[x2drich2000]

OK, lets take your premise that the BP doesn't suppress the bidding and follow the logic. Why is that a bad thing for the auction house or the consignor? The auction house is in business to make money and the consignor wants to get as much as they can. Neither are responsible for the actions of a buyer. If the buyer overpays, both the consignor and auction house make more money. The buyer knows the rules before they place a bid and they choose to bid or not. The buyer is not forced to bid. If the buyer can get the same item cheaper on Ebay or wherever, then what is their motivation to bid in the auction? All the auction houses I've seen make the buyer's premium clear in the rules and usually include an example demonstrating how the fee works in connection with the bid. If some one is willing to voluntarily bid without reading the rules of the auction then that is their fault and no one else. It is not the consignor's or AH's job to protect people from themselves. Buyers need to be responsible for themselves.

Now Scott has very clearly outlined the history and reasons why the AH keep the seller's fee at 0%. So if it not the AH's job to stop people from bidding, and both the AH and consignor benefit from the masses of people who don't read the rules, how does changing to a 0% buyer's premium benefit the AH or the consignor?

In addition, I can't speak for others, but personally, I buy almost all the items I sell on Ebay from AH. How am I able to make money doing so if the AH with their 20% buyer's premium is more expensive and I'm also paying over 10% in Ebay fees when I sell the item?