posted on August 4, 2001 01:34:00 PM
The reason many auctions are a ripoff is as follows:
If a collector wants to buy 7 items being auctioned and is willing to pay $100 for each, he can likely be waaaaay overcharged due to another bidder (who only wants one of these) coming along and bidding, for example, $90 on one item, then moving to the next and bidding the same there, until ALL 7 items have there prices jacked up to $91.
This is not the case of someone WANTING all 7 and being outbid, rather a case of someone only wanting 1 item, but jacking the price up on ALL items to try to get just one.
It's bogus and unfair to the high bidders, and definitely overinflates prices.
posted on August 4, 2001 01:41:16 PM
The collector can NEVER be overcharged in an auction. The bidder sets the price they are willing to pay. If that is not high enough because someone else is willing to pay more, where is the ripoff?
If the winning bidder deadbeats, that's a ripoff of the Seller, not the collector. And, in that case the Seller may relist, so the collector gets another shot at it.
Personally, as a Seller, I like overinflated prices and I wish more of my bidders felt the same way.
In your scenario, he pays $91 a piece even though he's willing to pay $100. Oh sure, he wants them for $50 if he can get that price, but he'll pay $100 to own them.
What would be fair to you? As soon as you place your bid, ask the seller to stop the auction so no one else can bid?
Your job as a buyer is to get it as cheaply as possible. I understand that.
My job as a seller it to get as good a price as I can.
posted on August 4, 2001 01:46:29 PM
I think the original poster has identified a very serious rip-off. Here is a bidder who is willing to pay $700 for seven widgets, and he ends up only being charged $639. The seller got ripped off for $63.00!!!!!
Under the circumstances, I think david2001 should sent an extra $63.00 to the seller as a "gratuity" -- it's only fair.
Who'll give me one dollar for this fine troll. One dollar, one dollar, thank you I have one dollar. I have one, who'll bid two....
posted on August 4, 2001 02:36:22 PM
You ALL missed my point entirely.
First, for the sake of argument and to illustrate my point, it is a GIVEN that the other bidder ONLY WANTS ONE, but drives the price up on ALL 7 trying to get just one.
In addition, by the way some of you talk, SHILLING should also be O.K., since if a buyer is WILLING to pay a certain amount, then they should HAVE TO PAY that maximum amount regardless of the circumstances.
posted on August 4, 2001 02:54:55 PM
How does this differ from a buyer who bids $100 on seven different auctions of the same item, and people come along and bid $90 driving the price to $91?
posted on August 4, 2001 03:05:32 PMit is a GIVEN that the other bidder ONLY WANTS ONE, but drives the price up on ALL 7 trying to get just one.
So? Does he win all 7 and pay for them?
Or, does he bid on all 7, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT MR. COLLECTOR REALLY WANTS THEM, but Mr. Collector outbids him on all but one, thus Mr. Collector pays more than he would have without the competition?
Did he rip off Mr. Collector, or did Mr. Collector rip him off? Did he force Mr. Collector's bid?
Should we have a rule that one may only bid on items that one REALLY wants?
I don't get the shill bidding analogy. Please explain.
And, by the way, what does logic have to do with it? This is eBay!!!
posted on August 4, 2001 03:14:21 PM
And if the guy who wants all seven wasn't so greedy, he could let the other guy have one widget and go away happy. Then the first guy would win six widgets at the opening bid.
.....
I have three dollars bid on this troll, can I have four. Four dollars, four dollars, four dollars...... Come on folks, a fine troll like this doesn't come along every day....Three dollars now four, three dollars now four. Thank you ma'am, we have four, will you give me five?.......
posted on August 4, 2001 03:17:34 PM
Just a note: There had to be 8 items listed in this Dutch listing, otherwise, if there were only seven, $100 would be the lowest bid.
posted on August 4, 2001 03:19:06 PM
::holds up paddle::
i must be as dense as everyone else here.
f a collector wants to buy 7 items being auctioned and is willing to pay $100 for each, he can likely be waaaaay overcharged due to another bidder (who only wants one of these) coming along and bidding, for example, $90 on one item, then moving to the next and bidding the same there, until ALL 7 items have there prices jacked up to $91.
collector is willing to pay $700. bidding is at $637. collector is still $63 under what s/he is willing to pay. the problem is?
posted on August 4, 2001 03:42:53 PM
david2001 - What are you trying to buy? I just gotta have ONE!!
I was taught that an item is worth what someone is willing to pay. If you don't really want to pay $100 each then a)learn to snipe b)search for an auction containing all 7 widgets or c)do some research and find where else to buy it!
I don't understand why people who complain about eBay/online auctions so much continue to shop there?
posted on August 4, 2001 03:57:15 PM
"david2001" is REALLY Miss Cleo? Reads Minds, also is a Screenplay Writer for the new Law and Order Spin-Off, "Auction Police"? Putcher Money where yer Mouthiz! 7 X 1 Corona = 1 Corona more than a 6-Pak, Therefore, I'll have Plenty for this Pizza! -PJ38-
posted on August 4, 2001 04:02:12 PM
"Why autions are a RIP OFF"
WOW well thank you for trashing many millions if not billion of busineses that have existed hundreds of years getting away with this rip off till you came along with your supreior logic and inteligents and uncovered this scam.
Now that you have done this and killed the lively hoods of many many families many who have passed this way of life down through the years, we all will be forced to run out on monday and apply for welfare and food stamps to suport our way of lifes and families.
DAM them Internet cops they catch every thing !!!!!!
posted on August 4, 2001 04:10:54 PM...another bidder (who only wants one of these) coming along and bidding, for example, $90 on one item, then moving to the next and bidding the same there, until ALL 7 items have there prices jacked up to $91.
Using the reasoning being employed here, once you are outbid on an item, you should never bid on another.
edited... funky ubb
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Aug 4, 2001 04:11 PM ]
posted on August 4, 2001 04:36:07 PM
Ladies & gentlemen, this fine troll is still at only five dollars. Am I bid six? Six dollars, six dollars, six dollars? For a troll that has generated 17 replies already? Come on,folks. Thank you, six dollars, Now seven, seven, have seven how about eight? Eight dollars, eight dollars, eight dollars....
posted on August 4, 2001 04:45:34 PM
Please stop with the troll stuff. The originator of this thread has as much right to his/her post as you do to your posts in response, without the insults.
Joice
[email protected]
** added a couple of words, fixed a typo, the lists goes on.
[ edited by joice on Aug 4, 2001 04:47 PM ]
posted on August 4, 2001 05:13:19 PM
I have noticed this before in B&M auctions. The "Choice". They put up five items, like 5 really different lamps. Bidding runs high, because the highest bidder gets "choice", one or all at their bid.
So, lets say at the end of the bidding, the bidder takes lamp nr.3. Then they put the remaining 4 lamps back up. Bidding drops way down, and it turns out that the runner up bidder never wanted lamp 3, they were bidding on lamp 2 all the time. Great deal for back-up bidder, who now gets a better price on the lamp they wanted all along. Not so great for first winner who had the price run up on a lamp only they were actually bidding on.
I hate choice because I never know what item the other bidders are going for. The one I want? Or the atrociously ugly one? Great for auctioneer, because it always runs the price up for the first item.
But is it unfair? Although I don't like it, this is an auction, and they get to run it however they like. My option is to bid or take a chance on losing my "choice". As long as the rules are clearly spelled out, pretty much everything is "fair".
posted on August 4, 2001 05:31:05 PM
I once was bidding on some stuff and this bidder started proxy bidding over market value in an effort to get stuff. No problem--just figure out where his limit was and snipe. Alternatively, I drove up the price on the other ones he was bidding on....
posted on August 4, 2001 06:04:07 PM
If it smells like a tro**,
feels like a tro**,
and looks like a tro**,
it probably is a TRO**
I bid 10
Sounds like some one didn't understand proxy bidding and lost an auction. So that makes all auctions ripoffs. RIGHT!!
[ edited by outcast2 on Aug 4, 2001 06:06 PM ]
Perhaps you didn't see my message above. If you don't like the subject, don't open the thread. The other alternative to not losing your posting privileges is to place the person on ignore.
posted on August 4, 2001 06:12:32 PMAnd if the guy who wants all seven wasn't so greedy, he could let the other guy have one widget and go away happy. Then the first guy would win six widgets at the opening bid.
I remember a couple of brothers (I think there name was Hunt) who tryed to "corner the market" on silver. Didn't want to let anyone else buy silver futures. It was very expensive, and it didn't work.
posted on August 4, 2001 06:27:47 PM
Somehow I knew that my simple point would be completely misinterpreted and overreacted to based on that misinterpretation.
The point was that, practically speaking, the market price should reflect what at least 2 people are ACTUALLY willing to pay for an item. In an auction, you may have someone who only wants ONE of a particular item, but in trying to win that one item, they can drive the price up on an individual who is buying several. Therefore, the seller is making much more per item than the market would actually bear if it wasn't an auction type transaction.
As a seller myself, I certainly enjoy the extra boost, but an acution is quite misleading when establishing an item's actual market value.
posted on August 4, 2001 06:41:16 PM
"but it is quite misleading when establishing an item's actual market value".
Well, that may be true, in that we routinely see a wide variation in auction prices for the "same" item, so, yes, its hard to look at one, or a few, auctions of an item and declare that to be "the" (presumably true and fair) market value.
which certainly doesn't have anything to do with your initial post declaring this situation to be a "rip off". In *my* dictionary, a "rip off" is when someone doesn't get what they paid for - either didn't get the goods, or got something worth less than was advertised. Your example falls FAR short of some sort of "rip off", except that I have noticed that more and more, people are using "rip off" to mean "I didn't like it, even when I was personally at fault". Under that "nothing is ever MY fault, let me find someone else to sue if something goes wrong" definition, then, yes, auctions are, often a "rip off". I pray that this definition remains a distinct minority, since otherwise the whole world will be a "rip off" every single day.
Similarly, you seem to use the word "unfair" to mean the same thing - something happened that you didn't like. Under the same definition, it would be "unfair" when it rains on a day when you had planned to have a picnic...oh well.
posted on August 4, 2001 06:46:02 PMit is quite misleading when establishing an item's actual market value.
I don't think so. When ever there is someone trying to buy all of something that's for up for sale, (in other words, corner the market) the price goes up. Basic Economics 101. That's the market at work.
And normally people don't wind up
cornering the market, they either run out of money, or wind up with all of an item they want. Then the price goes back down. Again, basic Economics 101 stuff. The market at work.
Market prices go up and down. What market prices are this week may very well not be what market prices are next week. It's called Supply and Demand.
What a concept, Supply and Demand.
The demand was for eight widgets, but there was only seven, and the price went up...
posted on August 4, 2001 08:00:09 PM
It takes two buyers to make a market price? Actually all it takes is a seller and one buyer. I can put an ad in the newspaper and the first person to come along to pay my price takes it home. Market value has been established.
What I am even more confused about is that you say market price needs at least two buyers who are willing to pay for an item, but in your first post two buyers did bid on the item and you called that a ripoff.
