Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[GeoPoto]

The consignor might prefer the current situation better. No guarantee "the same bidders" generate the same bids. Underbidders may lose interest.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Does Mile High allow you to increase your own bid, if necessary, to change which outcome is ahead (set vs individual lots) or do you have to contact them so they can adjust the bid?

Yes, you could bid against the aggregate total of all cards. Both totals showed on the set price and the individual prices.

It worked perfectly and as far as I know they never had an issue.

Most of the time the single aggregate won so each card sold separately but they also had some set totals that won.

As previously stated, all lots ended at the same time.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

No good solutions. Heritage may need to pay big money to someone to make everyone happy.

This definitely won't be happening..you can count on that.

Please let me what damages occurred, and amounts, when you have time.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Peter, I disagree. Doing this will presumably piss off both Powell and the consignor, who would have realized more from the sale of his set if Powell had known he needed to increase his bid and been able to do so.

As I see it, FWIW, the only equitable solution is to re-auction these cards with only those who previously bid on them permitted to participate. And, obviously, the total of the bids on the individual cards needs to be made continuously available to all bidders. And, all bidders need to be able to increase their own bids, and all lots need to close at the same time.

Much like a live auction format with all 13 bidders on the phone, no 30 minute waiting period, Powell against 12, at that point it becomes who outspends the others, good for the consignor probably bad for Powell but it does give everybody a fighting chance, unfortunately you can never recreate auction night and bidder anonymity is no longer there.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And what if some of the individual bidders are pissed off and don't participate and it all goes lower? Heritage is not going to risk that IMO.

I agree. No way they would start everything over from the beginning. If they're going to restart bidding, it will be from where everything currently is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I agree. No way they would start everything over from the beginning. If they're going to restart bidding, it will be from where everything currently is.

I think they just take the goodwill hit and leave things as they stand. Too complicated and even in that scenario someone or soneones are still going to be unhappy. The folks who won the individual lots want their cards for what they bid, they don't care about fairness at this point.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And what if some of the individual bidders are pissed off and don't participate and it all goes lower? Heritage is not going to risk that IMO.

If that happens the base price is what the aggregate lots closed for plus $1 which Powell has already agreed to so the consignor is protected and only has upside potential.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

If that happens the base price is what the aggregate lots closed for plus $1 which Powell has already agreed to so the consignor is protected and only has upside potential.

Val said re-auction, it sounded like he was saying do it all over again, not just from the point where it closed, but maybe I misunderstood.

[Powell]

At worst, I should be declared the winner at $1 more than the individual lots as the last bids on those closed the market. Otherwise, any “further bids” were intended to defeat the set price and were not specific to an individual card.
While still not right, the consignor gets the benefit of the doubt and the set stays together which I bet the consignor prefers as the story and legacy of the find continues.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Val said re-auction, it sounded like he was saying do it all over again, not just from the point where it closed, but maybe I misunderstood.

If Heritage goes that way you can't re auction with access to everybody, you've already identified the 13 interested parties, those are the only people who should be allowed to bid.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

If Heritage goes that way you can't re auction with access to everybody, you've already identified the 13 interested parties, those are the only people who should be allowed to bid.

Agree but it's a highly unlikely scenario IMO. Although come to think of it, don't you need the underbidders too?

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And what if some of the individual bidders are pissed off and don't participate and it all goes lower? Heritage is not going to risk that IMO.

Peter, Heritage could re-start the auction with the bids as they were (1) at the start of the overtime period, or (2) at the point in time when the bidding on the complete set was closed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Peter, Heritage could re-start the auction with the bids as they were (1) at the start of the overtime period, or (2) at the point in time when the bidding on the complete set was closed.

That would certainly make more sense than restarting, but IMO there is no way that is going to happen for reasons already stated, it pisses off too many people namely every guy who already won and is expecting his card(s). They don't care at this point what's fair to Powell. I'll be glad to be wrong, because I think fairness here favors Powell, but I think Heritage is going to let things stand.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agree but it's a highly unlikely scenario IMO. Although come to think of it, don't you need the underbidders too?

The underbidders on the individual lots had their shot, now it's a question of the 12 highest bidders against Powell.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

The underbidders on the individual lots had their shot, now it's a question of the 12 highest bidders against Powell.

Right, if it starts from where it ended before.

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by yomass

Mile High (and Mastro/Legendary back in the day) avoided this issue because all lots closed at once, not individually, and all lots showed which total was winning (set or individuals).

not sure if precedent by another auction house matters, but
rea ran a 1980 topps pepsi set vs individual cards a few years back. i dont remember exactly if it all ended at same time, but indiviudal cards won out. just providng another example of set vs individual cards being run by major auction house. does anyone remember if it all closed at once. again, probably a moot point here since heritage screwed the pooche here

[oldjudge]

This reminds me of the REA computer glitches in overtime when, if I remember correctly, some items showed that they were closed when in fact they weren’t. I still think the cards should be reauctioned and, unlike others, I think that everyone should be able to bid (I’m sure the consignor agrees with me). I would end the auction for all lots at a fixed time to avoid a repeat of this issue. Otherwise, you can use the same software; you just need a total vs parts page.
As for the consignor being happier if the cards stay together I agree, unless of course it costs him any money.

[calvindog]

I agree, Jay. Ultimately the consigner’s wishes should be honored first. Who knows, he may want the cards to sell as they just did.

[theshowandme]

These auction companies are moving hundreds of millions of dollars through their catalogs annually.

Pay the team of 10 software engineers their juicy six figure salaries and bonuses to make your website and tools as modern as possible.

I hope Heritage has a way to work with all the parties involved here and ensure this never happens again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

This reminds me of the REA computer glitches in overtime when, if I remember correctly, some items showed that they were closed when in fact they weren’t. I still think the cards should be reauctioned and, unlike others, I think that everyone should be able to bid (I’m sure the consignor agrees with me). I would end the auction for all lots at a fixed time to avoid a repeat of this issue. Otherwise, you can use the same software; you just need a total vs parts page.
As for the consignor being happier if the cards stay together I agree, unless of course it costs him any money.

Right, the consignor obviously agreed to sell them individually if that resulted in more money, so I am not sure from where we are getting that the consignor prefers to keep them as a group.

[toothcutter]

I felt like something like this would happen so i focused and picked up the Gehrig rookie. Cant believe the price i got this at.

[Yoda]

I believe that Heritage is the biggest auction house in the world by volume, so their reputation is of paramount importance and a mess up such as this might frighten their huge customer base. I don't know how this is going to play out but a public apology would be a good start.

My buddy Aaron mentioned that he has already been invoiced for the beautiful Baker. If he pays immediately then a contract has been made with an offer and acceptance then fulfilled and he legally owns the card. Any court would agree.

Powell is quite obviously a large and valued customer of Heritage and has a valid case to claim all the lots. Heritage cannot dismiss his claim with crying "software glitch". Heritage is a legally incorporated company with shareholders, officers etc. not a computer.

No matter how this all shakes out but the bluebird of unhappiness is going to land on someone.

Finally, I always thought that this AH gimmick of single lots versus total aggregate was just a way to entice bidders to open their wallets a bit more than they normally might.

[rman444]

What a mess. This thread needs more pictures.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I believe that Heritage is the biggest auction house in the world by volume, so their reputation is of paramount importance and a mess up such as this might frighten their huge customer base. I don't know how this is going to play out but a public apology would be a good start.

My buddy Aaron mentioned that he has already been invoiced for the beautiful Baker. If he pays immediately then a contract has been made with an offer and acceptance then fulfilled and he legally owns the card. Any court would agree.

Powell is quite obviously a large and valued customer of Heritage and has a valid case to claim all the lots. Heritage cannot dismiss his claim with crying "software glitch". Heritage is a legally incorporated company with shareholders, officers etc. not a computer.

No matter how this all shakes out but the bluebird of unhappiness is going to land on someone.

Finally, I always thought that this AH gimmick of single lots versus total aggregate was just a way to entice bidders to open their wallets a bit more than they normally might.

Yes .. I understand heritage has a good reputation but this is leaning towards unethical - You have items That are in multiple lots with different bidders , different ending times and different winners Without a clear outcome ... just To maximize prices (“ for the benefit of the consignor “)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Yes .. I understand heritage has a good reputation but this is leaning towards unethical - You have items That are in multiple lots with different bidders , different ending times and different winners Without a clear outcome ... just To maximize prices (“ for the benefit of the consignor “)

I don't see how it's an ethics problem. It's a case of poor execution of a plan. They didn't think through the mechanics of the close.

[Powell]

Yoda,

I respectfully disagree. The offer and acceptance already occurred when i was the high bidder and the set closed. My account confirmed I was the winner. The post contract invoice to Aaron (and no disrespect to Aaron) and any payment by him is a nullity. The contract was formed by the high bid when the set lot closed and while ratification is not necessary it was ratified by Heritage afterward with it indicated in my account as a win Friday night and Saturday morning. I still believe Heritage will do the right thing but haven’t heard a response yet from a person with authority. I hope my faith in Heritage doesn’t prove misplaced and put me in a very angry place.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by toothcutter

I felt like something like this would happen so i focused and picked up the Gehrig rookie. Cant believe the price i got this at.

That qualifies as a steal to me.

Congrats on a monster pickup

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Powell

Yoda,

I respectfully disagree. The offer and acceptance already occurred when i was the high bidder and the set closed. My account confirmed I was the winner. The post contract invoice to Aaron (and no disrespect to Aaron) and any payment by him is a nullity. The contract was formed by the high bid when the set lot closed and while ratification is not necessary it was ratified by Heritage afterward with it indicated in my account as a win Friday night and Saturday morning. I still believe Heritage will do the right thing but haven’t heard a response yet from a person with authority. I hope my faith in Heritage doesn’t prove misplaced and put me in a very angry place.

I wonder if the software would have indicated the same thing even if at the time the set lot closed, the individual bids already were higher. I have no idea, but I am guessing it just made that determination in isolation, with no reference to the special circumstances of the auction and the interaction with the other lots.

[mrreality68]

Powell

I agree after reading all the posts that you should be the winner and the individual bidders sadly lost out.
I would be clueless how to make it right and it is ugly to all parties. It is amazing any auction house that does an auction this way would not have a set policy and software infrastructure to handle this.
Heritage is a top notch auction and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
People talk compensation but how do you compensate for losing out on a extremely rare item and the people that lose out thinking they were winning their item potentially did not bid on other items they passed on to get the Boston Store.
So I do not know what compensation/amount makes up for not getting you rare card

I hope for all it works out as best as possible. But sadly I do not think it will or know how it will

[dariushou]

If I were Powell, I'd be livid. In my own personal opinion, he should be the winner and Heritage needs to make it right with the cosigner and the individual bidders....whatever that means. Heritage has over $1Bn in revenues and this is just unacceptable. I don’t want to throw around negligence, but damn, it’s bonkers that a company of their magnitude and presence could make such a disastrous mistake. There’s a good reason they aren’t public… The mistake should never have happened...period. Again, I’d be livid.

With that said, Heritage, of course has crafted their T&C with some outs. The easiest out is the idiotic clause about any disagreement can be settled by Heritage and redoing the auction – someone quoted it earlier…I can’t find it.

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

“ Please note that this auction will list each card as an individual lot along with another listing for the complete set. If the aggregate winning bids of the twelve individual lots exceeds the high bid on the complete set, the cards will be sold to each individual winner. If the price of the set exceeds the sum of the twelve individual cards, the victory will be awarded to the high bidder for the complete set.”

The above quote, which I presume is from the actual auction, has holes all in it and after reading it a few times I’m kind of at odds to what it exactly says. What is a winning bid? Well, if you read through the rest of the terms, I’m led to believe it means you were the winner of the auction. So, does that mean you take the winners of the set (won the auction—1 winner) and compare it to the winner of the individual lots (12 winners) – So you could have 13 people who think they won the auction when they went to bed and only after someone from heritage wakes up the next day and does the comparison declares the winner? I’ve read a bunch of convoluted docs in my time, but I really don’t know with much certainty what exactly that paragraph says to be honest. If my statement above is correct (comparing the winners after the fact), then I would say no one bidding on that auction thought it worked that way and it shouldn’t. We all know how it should work…why Heritage screwed the pooch so bad is just bizarro world. Seriously. No excuses are acceptable to anyone who participated in those auctions or anyone who uses Heritage or thinking of using them.

In the end, I hope they do the right thing and everyone is made hole in some way. I stated my view which is Powell deserves the win here. just sucks how it was done.

-Darius

[oldjudge]

Powell--Regardless of what your HA page said, how could you ever have won the lot? The auction indicates that the cards will either go to the individual bidders or the aggregate bidder, whichever yields a higher total. These would have to be compared when the auction is closed and if I understand the facts correctly when the auction closed the individual bids exceeded your bid.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Powell--Regardless of what your HA page said, how could you ever have won the lot? The auction indicates that the cards will either go to the individual bidders or the aggregate bidder, whichever yields a higher total. These would have to be compared when the auction is closed and if I understand the facts correctly when the auction closed the individual bids exceeded your bid.

Hi

What you might have missed is that since the total set closed due to no other bidders and thus he could not increase his bids if the individual bids were higher. So his closed at the 30 minute limit with no other bids and some of the individuals stayed open. Those extra times they went up and exceeded his total set bid. And he could not raise his bid above them since the system closed him out

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Powell--Regardless of what your HA page said, how could you ever have won the lot? The auction indicates that the cards will either go to the individual bidders or the aggregate bidder, whichever yields a higher total. These would have to be compared when the auction is closed and if I understand the facts correctly when the auction closed the individual bids exceeded your bid.

Simple, he won the set. Couldn't bid further...but why would he, he was already declared the winner. When you bid an auction and follow the rules and the result is that you are the winner than you are done. No further obligations on your part as the bidder are necessary.

He was handicapped by Heritage to bid further. He entered a bogus contract if you ask me. Well, Heritage made it bogus. my two cents

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by dariushou

If I were Powell, I'd be livid. In my own personal opinion, he should be the winner and Heritage needs to make it right with the cosigner and the individual bidders....whatever that means. Heritage has over $1Bn in revenues and this is just unacceptable. I don’t want to throw around negligence, but damn, it’s bonkers that a company of their magnitude and presence could make such a disastrous mistake. There’s a good reason they aren’t public… The mistake should never have happened...period. Again, I’d be livid.

With that said, Heritage, of course has crafted their T&C with some outs. The easiest out is the idiotic clause about any disagreement can be settled by Heritage and redoing the auction – someone quoted it earlier…I can’t find it.



The above quote, which I presume is from the actual auction, has holes all in it and after reading it a few times I’m kind of at odds to what it exactly says. What is a winning bid? Well, if you read through the rest of the terms, I’m led to believe it means you were the winner of the auction. So, does that mean you take the winners of the set (won the auction—1 winner) and compare it to the winner of the individual lots (12 winners) – So you could have 13 people who think they won the auction when they went to bed and only after someone from heritage wakes up the next day and does the comparison declares the winner? I’ve read a bunch of convoluted docs in my time, but I really don’t know with much certainty what exactly that paragraph says to be honest. If my statement above is correct (comparing the winners after the fact), then I would say no one bidding on that auction thought it worked that way and it shouldn’t. We all know how it should work…why Heritage screwed the pooch so bad is just bizarro world. Seriously. No excuses are acceptable to anyone who participated in those auctions or anyone who uses Heritage or thinking of using them.

In the end, I hope they do the right thing and everyone is made hole in some way. I stated my view which is Powell deserves the win here. just sucks how it was done.

-Darius

I don't think the wording was the problem. The software for their auction platform was not able to handle an auction setup like this. It's hard to believe an AH the size of Heritage wouldn't have tested their platform to make sure it could, but apparently they didn't.

[Powell]

Respectfully, you are mistaken on both points.
First, the premise. The Heritage site accepted my bid as the high bidder.
I waited the full 30 minutes and no one out bid me. The Heritage site said I won and no more bids were allowed for the set. It was locked out because the cards were sold too me and the win was reflected on my account Friday night and Saturday morning.

Second, I relied on the Heritage site saying I won the set. There was no reason for me to believe other lots were still open. The set was sold to me as the hammer went down when the timer expired. It would be nonsensical for me to disregard the Heritage site closing the set lot with me as high bidder and put the burden on me to look up 12 other lots and add them up after I won.
That’s Heritage’s job and not mine.

Third, an astute member on this board (check out earlier posts) did add them up and the set was winning at over the individual lots at the time the set was sold to me. He was aghast that (after I went to sleep as the winner) that the individual lots were allowed to bid but not the closed set lot and overtook the set. It’s clear and obvious that I won fair and square.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Of course, which is why all the lots should have stayed open until none received a bid for 30 mins.

+1

This really shouldn't have been that hard.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Powell--Regardless of what your HA page said, how could you ever have won the lot? The auction indicates that the cards will either go to the individual bidders or the aggregate bidder, whichever yields a higher total. These would have to be compared when the auction is closed and if I understand the facts correctly when the auction closed the individual bids exceeded your bid.

This would be Heritage's position if they want to defend the outcome -- that regardless of whether the mechanics of the close were unfair to Powell and titled the auction to the individual bidders, the auction remained open after the set closed and at the end of the day the individual bids were higher. It's a weak position from a common sense and fairness standpoint, but it's not indefensible hypertechnically.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

No doubt, the other bidders would essentially now be in Powells position, not fair to them but neither is locking Powell out from going higher. The third option would be to re-run the auction. Any way they go is going to be unfair to someone.

While it would suck, re-auctioning it would be fair to the bidders, it may well NOT be fair to the consignor as the bidders may not be interested in playing again after having a bad taste in their mouth.

Fair, or at least equal, where the bidders are concerned is achievable, but there is no perfect solution.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As Jeff alluded to, the problem is that the auction software can’t handle this type of bidding. The individual lot totals have to be linked to the aggregate lot so when their total exceeds the aggregate the aggregate needs to be shown as open with the next bid topping the sum of the individual bids. That is the easy part. The hard part is what to do with individual bids when the aggregate exceeds the sum of the individual bids. For example, let’s say that at a point in the auction the aggregate is at $600k and the sum of the individual lots was at $500k. If I only wanted to win one individual lot would the auction software have to keep bumping my bids till I increased the bid on that individual lot by over $100k?
I think my conclusion is that conceptually this type of auction sounds nice, but practically there is no easy way to handle the bidding.
I think this is an unfortunate situation for all involved and that the only fair solution is to reauction the group. Also, if there is a right answer to how to handle this situation that answer must be independent of how much or how little business any of the involved parties has done with HA.

I disagree and it's been said elsewhere. The right way to handle this is that all individuals and the aggregate stay open until NO card (or set) has a bid for the bid period. It's actually not hard. One bid keeps all lots in question open, like a lot of auction companies used to do for their whole auctions.

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I don't think the wording was the problem. The software for their auction platform was not able to handle an auction setup like this. It's hard to believe an AH the size of Heritage wouldn't have tested their platform to make sure it could, but apparently they didn't.

The wording wasn't the problem because no one in their right mind thought it would work the way it did. The software wasn't the problem. It was the setup that was the problem (heritage problem). The wording like most of the time was insufficient in my opinion, but not the problem...but will be one of the factors the courts look too...if it gets that far.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I disagree and it's been said elsewhere. The right way to handle this is that all individuals and the aggregate stay open until NO card (or set) has a bid for the bid period. It's actually not hard. One bid keeps all lots in question open, like a lot of auction companies used to do for their whole auctions.

This

Sounds like HA didn't connect the individual lots and the set lot on the backend software. IMO, HA should award the set to Powell and pay the delta to the consigner.

[bgar3]

It seems to me Powell has a very good and reasonable reliance argument.

[insidethewrapper]

If all lots ( set and individual cards) closed after no bids for 30 minutes, then the individual cards would have been the winner , as it turned out.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

If all lots ( set and individual cards) closed after no bids for 30 minutes, then the individual cards would have been the winner , as it turned out.

Apparently that wasn't true when the lot for the complete set closed which is the problem because the high bidder for the set (Powell) was told he won when the complete set lot closed. If it had stayed open he would have been able to bid above the total cost of the individual lots.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Apparently that wasn't true when the lot for the complete set closed which is the problem because the high bidder for the set (Powell) was told he won when the complete set lot closed. If it had stayed open he would have been able to bid above the total cost of the individual lots.

The truth is he wouldn't have been able to raise his bid for the full set lot -- he was the high bidder and putting in another bid would just have increased the ceiling bid and wouldn't have raised the price of the lot as no one else had bid. The Heritage software screwed up or was poorly drawn up in a myriad of ways.

[ncinin]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Apparently Mile High has run auctions like this. Does anyone know how they manage to avoid problems like this?

I may have overlooked an answer to this question so forgive me if it is redundant.

Mile High and other auction houses that utilizes the set bid or bids of cards comprising the set format, as the Boston Garters, uses Simple Auction site or Create Auction software.

It appears Heritage uses software they or another company beside Simple and Create developed which is why Mile High and other auction companies have not encountered this problem.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The truth is he wouldn't have been able to raise his bid for the full set lot -- he was the high bidder and putting in another bid would just have increased the ceiling bid and wouldn't have raised the price of the lot as no one else had bid. The Heritage software screwed up or was poorly drawn up in a myriad of ways.

I forget if Heritage allows straight bids. Some AHs do, and some don’t. Obviously only a straight bud would work here since you’re only bidding against yourself on the full set side.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To recap, and repeat, the simplest way to view this, I think, is that the set lot never should have closed while bidding was still going on for the individual lots. That effectively foreclosed Powell from competing at the end. It seems a simple analysis in terms of the equities. It will certainly be interesting to see Heritage's response.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Powell--Regardless of what your HA page said, how could you ever have won the lot? The auction indicates that the cards will either go to the individual bidders or the aggregate bidder, whichever yields a higher total. These would have to be compared when the auction is closed and if I understand the facts correctly when the auction closed the individual bids exceeded your bid.

Jay - I agree with you 100% based on the intended philosophy of the set vs. sum of the individual lots format. This whole mess could have been simplified by Heritage changing the rules for ALL the Boston Garter lots whereby all 13 lots (including the set) stay open until there is not a single bid for all 13 in the 30-minute overtime period. This would give all associated bidders an equitable opportunity. Furthermore, this might also be a scenario whereby the software should be tweaked to allow an individual to place a higher straight bid (vs. a ceiling bid) to raise the price of their winning lot. Such a format would have actually initiated a potentially intense bidding war between individual lot bidders (especially for lots such as the Jackson and Cobb) versus the complete set lot - a huge benefit for the consignor, and a fair alternative for all related bidders.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Jay - I agree with you 100% based on the intended philosophy of the set vs. sum of the individual lots format. This whole mess could have been simplified by Heritage changing the rules for ALL the Boston Garter lots whereby all 13 lots (including the set) stay open until there is not a single bid for all 13 in the 30-minute overtime period. This would give all associated bidders an equitable opportunity. Furthermore, this might also be a scenario whereby the software should be tweaked to allow an individual to place a higher straight bid (vs. a ceiling bid) to raise the price of their winning lot. Such a format would have actually initiated a potentially intense bidding war between individual lot bidders (especially for lots such as the Jackson and Cobb) versus the complete set lot - a huge benefit for the consignor, and a fair alternative for all related bidders.

Agree with all of this...

Such a scenario can never work in an "individual lot closing" format and these problems should've been foreseen. This will cost Heritage dearly, not to mention the Consignor (who left A LOT of money on the table).