"new"Trops a bit shady

[PA Rifleman]

Actually Gunbroker has been notified, the "buyer" has only 12 auctions all to Trops all result in A+ ratings from Trop despite the fact the same item is re listed as a reserve auction immediately, This happened at least 4 times based on information supplied from the site itself, all were new high priced items that would have been sold far below cost...the re listed " reserve" auctions had opening bids started far above the supposed winning bid.....it not that hard to figure out.

It is hard for me to understand. Unless there are two or more Trops in Elizabethtown, it appears that Trops isn't using reserve, past or present. I just went through 11 pages of auction archives and failed to find a single reserve auction for Trops. I stopped after failing to find a buyer with multiple transactions with a feedback of exactly 12.

Here's a screenshot:


The red "R" indicates reserve.

OP: can you provide specific examples, as in auction numbers? You've already named the merchant. In Trop's feedback history, there is a string of transactions on Dec 16th within minutes, but Trop's didn't leave feedback for any of them. These auctions were for case lots of 9mm & 5.56x45 ammo. Is this what you're referring to? If so, either someone's gunbroker account got hacked, or someone bought a BUTTLOAD of ammunition in very short order.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=260072080
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=258247509
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=258247638
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=254308938
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=258247319
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=260072392
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=256714125 (7.62x39)
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=252124841
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=260072390
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=256708449
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=252124414

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am intrigued.What am I missing here? I'm not saying you're full of it, but I would like more detailed examples. Like, a lot.

Thanks.

[edritchey]

You guys are making it real hard to be a troll around here




.

[Marinevet26]

You guys are making it real hard to be a troll around here




.

Troll?

Here are 4 re lists out of 7

261723908.........re list..264873388
257690175....................259920191
257779459.....................260917817
256767443.....................263721116

And I did make a slight error..the re lists were no reserve but had a high opening bid...

[tacticalreload]

It does certainly appear that at least some of those items were won by the same guy for a certain dollar amount, and then immediately relisted at a higher amount as a starting bid. If I were to guess what happened, it really does look like they didn't get what they wanted for the items so they outbid the other bidders with a shill and then relisted at a higher price.

Furthermore, if you look at some of the bidding history, you'll see that the second-last bidder placed multiple bids in a row. This indicates that that bidder was trying unsuccessfully to increase his bid numerous times in order to win the item but was outbid each time by the amount placed by the "shill" bidder. The sad part is that this means that the shill was actually artificially driving up the price, not just coming in to buy up items priced too low... therefore, if that bidder really wanted the item, he could have won it eventually at much higher than he would have otherwise paid. I don't have the desire or time to research everything that occurred, but I figure it was at least possible that there are other auctions that ended up selling at inflated prices once a real bidder outbid the shill.

This is, of course, all speculation based on circumstantial evidence of alleged wrong-doing. For all we know, there is a legit and legal reason all this happened. However, on the surface, it does look pretty darn shady, IMO. If it's true, driving up prices with a "fake buyer" really doesn't speak well to what other goings on are occurring in other facets of the business. Caveat emptor, I guess.

I think sometimes we here on the forum are very quick to dismiss allegations from noobs as false or slanderous because we don't want to think that perhaps some gun shops might be doing something that isn't on the up-and-up. I've seen it a number of times. I think it's often worth looking into before deciding how we feel one way or the other. While there are a high percentage of trolls out there, not everyone is trolling.

[PA Rifleman]

Troll?

Here are 4 re lists out of 7

261723908.........re list..264873388
257690175....................259920191
257779459.....................260917817
256767443.....................263721116

And I did make a slight error..the re lists were no reserve but had a high opening bid...

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

OP: please look up Final Value Fee on gunbroker (link), and then Occams Razor, or Lex Parsimoniae. See if that helps with what follows below.

I assume user Ugirrom1 (details) is the suspected shill bidder. Shill is possible but unlikely. I just don't see a pecuniary motive. Shill bidding is intended to artificially raise the bidding, but this assumes the auction ends with a genuine bidder that completes the transaction. If the shill bidder is the high "bidder", it becomes counterproductive.

Here's why: hypothetically let's suppose I was the seller in all of the auctions, and I had a puppet account as you described. Here's the money flow:

261723908.........re list..264873388

I "sold" a Bushmaster for $905, so now I owe gunbroker $67.88. Since this the result of a shill bid, it's an expense without true revenue to offset it. In other words, a total loss. Now I auction it again at $1099, but it doesn't move. Summary: I attempted (and failed) to sell this rifle, so I actually lost $67.

257690175....................259920191

$2995 (apparent shill) and $0 (no sale) again. Same drill, Now I owe gunbroker an additional $262.06 without a sale. Summary: total fees to gunbroker-$329.94, no sales or profit.

257779459.....................260917817

Sale price (apparent shill) 294.98), re-list sold for $280. These were sold to two different accounts. Final fee for first auction is $22.12, for the second, $21.00. Assuming the first was a shill, the seller spent $43.12 to sell this item. Also note the second sold for $14.88 less than the first. Total fees owed to gunbroker so far: $373.06

256767443.....................263721116
Sale price (apparent shill) 991.00), re-list sold for $999. These were sold to two different accounts. Final fee for first auction is $74.33, for the second, $74.93. Assuming the first was a shill, the seller spent $149.26 to sell this item. Notice these two are eight dollars apart. Total fees owed to gunbroker: $522.32

So, yes, it could be shill bidding. But, unlikely based on these four examples.

Summary:
The first two didn't sell. The second two that did sell, one sold for $14.88 less than the first auction. The other was an increase of less than $10. If they're shilling, they need to give up.

Thanks for reporting this. At first glance, it did look suspicious, but I kind of doubt it. If shill bidding is happening, the kindest description I can use is inept shill bidding.

That's all the time I intent to dump into this thread tonight. If the OP has any new bombshells, I'll check it out tomorrow.

[Marinevet26]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

OP: please look up Final Value Fee on gunbroker (link), and then Occams Razor, or Lex Parsimoniae. See if that helps with what follows below.

I assume user Ugirrom1 (details) is the suspected shill bidder. Shill is possible but unlikely. I just don't see a pecuniary motive. Shill bidding is intended to artificially raise the bidding, but this assumes the auction ends with a genuine bidder that completes the transaction. If the shill bidder is the high "bidder", it becomes counterproductive.

Here's why: hypothetically let's suppose I was the seller in all of the auctions, and I had a puppet account as you described. Here's the money flow:

261723908.........re list..264873388

I "sold" a Bushmaster for $905, so now I owe gunbroker $67.88. Since this the result of a shill bid, it's an expense without true revenue to offset it. In other words, a total loss. Now I auction it again at $1099, but it doesn't move. Summary: I attempted (and failed) to sell this rifle, so I actually lost $67.

257690175....................259920191

$2995 (apparent shill) and $0 (no sale) again. Same drill, Now I owe gunbroker an additional $262.06 without a sale. Summary: total fees to gunbroker-$329.94, no sales or profit.

257779459.....................260917817

Sale price (apparent shill) 294.98), re-list sold for $280. These were sold to two different accounts. Final fee for first auction is $22.12, for the second, $21.00. Assuming the first was a shill, the seller spent $43.12 to sell this item. Also note the second sold for $14.88 less than the first. Total fees owed to gunbroker so far: $373.06

256767443.....................263721116
Sale price (apparent shill) 991.00), re-list sold for $999. These were sold to two different accounts. Final fee for first auction is $74.33, for the second, $74.93. Assuming the first was a shill, the seller spent $149.26 to sell this item. Notice these two are eight dollars apart. Total fees owed to gunbroker: $522.32

So, yes, it could be shill bidding. But, unlikely based on these four examples.

Summary:
The first two didn't sell. The second two that did sell, one sold for $14.88 less than the first auction. The other was an increase of less than $10. If they're shilling, they need to give up.

Thanks for reporting this. At first glance, it did look suspicious, but I kind of doubt it. If shill bidding is happening, the kindest description I can use is inept shill bidding.

That's all the time I intent to dump into this thread tonight. If the OP has any new bombshells, I'll check it out tomorrow.

Inept if the object is to just run up the price...but not if to avoid taking a huge loss on the sale....example you would not only lose on the actual price ( cost vs sale price) you would still have to pay the auction fees and most likely a credit card fee. Even if the follow up auction dosent pan out they still have a retail shop to sell the product .

[tacticalreload]

Like I said, the evidence is purely circumstantial; but I'd be curious to hear an alternate explanation of what happened that was more likely.

[jerkin]

It's shill bidding plain and simple, stupid shill bidding but that's what it is nonetheless. Look at the guys feedback, 12 buys from 10/31 to 12/21 and all of them from Trops with many of those guns being put back up for sale at a higher opening bid immediately after the auction closed. I hope they kick him off of gunbroker even though it is pretty funny seeing him lose money, lol. Good catch OP.

[stud40111]

So Trop's has completely overhauled its staff?

If so, perhaps I should go back (even after swearing that I never would).

[wizzegun]

I like the new Trops. As in every transaction, buyer beware.