Ron; The bottom line is that I only see two top bidders and "your friend" was not anywhere to be found. So if either one of the top two bidders had not participated in the sale ... the chip would have gone for less. Here's the bidding record once more.

gregg2545( 204) US $1,825.00 Feb-18-04 08:08:08 PST
gregg2545( 204) US $1,800.01 Feb-18-04 08:07:27 PST
all-chips( 255) US $1,800.00 Feb-18-04 08:08:01 PST
all-chips( 255) US $1,700.00 Feb-18-04 08:07:52 PST
all-chips( 255) US $1,650.00 Feb-18-04 08:07:44 PST
all-chips( 255) US $1,561.00 Feb-18-04 08:05:03 PST
all-chips( 255) US $1,456.00 Feb-16-04 17:23:32 PST
all-chips( 255) US $805.25

Ron posted; "The point you fail to understand is simple. If one of the two bidders did not participate in the auction as you put it, I’m saying there was someone else with a 1,600+ bid and the chip would NOT have gone for a lot less as you stated would."

Where is this mysterious $1600 bid? I don't see it. The fact is "your friend" was not a participant in this sale ... which is what my original post indicated. How would anyone know what some unidentified person was attempting to do as the clock ran out?

Then you say the following..., that it has nothing to do with "your friend"; "It has nothing to do with my friend whom didn’t get his auction in earlier, late or in-between. My friend would have not won the auction because both auction participants had a higher bid than my friend did."

EXACTLY ... and that's what I said. Your friend was not a participant ... period! If we remove one of the top two bidders the chip would have sold for less.... not if Ron Kirzner's friend had bid.

Ron, "your friend" could have mistakenly typed in a wrong password. The fact is he was not an active bidder.

I DO get it!