The way you know it was a shill bit is that the bidder will get a notice that the top bidder dropped
out. With the newer rules that ebay came up with the second bidder may be required to take it at their high bid if the seller is willing to take that much for it. It is really scummy. The rule almost encourages shill bidding. They know it but it is all about profit. The other one is that you see the item relisted by the same seller. Dwight ________________________________ From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of jim stephens <jwsm...@jwsss.com> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:42:18 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: What the heck is the deal with this eBay item On 11/10/2016 10:22 AM, Glen Slick wrote: > On Nov 4, 2016 8:03 AM, "Glen Slick" <glen.sl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The listing seems to have vanished now. (Probably just as well). >>> >> Maybe the listing was reported and removed. It was listed again exactly > the same. >> https://www.ebay.com/itm/272436936862 > Sold for $202.50 this time around. Anyone here take the chance on it? Someone with 434 feedback and history of vintage stuff bid the auction up against a bidder with private auction info. I suspect the Private guy was a shill, as the only information that is shared now is the general history of bids for your opponent, and the count (if not private). So concealing that history and count is the way the shill can obscure their identity. So still stinks. I suspect that Mr. 434 didn't know what he / she was dealing with and was lucky not to lose > 202.50 worth of their money and a lot of time. thanks Jim
