. First of all, with computers, the President of Heritage knows precisely to several decimal points the exact percentage of auctions the shill won so what's with the rough estimate? But mostly, he has virtually admitted that the shill knew the maximum bids of those he was bidding against. Now, in the case of live floor auctions there is always the possibility of a genuine bidder deciding to bid more than their previous maximum at the last second. But that's immaterial. Knowing the pre-last-second maximums allows a shill to drive the prices up to that point with virtual impunity of "getting stuck" with an item most of the time. At least on Ebay, there is no way for a seller to know the maximum bids, which is one of the few positive things you can say about Ebay auctions. But if the house can see all the maximum bids, that renders The Gentle Art of Shilling far more onerous than it has been in past. -- JR [email protected] wrote: Many auction houses (and I remind everyone that auction laws differ country to country) and private auctioneers reserve the right to have the house bid on the item, or allow the seller to bid on the item. That is, disclosed shill bidding. If the potential buyer is aware that these are the rules of the auction house/auctioneer they are using because it is clearly disclosed in the terms of sale (even if buried in "the fine print") then what is the issue? If you know it going in and you know what the top weight is you want to pay for something, then it is just another part of the overall caveat emptor factor. That doesn't mean I think it's right, because outside of playing bidders up and up, it can mean that there is an undisclosed reserve which makes a nonsense of " loew starting bids". Shill bidding sucks. The bad news is it has been part of the auction business since The Dawn of Time, which we all know was a Very Long Time Ago. Phil JR, Bruce, et al, Yes this is very true. But then all internet auction houses know what bidders have bid, don't they? Or do some not have access to the full back end so they know what the max bid is by any of their bidders? Are their actually any real laws related to internet auctions? Phil -----Original Message----- From: James Richard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 02:23 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] another day, another lawsuit, but this one's a little different Phil, There's a very real difference today compared to the shill-bidding of the past. Prior to internet bidding, there was no way for the "house shill" to *know* what the other bidders were willing to pay as their maximum bid. So it was much harder for a shill to keep pushing up the price unless the house wanted to get stuck with a lot of wins. A shill who won too many auctions was soon looking for employment elsewhere. But with computerized auctions and people being encouraged to enter their "maximum bid" prior to the last second, it is too easy for the house to KNOW what the other bidders are willing to pay and so only shill them up to that point (or perhaps just a tiny bit below it for appearance's sake). I think it is astounding for the President of Heritage to admit the shill won "only 1% to 2%" of the items it bid on. First of all, with computers, the President of Heritage knows precisely to several decimal points the exact percentage of auctions the shill won so what's with the rough estimate? But mostly, he has virtually admitted that the shill knew the maximum bids of those he was bidding against. Now, in the case of live floor auctions there is always the possibility of a genuine bidder deciding to bid more than their previous maximum at the last second. But that's immaterial. Knowing the pre-last-second maximums allows a shill to drive the prices up to that point with virtual impunity of "getting stuck" with an item most of the time. At least on Ebay, there is no way for a seller to know the maximum bids, which is one of the few positive things you can say about Ebay auctions. But if the house can see all the maximum bids, that renders The Gentle Art of Shilling far more onerous than it has been in past. -- JR [email protected] wrote: Many auction houses (and I remind everyone that auction laws differ country to country) and private auctioneers reserve the right to have the house bid on the item, or allow the seller to bid on the item. That is, disclosed shill bidding. If the potential buyer is aware that these are the rules of the auction house/auctioneer they are using because it is clearly disclosed in the terms of sale (even if buried in "the fine print") then what is the issue? If you know it going in and you know what the top weight is you want to pay for something, then it is just another part of the overall caveat emptor factor. That doesn't mean I think it's right, because outside of playing bidders up and up, it can mean that there is an undisclosed reserve which makes a nonsense of " loew starting bids". Shill bidding sucks. The bad news is it has been part of the auction business since The Dawn of Time, which we all know was a Very Long Time Ago. Phil -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Hershenson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 02:10 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] another day, another lawsuit, but this one's a little different You ask "then what is the issue"? The issue is whether an auction house KNEW what the customer was bidding and first placed a bid for itself after the customer bid, and therefore it KNEW their own bid was beaten by the customer's, and the ONLY reason for the bid was to force the customer to pay more (i.e., the customer left a bid of $1,100, and the auction house placed a bid, after that bid was placed, for say $1,050). I guess it is up to the courts to decide whether that is "racketeering" or "caveat emptor". But whatever is decided, it seems that those "mysterious maxed bids" are no longer very "mysterious". Bruce On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:42 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: Many auction houses (and I remind everyone that auction laws differ country to country) and private auctioneers reserve the right to have the house bid on the item, or allow the seller to bid on the item. That is, disclosed shill bidding. If the potential buyer is aware that these are the rules of the auction house/auctioneer they are using because it is clearly disclosed in the terms of sale (even if buried in "the fine print") then what is the issue? If you know it going in and you know what the top weight is you want to pay for something, then it is just another part of the overall caveat emptor factor. That doesn't mean I think it's right, because outside of playing bidders up and up, it can mean that there is an undisclosed reserve which makes a nonsense of " loew starting bids". Shill bidding sucks. The bad news is it has been part of the auction business since The Dawn of Time, which we all know was a Very Long Time Ago. Phil -----Original Message----- From: Franc [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 03:13 PM To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] another day, another lawsuit, but this one's a little different I didn't say it was "Okay". In fact I expressed indignation on this board a long time ago when Grey revealed this tidbit of information several months ago. But if it is disclosed upfront in its catalogue, it certainly gives Heritage some legal cover. FRANC -----Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Richard Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 3:10 PM To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] another day, another lawsuit, but this one's a little different Sorry to double post, but I had to read the article over a couple of more times just to cut through all the double-talk (and all the useless "testimonials" posted as comments at the end of the article). When I had done that I just had to post my own comment on the article: "So, just because "everyone at Heritage" knew they were shilling on auctions, that makes it OK? That makes it legal? Because a legalistic statement about the practice was buried in the fine print somewhere on a page nobody every read? I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of the people who were also bidding on those auctions did NOT know that Heritage itself was bidding against them and running the price up. And that's the whole point -- not that some Heritage employees knew what was going on. The fact that Heritage was buying these items (or trying to) "for our own collection" is one huge self-justification smoke screen. If their shill loses the auction, they still got a much bigger commission from running the price up (and they keep their consigners happy and bringing back more items for them to shill up. And if their shill actually wins the auction, they have acquired the item for "their collection" and they can eventually re-auction it and get their money back. Meanwhile, if they won the auction, they pay the 19% buyer's premium to *themselves*, so they are actually getting a hidden 19% DISCOUNT on the auction that their shill won -- which means their shill can bid the item up 19% more than anyone else who was interested in paying only the "current market value". But hey, nothing wrong with that, huh? It's called CONFLICT OF INTEREST folks." -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/09/lawsuit_claims_heritage_auctio.php Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at http://www.filmfan.com/___________________________________________________________________How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to: [email protected] the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at http://www.filmfan.com/___________________________________________________________________How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to: [email protected] the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at http://www.filmfan.com/___________________________________________________________________How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to: [email protected] the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at http://www.filmfan.com/___________________________________________________________________How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to: [email protected] the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
