Live From Sothebys

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I don't look at this issue as what is better for consignors or buyers. Rather I look at it as an issue as what is honest and upfront, and then let the chips fall where they may. If that means buyers benefit (through the elimination of book bidding), then so be it. Book bidding is nothing less than selling something under false pretenses, period. The fact that an auction house discloses the practice in its terms and conditions of sale doesn't change what the practice is. Or to put it another way, just because someone discloses ahead of time that he/she may cheat, and then does it, doesn't change the fact that he/she is cheating. Yes I know the practice is legal. So nobody is breaking any laws. But that doesn't make it right.

And let's also be real about another aspect of this. The only reason it is legal is because of the auction house lobby. Contrary to some posted views as to the power of the hedge fund people who control NYC finance and who consign valuable works of art, I seriously doubt they are lobbying Albany to keep book bidding legal. And even if they were, who are buying these expensive works of art? Probably other financial superstars who would find it in their interest to lobby for the elimination of book bidding. I have little doubt that when Sothebys et. al. lobby to maintain the legality of book bidding, they are dropping not-to-subtle hints that if Albany outlaws it, well, there is always New Jersey or Connecticut.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

What is the problem with letting the market determine what a card is worth? What is the point of artificially lifting bids - except to generate more money for the auction houses (and secondarily to the consignors) under false pretenses? Corey is right in the sense that it is better for a market system to allow complete transparency.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Cobby- even though it is true that without bidders there would be no auction, I still feel auction houses represent their consignors interests, and as an auctioneer that is my position, too.

You can't represent both sides. You wouldn't want to be selling your house and find out your broker is also representing the buyer. So auction houses may wine and dine buyers, but they are legally contracted to the sellers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Sorry, I just can't let this go. I think both Corey and Jeff are focused on this issue solely from the buyers point of view.


Jeff, in order for the market to determine a price, you need a willing buyer AND a willing seller. The reserve (and book bidding up to that amount) is only a reflection of the price at which the consignor is willing to sell. If the only bid in the room is too low for the seller, that doesn't make the item "worth" only what the buyer is willing to pay. It takes a buyer and a seller, both, to determine value.

As a buyer, would I prefer to know the reserve in advance? Of course.
But if not, does it really matter if the auctioneer gets to the reserve by saying it explicitly or by going,"100, now 200, now 3"?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Richard's point is hard to dispute. However, I think there is a natural wariness that bidders have regarding auction houses, and when that is compounded by the fact that the auctioneer is clearly calling out bids that were never placed, that distrust is magnified.

From a purely economic vantage point Richard is correct, but there is a human element that is in play also.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

I think Richard's point is disputable. I can't think of a precise analogy but it is SOMEWHAT similar to what happened in the stock market...For years, there were willing buyers and willing sellers at certain price levels, but market makers were padding the middle and ARTIFICIALLY driving prices up or down to create greater margins. Eventually, the SEC caught up to the practice and regulated it. We just have a hobby that is largely unregulated and law hasn't caught up to the practices that many of us certainly believe is wrong and even SHOULD BE illegal. Just because it is NOT YET illegal doesn't make it right.

I pretty much disagree with anything that is not free-market system.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Richard, if there is no buyer willing to pay what a seller thinks his card is worth that means that the seller's view of what his card is 'worth' is wrong. The card may be worth more another day -- but on that given day, the free market determines the card's value. It may be overpriced or underpriced based on historical trends -- but that is what the card is worth that day.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

In a sense if a seller only wants to part with an object at a very aggressive retail price he should bypass the auction route and see if he can make a direct sale. Perhaps even a Sotheby's or a Christie's could provide such a service and bring buyer and seller together. An auction really should be unrestricted, that is the whole purpose of the auction system.

But as Richard states it is difficult to get a seller to agree to those terms, whereas a buyer will gladly go for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Jeff, once again I have to respectfully disagree. If there is no trade, you can't say what an item is worth.

I have a unique T206 Joe Jackson. I want $1 million for it. The highest offer is $25,000. What is it worth?

The answer is: we don't know. All we can say is that it is worth between $25,000 and $1 million.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Richard, I have a new car I just paid 75K for. I haven't picked it up yet from the dealer but I want to sell it now for a million bucks. I suppose my car is worth something between 75K and a million?

I own stock in xyz.com; the stock price is 200. The PE is a million. I wish to sell my shares for 4000 a share. My stock is worth somewhere between 200 and 4000 a share?

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

With all due respect, I don't think the Law of Economics supports the proposition that something is "worth" what a seller wants for it. I think the market (i.e. a ready and willing buyer) dictates worth.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The car is worth something between 75K and a million.

It's worth 75K, which falls in the low end of the range.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

The price of any item is established by actual market transactions. In the car example, the car is worth $75,000 because there was an actual transaction for $75,000. The one million is just wishful thinking, no different than the fact that I would like to purchase a T206 Wagner for a dollar.

Now if somebody actually sold me a T206 Wagner for a dollar, then I would not only be extremely happy, but it would help establish a new price point for the Wagner.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Thank you, Barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

Wait, you mean the price for an item depends on the price paid for said item?

Brilliant!




Josh

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

Most of us are just "splitting hairs," we all mean pretty much the same thing.

SCP/Sotheby's I've heard are one of the partners in the purchase of the Gretzky T206 Wagner, is that accurate. It seems like so far they haven't made any plans to auction it off.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Richard,

Sorry for the tardiness of this reply but only now have I seen the most recent posts.

Yes. You're quite correct in that what an item sells for is a function of what a seller is willing to sell it for (supply) and what a buyer is willing to pay (demand). But here's my issue. What buyers are willing to pay (the demand curve) is affected by human impulse, which can be materially impacted by erroneous information (e.g., book bids intended to give the impression that there is real interest at those levels when in fact there is not). Here's an analogy. I want to sell my rare baseball card. A buyer offers me $500, not believing the card to be as rare as I claim. I then make up some lie to persuade the buyer the card is rarer than in fact it is. The buyer, believing me, then raises his offer to $800. Is that ethical? In my book, no. I've just induced the buyer to offer more for the item based on a lie. In my view that is precisely the situation with book bidding. In basest terms, book bids are lies by the auction house whose sole purpose is to persuade buyers there is more interest in an item than in fact there is, thereby inducing buyers to value the item higher than they otherwise would.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Peter,
Yes, SCP holds a minority share in the Wagner. See their press release at the link below.
JimB

http://www.scpauctions.com/wagner_press_release.htm

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

The discussion between Richard and Jeff focuses on two different things. Richard's example points out that unique, or almost unique, items are difficult to value. In his example even if the buyer and the seller reached an agreement to purchase the unique T206 Joe Jackson for $500,000 what would the card be worth after the sale was completed. Though it just sold for $500,000 does it mean that the next buyer and seller of the item would agree on this same price, which is really what its worth is. The prior sale is history; the place where the next sale could take place is what it is worth.

Jeff's car example is different. The car is basically a commodity and value is easily obtained(assuming it is not a collectors car). Plenty of sellers and plenty of buyers lead to convergence at a pretty specific value.

Many cards in these major auctions are scarce/rare and thus as in the first example above determining their value is difficult. It is easy to envision cases where a buyer is willing to pay the seller's reserve but, if there is not a underbidder willing to get close to this reserve, the auction will end with the item unsold unless "house bids" are used. This benefits no one. Richard makes an excellent point, the buyer should only bid what he is willing to pay and if he/she wins the item for that price or less he/she should be happy. So the bottom line is I have no problem with house bids.

[Archive]

Posted By: mr. moses

have been tempered and clarified by some expressions made here and a little more thought. I must say at this point that in my mind the practice of book bids whether disclosed or not is actually just dishonest in it's intent and it's implementation. It suggests more interest contemporaneously and infers a future value not established by 2 or more party bidding. Dishonest. It is compounded by allowing the house to make the bids in secret - that is to say that one never knows on what particular items such a practice is being exercised. Dishonest. I don't care if it's in the front of some catalog that the auction employs the use of book bids. Subsequent to the auction they'll be a prices realized. Which prices will that reflect? The higher the value that they can convince a consignor and a buyer that something sold for - the greater the chance they can realize an even higher price the next time on that or a similar items. Obfiscate and confuse. Dishonest. I think someone mentioned ponzi scheme earlier in the thread. Bit of that as well. Agreed that one can chose to bid or not bid in an auction. Doesn't mean I can't speak out against the policy as it may preclude me from getting something I want. All I'm looking for is an even playing field without the smoke and mirrors. Business can be profitable and moral.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Try convincing an insurance company (for example) to pay on an item (unique or not) which you (the possessor) "hope that" or "think" it's worth. Best of luck.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

When someone bids in an auction and there are competing bids, the bidder is working under the assumption that one or more people are valuating the item similarly. This is part of how he valuates the lot-- that other agree the lot is worth something. He would likely lower the valuation if he discovered the lot was less popular bidding made it appear.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

There is a lot of economic theory about auctions and auction behavoir...unfortunately I've lost most of those brain cells over the years.

the last post is exactly correct. The auction house placing bids gives the impression that there is at least one other BUYER that is willing to pay something close to what the real bidder is willing to pay. Auctions attempt to reach the highest price on an individual's demand curve. An individual's demand curve is influenced by many things and certainly the perceived fact that someone else is also willing to pay a similar price can influence that curve.

The law in essense allows the auction house to use a reserve and create the impression of other buyers...when in fact all the reserve is..is a point on the supply curve that the seller has picked, below which he/she will get more satification from retaining ownership of the item than satifaction from the money they would receive from selling.

Its the law, but it is deceiving to individual buyers and it would be a good law to amend to state that reserves can be placed, but must be announced prior to commencing the auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Scott,

When you go into a casino and go up to a craps table and the dealers tell you the more you bet the more you win. Do you take their statement literally and bet all the money you have.

Yes the statement is misleading but it's the casino's business and you protect yourself accordingly. The same goes when you are at an auction. Everything from the auction catalog to the book bidding your complaining about is arguably misleading.

If you have difficulties staying within your budget, you decide in advance which items you are going to bid on, and the highest you are willing to bid. The auction house is in the business of selling and you should protect yourself accordingly.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

It resembles shilling. The consignor/auction house is placing bids to get the real bidders to bid higher.

If it isn't shilling because the auction house isn't placing 'real bids,' then it should not appear as if real bids are being placed. eBay also allows reserves, but the difference is the bidder is aware there is a reserve that he clearly has or has not met and, assuming there is no shilling, knows that competing bids are from real buyers.

Duly note that some eBay sellers place shill bids to make it appear as if the lot is a popular item. And I'm sure Sotheby's places these pseudo bids, instead of repeatedly saying "Reserve not met," for similar reason.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

David,

I'll agree with you that far...it is a type of shilling. But as most of us have found in our transactions over E-Bay, if shilling is done discretely it is difficult if not impossible to detect. People need to exert some discipline here. Let me put it this way...Sotheby's did not build their fancy auction houses by losing money on consignments.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Peter,

All markets have rules. IN this case the current rule allows the auctions to do this. All I am saying is that it allows for individuals (or at least some) to be making decisions based on incorrect information. In most markets, over time the market would adjust and the buyers would change behavoir and prices (and practices) would drop as buyers would discount the fact that others might want the same item.

Since the items we are discussing are merely items with perceived worth and usually some type of scarcity, it is likely that for top end product this rule can continue to exist and the market won't self correct. The rise of the buyer's premium in this market over the past 20 years is testimate to that (though I personally often choose to not participate in some auctions that I would otherwise due to this but I'm obviously in a minority)

I would disagree that auctions are there to sell - though I would agree that this "book bid" is a form of selling rather than auctioning. Auctions are there to gather a group of buyers and execute a transaction at the highest point on the demand curve at a set point in time for an item or group of items. They try to gather those buyers that individually will have demand points higher than the "average buyer". Selling introduces an element of ongoing time, discerning value and discrimination.

Your probably right in that Sotheby's has found a way to "sell" while creating the appearance of a true action.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

A number of comments seem to bypass the personal responsibility element of auction conduct. Perhaps I differ from the typical participant in auctions but I study the catalog in advance and decide what I am willing to spend. I stop if the item gets there. Someone who keeps raising the paddle despite the price spiraling out of control has to bear some of the responsibility for the outcome. Your decision, you live with the consequences, and don't whine that there was a book bid that drove up your price.

I also agree with Richard w/r/t valuing unique items. There is no "value" for them other than what deal can be reached. For something readily located, you have a market to reference. I'd be nuts to pay $10K for a nm-mt Hank Aaron rookie because I can locate one any day of the year and buy it for a fraction of that price. If I was pricing mine to sell and I asked that for it, I would not expect to sell it. If I am selling a very rare card that has only a few known examples and might not come up for sale but once every decade, I can ask what I want and if you don't want to meet my price, too bad. I do not see the harm in a book bid for a unique or very rare item, although it would move things along much better if there was simply a reserve as starting bid. That way if no one's interested it just moves on. Which points out one thing that favors book bidding: it flushes out potential buyers at levels that a seller might accept if approached after the auction, buyers that a straight reserve might not find. I know I've set minimums on items on ebay and been approached when an item did not sell with a request to sell it at a reduced price. Sometimes, I will take the deal. I am sure that if someone bids 90% of the reserve on an item, a good thinking auctioneer would try to bring the seller and bidder together to make a private deal and may well close a deal that leaves everyone better off.

I ask this seriously, not sarcastically: Are there people who have the $$ to bid on the types of items we are discussing who are actually driven to bid more if they think they are in a competition? Has anyone here ever thought "Hey, there's another bidder, I guess I'll just bid beyond my limits on this lot because there's someone else bidding?" And if so, has that been for a replaceable item (like a postwar rookie card) or has it been for a unique item or one that rarely surfaces hence isn't readily valued?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I ask this seriously, not sarcastically: Are there people who have the $$ to bid on the types of items we are discussing who are actually driven to bid more if they think they are in a competition?
--------------------------------

I think that the fewer the number of potential buyers there are...the higher the potential for that to happen. Its called bragging rights

If you owned the hypothetical t206 Jackson that was mentioned earlier in this thread....wouldn't you love to know that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are both closet Jackson collectors and will be bidding for the card...and don't you think each might be willing to spend perhaps another million just to "stick" it to their rival.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave G

.....that no one has suggested contacting their senator or whoever in NY State and get them to inquire as to the actual rules for auctions in NY and if this "book bid" is legal, and then advocated that they try and change it and make the auction a real auction. Unfortunately Sotherbys, Christies etc will bring big lobbying bucks to bear and ensure that it would be voted down. We are talking millions of dollars here as well as publicity - the high end collectibles market is about bragging rights, not real rarity, and I'm sure that nothing will be done about the problem, as these auction houses are BIG BUSINESS for the Big Apple - just like Detroit will never really increase the fuel efficiency of their cars as they say there is no profit in selling small fuel efficient cars - despite what the Japanese accomplish.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Scott,

Right now the ultimate in bragging rights is owning the New York Yankees or some other sports franchise. As a business, sports is very profitable but it is not as profitable as many other businesses.

But it has the advantage of being a high profile business. So some really rich people that want the spotlight decide to buy franchises just so that others know how wealthy they are and are not necessarily making the purchase because they have found the most profitable business.

The same dynamic works in an auction to some degree. If a wealthy individual bought the Gretzky T-206 Wagner you can bet the spotlight will shine on them, and certainly they might brag that they have something that Barry Halper doesn't have.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Sotheby's uses the convaluded and rather bizarre technique of having make believe bidders because it does cause bidders to bid more and more often. If it didn't make Sotheby's and the consignors more money, they wouldn't use the technique.

If Sotheby's thought an auctioneer dressed up as Snoopy and yelling "Fore!" after every bid would raise bidding, the auctioneer would wearing a Snoopy suit.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

A live auction moves briskly, and does not allow bidders much time to think about what they are doing. And a skilled auctioneer will often coax an extra bid or two if he has the right kind of charisma. I've seen it happen many times. Add to that the book bids, and a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. But it works.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Absolutely, this book bidding works...that's why a modicum of discipline will help you to remain within your budget. Either that or you can do what I do...I hide my credit card statement from my wife.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: mr. moses

the people who say just bid what you want and go no further as the way to deal with the subject. I feel they are missing the point. This is not a sealed bid format. It's an open forum AUCTION where one bid's against someone else for the right to own something. Why can't I know if I am going against a real bid/bidder? I don't participate in an auction to bid against THE SELLER (or house which represents the seller). Obfiscate and confuse..... tools of dishonesty.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

These definitions of fraud comes straight out of a law dictionary:

"A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury."

"A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated."

Given that the rationale for book bidding is to attempt to persuade prospective bidders that the bids signify genuine interest in the lot by a real bidder (i.e., someone other than the consignor), when in fact they do not, can someone please explain to me why book bidding does not fall within the definition of fraud.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Corey,

Here's the problem, the law assumes that you will act like an adult.

Suppose that there's a long lease document, and you think the details of the lease are boring, so you simply don't bother to read it and sign it. You know very well the fact that you didn't read the document is not a very good excuse and that a judge will hold you responsible.

The same thing happens at an auction if you make a bid a judge will assume that you are an adult and that you wanted the item. You can argue all you want that the auction house exaggerated the number of bidders or that when they said the item was rare it wasn't really that rare.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It does fall under the definition of fraud, but Sotheby's and Christie's are so powerful they can get away with it...bidders beware!

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Corey,
I think the catch is that they do disclose this practice in their auction rules. I agree with a lot what you have been saying, but (though I am not a lawyer) I do not think they would be on the hook for fraud from a legal perspective.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

The fact that it's disclosed is not the only problem. Another major problem is causation. The person with the perfect test case would have to be the sole bidder, he could then say that the practice of book bidding caused him to make his bid.

If there were 3 or 4 other bidders involved then you couldn't make that argument because if you won the bidding then your higher bid was caused by your need to exceed the bids of others.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

JimB,

The problem, as I see it, is that no matter if the book bidding is legal and disclosed in the rules section, NO ONE KNOWS WHEN IT IS BEING APPLIED!!

I think there should be a change in the laws which makes the auction house or cmpany TELL who has the highest bid. Something like a large LED display board which says, "BOOK", "PHONE", "WEB" and "FLOOR" after each bid is placed. This way bidders will know where the bid is coming from.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I don't necessarily think that a sell price at auction is the market price even for that day. It may be literally true, but if the price is way low compared to normal, then it is still below market price. All systems have noise in them, and having a low price on a given day can be considered the market price that day or, more precisely, the fact that on that day there was downward noise in the overall market price.

Negative noise can (and noise does, by definition) come from random and unpredictable factors. Maybe it was tax day or maybe the banks closed early or maybe someone got a flat tire and missed the auction or maybe some stock went nuts that day and people put their money there instead. Who knows?

If T206 Cobb Reds PSA 4 sell 6 times in the BST in two months and they go for between $1350 and $1600, then the market price is probably somewhere around $1450 give or take. Put a PSA 4 Cobb Red on ebay at about the same time, and it might go for $950 because of the noise in the system.

In general sellers would like to avoid being caught by this noise. If something is generally worth around $3mm, the seller would probably insist on being protected from having it accidentally go for $1.8mm. The bigger the dollar value on the item, the more important it becomes.

So I really can see why sellers would insist on, and auction houses would provide, some guarantee against getting socked by random noise on a given day.

BUT - I am completely in agreement that the practice should be disclosed. David RC hit it right on the nose. Sometimes valuations are not that clear, and a bidder may have a price in mind. But in the heat of the moment in an auction, when someone has many factors to simultaneously consider in a matter of moments, believing that at least one other person has valued the object near or slightly higher than the bidder's preconceived maximum almost certainly is part of the quick mental equation.

If someone is thinking $3mm max on something, and has been bidding and getting outbid through the $2mm's, if the "other bidder" bids $3mm I can easily see the bidder deciding in that moment that maybe $3.3mm is also reasonable and raising a paddle. Now he's $300K over his predetermined maximum even though the only other person that valued it that high was, in fact, the seller.

It's not easy either way. At some levels, sellers need to be protected from the randomness of noise (not at my level mind you - I seem to get caught by it every time I list something on ebay!). But the practice should be disclosed so that any given bidder clearly knows whether his mental valuation is his alone, or is shared by one or more other people. It's part of his mental juggling, and that point should be clear.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There are pretty much two ways a collectible or work of art can be sold- by auction or by direct sale.

In the spirit of an auction, the seller allows the object to start at a minimal level and sell for whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay. This works best for an item of great rarity that is in high demand.

A direct sale works best if the seller doesn't want to take any risk. Perhaps he fears some volatility in the market, or doesn't think the piece will catch the imagination of the buyers. In that system he sets a price, and if there are no takers he can either haggle a little or put it away for another day.

But what Sotheby's does is incorporate both systems at the same time. They try to attain the highest possible price and use any method possible to remove all the risk. This amalgamation clearly does not sit well with many bidders, but the auction house has been able to use it to their great advantage.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The process is legal I'm sure, but involves dishonesty. The dictionary definition of dishonest being 'not being honest.'

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

David,

I would say the practice is not courteous but honest. If the auction house says that they are going to use book bidding and then they use it, it is difficult to say they are dishonest.

But they are surely taking advantage of buyers and the fervor of the bidders.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If someone says to you "The next sentence I'm going to tell you is a lie," that doesn't make the next sentence the truth.

Sotheby's fake bidder process involves dishonesty. Notice I didn't say dishonest, but involves dishonesty. Whether the dishonesty is reasonable and fair are a separate questions. Dishonesty isn't always an undesirable thing. I understand the movie plot is made up for my entertainment, and that sit com actor isn't playing himself. Perhaps Sotheby's would say the fake bidders is a bit of playing acting, and the live audience, even those who have read all the rules, enjoy the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: mr. moses

"Dishonesty isn't always an undesirable thing. I understand the movie plot is made up for my entertainment, and that sit com actor isn't playing himself. Perhaps Sotheby's would say the fake bidders is a bit of playing acting, and the live audience, even those who have read all the rules, enjoy the game."

as a departed friend of mine (RIP) used to say: "That was good one"....

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

We're basically "splitting hairs." I agree with you that there is deception here.

The problem is there is a very small group of people that are being effected. Now if there was a large group of people effected, I would think there's a potential class action (shameless plug, drop me an e-mail).

The only people that would have a chance of winning in this type of situation would be an individual who was the lone bidder for a particular item and made his bid because of the auction house's use of book bidding.

Peter

Edited to add that the bidder would also have to be the winning bid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I've now read this whole lengthy thread, and I don't see how anyone can disagree with what Corey has said. If a seller has a minimum price at which he will sell, the HONEST way to deal with that situation is to set a reserve. Book bids serve no purpose except to create the false impression that there is interest in the lot up to the reserve price. The level of genuine interest is valuable information to all bidders, and the book bids are simply false information created by the auction house.

It's also true, as many have said, that the practice is less horrible when it is disclosed than when it is not disclosed. But it is still a horrible practice.

It may also be true that some consignors will not consign their lots unless the auction house agrees to publicize this sort of false information about the level of interest in the lots. But it's also true that some consignors will not consign their lots unless the auction house agrees to conceal restoration, lie about the item's rarity, or lie about the item's provenance. The fact that some consignors are dishonest is no reason for the auction houses to facilitate and perpetuate their dishonesty.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The key is to buy your Mark Rothko from Sotheby's for your wall, not to flip on eBay.