GraysonAC wrote:

dbartman wrote:Believe it or not, some people don't want others to know that the have a bunch of extremely valuable items around their home. Case in point, would you broadcast to the world that you had a $2500.00 diamond ring laying on your bookshelf? Probably not…

And I'm sure whoever it was is going to be really enthusiastic to reveal their identity, after this thread.



The sellers has apparently determined for sure that it's not a shill bidder. I'm honestly really surprised at all the venom being thrown around because someone wants to stay anonymous.



Now whoever it is gets to decide whether they want to bid again, using their normal eBay ID, and get blasted by folks here after the auction is over. Whee.

I guess that you missed the part where the "anonymous" bidders name is cuattheacaeumboys. I state again, that if someone was really trying to be anonymous they would have chosen an anonymous name.....



With that, this conversation has really been beat to death, lets move on to something more interesting.

harami2000 wrote:

dbartman wrote:Bummer, any reason behind blocking you? Perhaps you already discussed elsewhere and I missed it.

I saw the international bids and for some reason presumed a "green light" rather than check, as usual. Evidently I was wrong!



Presumably sellers can also choose to block on the basis of their stated shipping destination, save for any manually-included individuals?

I asked the seller what the mechanism was for that, for future reference, but they never replied.



(Would be surprised if my bid was the only one to hit that wall...).

You can set your sellers settings to block bidders outside of your listed shipping destiantions, however, in your sellers options you can also put bidders User IDs that you preapprove to bid on your auction regardless of your other buyer requirements.

dbartman wrote:I agree. There would have to be some type of verification of the amount paid. Therein lies the problem, especially for an item that comes up infrequently. One bad apple could spoil the whole lot of them.



If the item could authenticated though, it should be added to the existing list, but the source of the item would need to be documented.

*nod nods*. But in the case of that $65 1st Chainmail, for example, it would still be problematic deciding what to do if it was verified.



From my perspective any one realisation does not (or should not?) materially affect the consensus value but it can dramatically impact the demonstrated/perceived values and lead to collector mentality over-reactions in both upwards  and downwards directions.

*

("Consensus value" as noted, in passing = what the worth would be if "everyone" got around the table and a valuation was derived working from the higher bids for an appropriate number of individuals according to the likelihood of the item's availability. This is about as close to the "dog" as you can get, I think...).



jm-02-cents, fwiw.

harami2000 wrote:

dbartman wrote:I agree. There would have to be some type of verification of the amount paid. Therein lies the problem, especially for an item that comes up infrequently. One bad apple could spoil the whole lot of them.



If the item could authenticated though, it should be added to the existing list, but the source of the item would need to be documented.

*nod nods*. But in the case of that $65 1st Chainmail, for example, it would still be problematic deciding what to do if it was verified.



From my perspective any one realisation does not (or should not?) materially affect the consensus value but it can dramatically impact the demonstrated/perceived values and lead to collector mentality over-reactions in both upwards and downwards directions.

*

("Consensus value" as noted, in passing = what the worth would be if "everyone" got around the table and a valuation was derived working from the higher bids for an appropriate number of individuals according to the likelihood of the item's availability. This is about as close to the "dog" as you can get, I think...).



jm-02-cents, fwiw.

That is really part of the problem with taking private sales. For one it is difficult enough trying to authenticate the sale, but then you have to consider several other mitigating factors involved in the sale such as how informed are both the bidder and seller and also in especially what happens here alot is one member cuts the other a better deal due to the relationship aspect involved, i.e I sell you my recently acquired 1st print woody(ok ok its in rough shape ) for $600, but if it someone else who I didnt know wanted to buy it, insisting on say $750.

harami2000 wrote:

bclarkie wrote:That is really part of the problem with taking private sales. For one it is difficult enough trying to authenticate the sale, but then you have to consider several other mitigating factors involved in the sale such as how informed are both the bidder and seller and also in especially what happens here alot is one member cuts the other a better deal due to the relationship aspect involved, i.e I sell you my recently acquired 1st print woody(ok ok its in rough shape ) for $600, but if it someone else who I didnt know insisting on say $750.

*gives you a probing stare*. You don't need a bigger kiln as well do you, Brian?

Hehehe, Nope no kiln needed here.

harami2000 wrote: Agreed. Many, many factors; and one reason why it's (relatively!) "easy" to go for the eBay realisation-based option!



But neither is that the entire "community" by a long shot.

Using eBay alone, it certainly seems too easy for lower-value items to slump badly for not-so-good reasons (eBay supply > eBay demand, "not big $" = "not fashionable", less likely to be fought over, etc.).

Whereas in a "real life" situation it might be sensible to place a "value" of a few dollars on a mid-50s Dragon and feel like an OK deal with an acquaintance at that price, in eBay terms it's worth mere cents; for whatever reason. (And being unable to dissemble values from large/mixed lots is problematic, too).

Agreed. There are defintely many problems trying to get real and consistant source of information to determine a value of an item, but at this point it seems the best way is through EBay. Unless of course everyone wants to take up a collection and send me to GenCon next year.



On a side note, I must say that your post to Mike*mdr003* pointed me in the right direction. Since he is too modest to pimp his own items here, I will do it for him.



mdr003 has up a



Dragon Magazine #1:



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %3AIT&rd=1



Dragon Magazine #3:



Magazine Issues | eBay



And he also has up AD&D mods H2-H4:

eBay listings

bclarkie wrote:On a side note, I must say that your post to Mike*mdr003* pointed me in the right direction. Since he is too modest to pimp his own items here, I will do it for him.

Thanks for the plug - I appreciate it.  :D



I have to admit though that my modesty certainly doesn't prohibit me from pimping my auctions for all they're worth; I was going to flag the stuff in the Classifieds, but was planning to wait until closer to the end date.



Actually, I have to say your morals must be stronger than my own - if I was planning on bidding for something on ebay, I wouldn't post the item in this thread - I'd keep quiet and hope noone else sees it.



Regards



Mike

As an aside, cuattheacaeumboys, if it is Maxine or Johnnie or some other hammerhead, could probably be ferreted out by checking the registered Acaeum members with 0 posts but recent logins. I'm pretty sure one of them will be the one. People like that have a burning need to see the results of their stupidity.

louise49h wrote:I now have a reply from the anonymous bidder confirming that no trouble was intended, that he will not take any further part in the auction under any ID other than his usual one and that I am free to withdraw his previous bids. As I said before, I have confirmed his identity. Hopefully this will bring the matter to a close (not, I hasten to add, the auction!).



Thanks



Louise

Assuming that this person is in fact legitimate, and just looking to keep anonymous, then I suspect that I know who it is. If it is this person then I would like to completely appologize for the things that I said, as I was under the impression that this was some nefarious attempt at screwing with Louise's auction. I would also like to say that if it is the person who I think it is then, then I also suspect that they probably regret using the user ID that they used. Also, if it is this person, I know that this person is a good person and is not shady or a dick or trying, but probably could have used a better user ID to remain annonymous. Based on other peoples posts, I now better understand the reasons for a legitimate bidder to want to remain annoymous, and so I will also admit that I am wrong about that.





*<sorry about the cryptic message, but I don't want to out anybody >*



<edit> It is now confirmed, I am a complete f*cking moron. With the exception of the above noted appology please disreagard everything that I have said about this auction, as I don't think that I have ever been more wrong in my entire life.

Folios up with 5 days left



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... _Stores_IT