I have some experience with this seller and I believe that the seller was bidding on his own auction on this one. The winner had zero (0) feedback. The same seller had another auction that had numerous bids by buyers with zero (0) feedback, but on the other auction the winner had a feedback of 1. So, two auctions and they both happened to be won by buyers with no feedback who are only interested in his timeshares.
Anyway, this seller is "siezethedayvacations" and what I believe the seller does is bid up the price to as high as possible with these fake accounts with no feedback. They essentially top your highest offer and win their own auction. I suppose they can give themselves feedback and pay the small fee to eBAy for selling a timeshare too. But in the end, since they still have a TS to sell, they then come back to the next highest bidder with a "second-chance" offer. This bidder gets offered a "similar, everything the same" timeshare because the seller happens to have a second one and by the way, the seller will sell it to you for the price of your highest bid. That is what they did to me anyway, as I was the second high bidder on one of the auction listings sold by "siezethedayvacations". I actually still wanted the timeshare, but still would not buy it, really only because it left a bad taste in my mouth and I am stubborn enough not to accept this practice.
I disagree that it happened in this case.
First, IF this practice is employed, a seller can do this in a private auction where you can't see the bidders at all. Compare this list of bidders:
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=220557082686
To this one:
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=350319390896
Second, as other pointed out, there were quite a few experienced (counted by number of feedback) bidders in this auction who bid relatively close to the winning bid.
Third, the final price, although somewhat high for eBay sales for WKV, is not unusually out of line with resale prices in general and also a similar unit which sold on eBay a few months ago for around $17.1K. In my opinion, most resale buyers probably do not buy WKV just to vacation there all the time. If they liked Scottsdale that much they can buy SDO for a fraction of the price and lower MFs. Think of it this way, if you can use WKV to trade into WKORVN and WPORV most weeks out of the year at 8 months out and pay 1/2 of the maintenance fees then shouldn't it worth
much more than WKORV and WPORV (assuming you don't need the prime view)? As long as these trading opportunities exist its basically a much cheaper way to own Hawaii (measured by MFs). And as long as those trading opportunities exist this should be reflected in the upfront purchase price.
The reality is that these days there are only 3-4 WKV 2BR Platinum auctions each year and it's hard to infer what the "right" price should be because the sample is small. There is just not a lot of supply in general... 3 2BR units on RedWeek versus dozens of Hawaii units. The supply of 1BR Platinum units is even lower... Low supply and high demand translates to high prices.
Moreover, the fact that WKV is now the unequivocal "best value" (in terms of SO/MF ratio) for StarOptions traders wheras 6 months ago SVV was a pretty reasonable alternative also means that some SVV buyers are now in the market for WKV. Again more demand should translate to higher prices.
This is an old eBay trick that is called "shill bidding." It is supposed to be against eBay policy. But, eBay does absolutely nothing to police "shill bidding."
Lastly, unlike what jarta said, I happen to know that eBay puts significant effort in catching schill bidders.
See, for example, this link:
http://www.aspkin.com/forums/ebay-s...ed-shill-bidding-any-chance-reinstatment.html
In addition, I know at least one person firsthand caught by eBay. A friend of mine from grad school who was scalping tickets to an NBA game was caught by eBay shill bidding using his brother's account (which had quite a bit of positive feedback). So to say they do nothing about it is simply incorrect.
That said, this practice probably continues to go on and is more likely to happen in the private auctions. I just don't think it happened in this case... I truly think a couple of people got a bit carried away and had a small bidding war which resulted in the item selling for maybe $1000 more that it otherwise would have. The favorable closing terms (low cost and 2011 first usage) may have also been a factor in people's willingness to bid high.