What usually goes for lower if there were two auctions of the exact same item? I understand we’re generalizing but is it random or you can see a pattern?
On one hand I think that well in the first auction the highest bidder will be out of the game and it has more exposure. On the other hand people might have missed out on the first auction and are willing to pay more to secure what they want.
Also, looking at some of the pwcc auctions. What game are these bidders playing bidding so much in the first day? I normally just bid at the end. I honestly can’t see the point of bidding this early as it means nothing. Could it be others who already have the item bidding on it to increase market value? Idk
Depends on how much time in between. If closing at the same time I’d bid on the second. If closing a day apart it could go either way but I’d lean towards the first…not always though.
That’s an interesting strategy you’ve identified: bidding on an item with the hopes of increasing its market value but with the full intention to pay should one’s (probably low) bid win.
That strategy seems similar to “shill bidding” but different in a crucial respect: The bidder would be happy to pay and own the item if he wins.
Has this strategy ever been discussed (or perhaps denounced) here before?
It was tried with Magic the Gathering a few ‘years?’ ago by some well off people (don’t remember exactly who it was but they had multiples of millions of dollars). It didn’t go the way they wanted it to, and barely made a dent outside of the power 9 cards and other already highly desirable cards.
In this case no, that’s not happening. There’s no rule to how people bid and the only reason people are encouraged to snip bid it to prevent someone from shill bidding you. The true shill strategy is to fake bid find a persons max bid, then cancel the bid and place a new one just below your max making your high bid the current winning bid. With PWCC you don’t have this issue, so there’s no real strategy to bidding. The highest bid will win no matter when it’s placed.
Short answer, no. That is just buying a card. The intention is completely irrelevant if someone pays for an auction they won. If someone decides they want to put the card in their collection, flip it, hold it for years, light it on fire, it really doesn’t matter as they won and paid for the auction.
Shill bidding is problematic for two main reasons: 1. You are bidding on your own item, which should be self explanatory. 2. You can’t pay yourself, which is another self evident issue.
Shill bidding is inherently unethical, where the intention of a paid bidder in a legitimate auction is irrelevant.
I remember last pwcc auction there was a psa 8 1st zard and in the first few days it hit nearly $2500 but had barely any action at the end. So I guess just because there’s big initial bids it doesn’t mean it’ll happen all the way through the auction. Nevertheless it would be nice to see items you’re interested in sitting on .99 for awhile…
What is shill bidding, in your definition? (It’s not clear whether your definition squares with eBay’s definition, given that you believe the bidder’s intent is “completely irrelevant.”)
Bidding on your own auction. That is the general definition of shill bidding.
If someones decides to bid on a card that they are not selling and pay, that is a legitimate sale. Getting into the reasons why people decide to legitimately purchase an item is irrelevant, as the sale is legitimate.
If you are worried about price elasticity, or you feel a valuation is speculative, that is a separate point. That does not detract for the legitimacy of the sale.
But I don’t think you could really mean that simply bidding on one’s auction is “inherently unethical.” It’s actually common outside of eBay and, assuming that it is disclosed, explicitly authorized by a model law that several states have adopted (U.C.C. § 2-328). Bidding on one’s auction is functionally equivalent to a reserve, and no one thinks there’s something unethical about a reserve.
Also, one is free to define “shill bidding” differently from eBay and simply as bidding on one’s own auction (although I think that leaves out the most important aspect of shill bidding, which is the fact that it is not disclosed). But it’s important that eBay’s definition depends precisely on intent and “reasons why.” (“Shill bidding happens when anyone . . . bids on an item with the intent to artificially increase its price or desirability.”)
It’s not clear why bidding on an auction that one does not have a reasonable hope to win–say, because his bids are well short of current market value–with the intent to inflate the market value of one’s similar item is not “shill bidding” according to eBay’s definition.
I think if an individual strongly wants an item they will bid on the first auction no matter what, potentially paying over “market value” for the first auction, assuming they win, and assuming they don’t want multiples, the second auction would end cheaper as the previous high bidder is eliminated.
I’m sure I missed some factors and this is based on assumptions, but I would say the second auction is more likely to yield a lower price.
Scott, I’m curious about what you and others here feel about middleman services that allow multiple clients to bid on the same item.
I’ve personally always felt that is a form of shill bidding, because by having multiple clients bid on an item, the middleman service increases up the amount of the sales commission (presuming, of course, that the winning bidder is one of the service’s clients).
(This is also is why I refuse to place place bids on behalf of more than one client per item. It’s a policy that has actually resulted in my earning less than I could have on certain auctions, but to me it is the ethical thing to do.)
I’m sorry but how do you inflate market value if you bid well short of market value?
As for your first point, I actually meant to bring this up.
It’s not uncommon for auction houses to let you bid on your own items that you consigned and even buy them back from them if you pay the fees/buyers premium. I actually have no problem with this. If you send a $10,000 card and put a $8,000 or so bid on the last day in case something goes wrong, that’s your choice… If you’re going to pay for it anyway. The difference here is you’re NOT running the auction.
Then again, there’s still a bit of grey area where one might still manipulate the results…
If it’s on your very own ebay store, you have all the options at your disposal. BIN, Best Offer, or put a reserve if you throw it at auction and you’re all that concerned about not getting fair value. There’s is 0 need to ever bid on your own items.
The day there becomes a consensus on which item to bid on, first or second, is the day that the consensus becomes the wrong answer near 100% of the time. At best if there were a “consensus” today it really wouldn’t be worth much as it simply won’t always be the case. You’ve just gotta pay attention to both and be ready to bid on both. Often times even with the same grade one of the two cards may be a standout better condition card for the grade which further invalidates the whole conversation.
