Jim Follis chimed in with a whole new avenue for discussion when he posted the following;

"I am interested in a general consensus on the ethicallity of shill bidding and other, similar auction activities that to me smack of "manipulation". I am more interested in such interpretations for live/write-in/phone-in auctions, than for on-line auctions, however, my basic question is:

Is shill bidding an acceptable practice in live auctions?

This question of course is not directed to David Spragg only. I would appreciate others weighing in on the subject as well." ... Jim Follis
.
.
.

Personally, I don't think that shill bidding is ever an acceptable practice no matter what the forum ... but there is another opposite action to the story that is seldom mentioned and is equally as damaging, called "conspiracy bidding".

We've had this "conspiracy" discussion before... but for the newcomers who have not participated in it, I offer the following scenario.

A live auction is well underway, and a small group of potential bidders are overheard in the back of the room during the break say to each other to the effect ... "I really want lot #123 badly and I know that you want lot #127 equally as bad, so you lay off #123 and I'll lay off #127. To which a 3rd party chimes in ... "I'll lay off $123 & #127 if you guys withhold your bids on lot #135."

We hear alot about bidders always getting screwed ... aside from any "club ethics" consideration ... is this practice fair to the bidder who consigned his lot for a maximum potential of value?

Doesn't this practice discourage consignors to put up valuable chips at public auction?