When Peter and I (who by the way are the sole owners of
MoviePosterExchange.com) were first talking about adding a sniping capability
to our website we investigated and contacted several companies to see if we
could find a good fit. One of the first things we found out was that most
companies
It would appear that you have both hands on the wheel.
BTW ... who is to be the colonel of the firm?
ad
From: Sean Linkenback s...@platinumposters.com
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Potential Conflict
* My goodness, Dale, there are so many huge holes in your rebuttal that I could
fit a freight train through each one without touching any of its sides. But
why bother? In my view, you need to reboot your writing skills and come up
with a debating strategy more substantial than, what you're
There's no story here, move along
At 11:27 PM 4/18/2012, David Kusumoto wrote:
* My goodness, Dale, there are so many huge
holes in your rebuttal that I could fit a
freight train through each one without touching
any of its sides. But why bother? In my view,
you need to reboot your
We have bought from Dale several times and he's a pleasure to do business with.
He provides the best packing job, especially for large orders, we've ever
experienced from any other person in this business.
Ron
- Original Message -
From: David Kusumoto
To:
Ha-ha, Rich. In sum - I could be wrong on some of these, but as far as I know:
eBay doesn't own a sniping company. Sotheby's doesn't own a sniping company.
MoviePosterExchange.com doesn't own a sniping company. Bonham's doesn't own a
sniping company. Christie's doesn't own a sniping
Likewise I have no problem with Grey.
Is the concern here purely the lack of transparency, or also the possibility
that NP Gresham could be a registered user of Gavel-Snipe?
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Apr 2012, at 08:51, David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com wrote:
Ha-ha, Rich. In sum -
Once MoviePosterExchange bidders bid through this snipe program, won't that
mean that Heritage will then have access to the accounts of those bidders?
That seems like information Heritage would very much want to have, and
information that MoviePosterExchange would very much want to keep to
* With the impending launch of Peter Contarino's, Sean Linkenback's and Ken
Schacter's auctions (vs. fixed price sales which are there now), I've
been visiting their MoviePosterExchange.com site. It's easy to navigate and
very user-friendly. (BTW, where in the
heck did the highly-touted
David
it's my understanding that Gavelsnipe is an autonomous property of
the Heritage corporate conglomerate and is administered by Gavelsnipe
corporate personal and not by Heritage personal.
At 02:13 AM 4/18/2012, David Kusumoto wrote:
* With the impending launch of Peter Contarino's,
Well put it this way, I won’t be registering with Gavelsnipe , can’t see myself
taking part in MoviePosterExchange either after hearing this news. I wonder why
they didn’t use an independent snipe program? Why align themselves with a snipe
program owned by Heritage? Transparency is the key here
I have used Gavelsnipe many times for Heritage and Ebay auctions and I have
never had even one whiff
of a feeling that I was being run up. I'm glad that this service exists
because I like the snipe process. I
can set it and forget it.
Doesn't mean it couldn't happen if some nefarious persons
I agree with Kirby. We've been using Gavelsnipe for eBay for quite some time,
we don't buy from Heritage, and never had any problems.
Ron
- Original Message -
From: Kirby McDaniel
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO]
I agree with Kirby too, particularly with his comment: Any proxy bid system
could be undermined with enough
'nefariousness' at work.
Hence while I wrote the my essay with a level of air-tightness - I was trying
to convey less
personal suspicion about any nefariousness at work by
David
the ownership of Gavelsnipe by Heritage corporate was never hidden..
I knew about it the day I set up my own account
At 01:24 PM 4/18/2012, David Kusumoto wrote:
I agree with Kirby too, particularly with his comment: Any proxy
bid system could be undermined with enough
Rich
How did you know? Through the site itself (which is key) - or through pals or
by just being in the know? If a consumer signs up with GavelSnipe for the
first time today, is there a PROACTIVE disclosure in GavelSnipe's terms and
conditions about its relationship with Heritage? If so,
I don't recall how I found out that Heritage is a financial backer of
Gavelsnipe (which is probably more appropriate than calling them a
corporate ownership), but I've known, it's been talked about on Comic
Book forums and the like.. But I have never been worried one bit
about leaving my bids
I found this ownership info, not on the Gavelsnipe.com website (I
looked thru their Terms and Conditions and FAQs--and could find
nothing about who it's corporate owner is on either page), but on a
third party site, called website.informer.com.
Heritage is stated as the owner/registrant.
Created:
Thanks, Kerry, for that bit of info below.
* Meanwhile, I'm sorry, but the word, conspiracy implies seamy dealings
involving more than one person or companies gaming a system or flouting a law.
I haven't suggested that about Heritage. And as an ex-news guy, my litmus test
is to demand
Despite the collecting business being mostly owned by Mom Pops or small,
independent dealers, I don't see why in the world it would come as a shock that
a few of the larger megasharks would see the market as anything other than a
feeding trough.
It stands to reason a large corporation would
OK, I tried to put these mails on auto flush, but come on stick a pin in it,
who cares.
Heritage is in the auction business last time I checked. Ebay allows people
to use their API to build sniping programs because it makes bidders feel all
warm and fuzzy making bids, so why shouldn't
21 matches
Mail list logo
