What the heck is the deal with this eBay item

dwight dkelvey at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 10 12:52:50 CST 2016

The way you know it was a shill bit is that

the bidder will get a notice that the top bidder dropped


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.


From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of jim stephens <jwsmail at 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.slick at 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.


More information about the cctalk mailing list