Excuse me, but I think this is still a matter of opinion,
not of fact.  I happen to be a serious collector, and it 
does "phase" me.  If you want to protect your investment, 
start the bid high - that shouldn't scare off a serious
collector.  What's the point of attracting a lot of low bids
if you don't plan to accept them??  Also, I feel that 
accepting the highest bid when it doesn't meet the reserve
is kind of sneaky - if you're gonna accept below the reserve
then why set it?? Also, if I think a cel is worth $80 to me,
but the reserve is set at $100, I won't bother to bid on it
because I assume the dealer is honest about the reserve 
price.  If there were no reserve, I would've bid my $80, and
maybe won the cel, maybe not - but it would've brought the 
dealer another bidder, and more bidders usually means higher
prices.  

Again, this is all the sellers choice, and they certainly 
have the right to set a reserve, and they have the right to
accept below it when its not met.  But I don't deal that 
way - if I set a minimum price, that really is the minimum I
think I will get.  If its not met, I have to decide whether 
I want to sell it badly enough to lower the minimum, in 
which case I relist it.  That way the bidder knows what is
an acceptable bid, and will bid if they can meet it.  I 
guess I just don't understand why people bid on items below 
the reserve, when the reserve is supposed to be the minimum.
I guess the rest of you are more used to this system, and 
see the reserve price as some sort of fairy tale - maybe I'm
being naive, but I tend to assume that that the dealer is 
being honest in their minimum price.

Az