What’s astonishing to me is that they had a month to fix the software to at the very least make it clear who was winning with each bid: the individual lots or the whole set lot. And didn’t do a thing.

If the auction was the higher of the set or the aggregate of the lots, and the set closed as the winner, then it’s the winner. Period, full stop. Especially without disclosure that one option could stay open while another closed. Not only is the set the winner of it ended as the winner, but it’s fundamentally unfair to allow one of the two competing items to stay open longer than the other.

This is a big mess up. Of course Heritage did not mean or anticipate this. I expect they will do the right thing, which in my opinion is sell the set to Powell at the closing price and pay the consignor the difference between the individual lots and the final price. The winners of the individual lots will be left with nothing, which sucks, but is the correct result bc they rightfully lost the minute the entire auction closed as the high bidder

Thank you Ryan. I believed at the time that the set beat the individual lots or it would not have closed the lot with me as the winner. I did not think I had to do the math myself in the middle of the night and add up the 12 individual lots to confirm that I won. Thanks to astute folks on this board I now see that not only did the lot close with me as the winner the set was higher than the individual lots at the time the set closed. This is a clear case that I won the lot when the hammer went down by the rules. I went to sleep happy and excited. It was wrong to then allow continuing bids on the individual lots after the set lot closed.

No question. Re-doing the auction is a recipe for disaster. Heritage legally can make this result happen and I suspect they will.

They should either declare you the winner of the whole set, or re open the bidding with new rules and let it finish on its own.

I HATE the dual bidding process, it’s a terrible way to auction these sets. This should be the last one.

i also agree Powell won the lots, but Heritage really needs to step in with substantial compensation for the individual lot winners. It's a huge screwup on a marquee set, and the pain should be commiserate.

I know other auction houses have had the same type of auctions (full set vs individual lots). How have they handled closing the individual lots vs the full set lot and providing information to bidders about which is leading? Did they do the same as Heritage and just got lucky that something like this didn't happen or does other auction software handle this better than Heritage's site did?

How could the full set be bid any higher if Powell was the only bidder at the end ? Can you bid against yourself ? I think bids only increase against another bidder.

He should have been advised about the running total of the individual lots and then given the option to bid higher on the set or pursue some individual cards .

Mile High has done it as well. Every time you bid on either the individual lots or the full set, you get an alert on the totals of the individual lots vs. full set. And no auction has ever allowed the full set lot to end while the individual lots continued to run. Just bad software/programming.

I don't have a solution but I am just curious.

Do we (mostly) think the set is the winner because it closed first? What if all the individual lots had closed first but the set was still open? And the individual lots were higher than the set when they all closed, but then the continued set bidding took it over the individual total? Then we would have had multiple people going to sleep thinking they had won, only to be told the next day they had lost because the set topped them.

It is a truly a horrible situation for all involved and a major mistake by Heritage. And I really don't know what the answer is. Except in retrospect saying that all the lots should have stayed open until there was no bidding on any lot for 30 minutes.

I think if all the individual lots had closed first, and total value was higher than the full set lot price at the time, we'd have the same issue here but in reverse. And then those lot winners would be in the right. But obviously that's not what happened here.

Thanks for answering my question. It sounds like the only way for something like this to work is for everything to close at the same time to avoid this type of problem. However, as I think others have mentioned, you can't usually bid against yourself and increase the high bid so the AH would have to be involved to increase bids if only one person was still bidding on the full set or wanted to increase an individual lot so the total would be above the full set. I don't know if Heritage has ever run an auction like this before, but it sounds like they haven't and didn't think through all of the issues that can arise compared to a normal auction.

Okay....just wondering what people thought about the reverse situation. Clearly this was going to be an issue no matter what happened.

My position is that since the set lot closed and they involved every card and I could not bid again if I wanted to the cards were sold to me and the subsequent bids on individual lots were a nullity. The virtual hammer went down and the lots were sold. This is a strong case by itself.

Astute members of the board observed that the set price was higher than the sum of the individual lots when the set closed. This clinches it as there is no reasonable counter-position.

I have confidence that Chris, Derek and Dan whom I have worked with on many occasions will do the right thing and declare the set the winner, which I have no intention of selling and will display them publicly for the world to see and keep this great story alive for many years.

I have a 14 BG Jackson and Herzog, which I had no plans of selling but will sell them to the individual bidders with a discount for the Jackson as it’s not as nice if they wish and do my part to make lemonade out of lemons.

This is a good point. The full set bidder who leads would otherwise be unable to manually up his bid.

I respectfully disagree. Powell could have upped his bid in the extended half hour to anticipate and protect the complete set from getting outbid. The complete set received 0 bids in extended bidding similar to 6 or 7 of the individual lots which closed at the same time, including the Baker which I was high bidder on. Several of the individual lots received bids in the extended half hour which, of course, resets their timer. Most notably the Tinker & Maranville continued much later.

Heritage’s rules were listed (and still are) not once but twice in each lot. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Here is what each lot said twice:

“ 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.”

Aaron, the problem is as noted above. He couldn’t raise his bid on the full set lot with a ceiling bid and have it register unless someone else bid after him (but below the ceiling he had set).

+1.

Aaron, it’s a real shitty situation all around. But the fact that the full set closed and could not increase /add another bid, when the other lots were open and the set only wins if it’s price exceeds the aggregate, to me, is determinative.

Of course, all the lots should have stayed open until no garters lot got a bid for 30 minutes, bc Aaron could have easily been in Powell’s boat had his lot closed and he could not bid but the whole set stayed open

That’s it in a nutshell. Powell was prevented from competing while the individual lots were still open.

At least we all agree that the format was a mess to begin with.

But let’s not forget it has now advanced to the point that the individual lots have been invoiced. Also, none of HA’s rules were broken or changed… so far.

I expect they will stand by their rules as any seller with integrity would. I also sincerely hope this is a learning lesson for all auction houses/sellers in the future.

In the Auction Catalog under "Conducting the Auction # 14 it states " In the event of any dispute between any bidders at an Auction, Auctioneer may at his sole discretion reoffer the lot. Auctioneer's decision and declaration of the winning Bidder shall be final and binding upon all bidders "

So Heritage can reoffer the lots if they want or declare the winners as final.

They already declared Powell the winner, then retracted that decision. I'm sure that authority is not addressed in their rules.

That's the problem, the software stated he " won " when he really "lost".

Aaron,

Respectfully, I did bid in extended time. My bid was accepted and I waited the full 30 minutes. I checked my account and it said I won (I lost my other bids and they were correctly identified as losers). Saturday morning I looked up my account and the set was listed as winner. I learned otherwise from this board later in the morning. The set lot ended with me as the winner, reported me as the winner and no one including me could bid on the set after I won. I’m optimistic Heritage will do the right thing. It’s not your fault and I don’t blame you. I am a processional trial lawyer and I would never let my clients get screwed by making a deal and having the rug pulled out from under them. I have had great relations with Heritage so I’m confident it won’t end up in Court but no fair minded person could say that I didn’t win the set fair and square.

If the intent was to run the set against the individual lots, it seems obvious that has to assume a comparison at the same time. Heritage should have foreseen that the normal closing rules could not accomplish that, and should apologize to winners of the individual lots and award the set to Powell.

Here is an analogy - the eagles are playing the Lions (Baker v Cobb). The rules state that whoever has the most points at the end of 60 minutes, wins. When the clock expires after 60 minutes, the Lions are winning 30-20. But then, for some reason, the eagles are given the chance to keep playing until either they score more than 30 points or give up; all the while, the lions are stuck in the locker room and not able to defend their victory. While I am sure there are eagles fans who would declare this legit, my gut is all other NFL fans would declare the lions the proper victor.

The way it probably should have worked, off the top of my head, is the set should have remained open until all the single lots closed, and Powell then should have had an opportunity to top the total.

But that would put Aaron in Powells current position. Aaron would have gone to bed winning the single lot and not being able to bid higher, woken up the next morning and see that he lost the lot, assuming Powell went higher on the set.

It has to end sometime. I agree no way is perfect but I think mine achieves the intent of the auction. And bidders on single lots are on notice they might lose out to the set.

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

The singles and set have to be linked and run at the same time and all end after no bids after 30 minutes on any singles or the set. The software was not set up for that format, this scenario should have been anticipated by the AH and made adjustments.

So if you're King Solomon what do you now do about it?

+1. Was it clear in the rules that if and when the total set lot closed the individual lots did as well? If not, seems to me that most of the unfairness that Powell experienced could be claimed by the individual lot bidders too-- I think it was noted that the reverse situation could have occurred.

Frankly, the way it played out I'm not sure I understand what Powell could have done even if his clock stayed open on the entire set. Do we know for certain that once the aggregate bids for the individual cards exceeded his set price he would have been free to increase his bid even if his lot had remained open? Did the software have an internal "scoreboard" that would have allowed Powell to basically bid against himself on that one lot? After all, no one had outbid him on that specific lot, so do we know that he could have increased his bid at any time? Just askin.

Award the set to Powell since he was the high bidder at the time Heritage closed the lot, they should have closed the singles at that point but the software didn't allow that. No matter which way Heritage goes it will be unfair to someone, in this case Aaron who did nothing wrong and played by the rules. Maybe Powell can work out a deal with Aaron for his extra BG Jackson or Herzog if he is awarded the set.

In think the only fair thing to all is a rebid from the close and it only stops when no bids on ANY lots for 30 minutes. Powell should never have been the winner when it said so, and to declare so would now be unfair to the individual lot bidders.

I think we are not considering all the other individual lot winners who may be totally unaware of the situation if they are not on Net54. So they go to bed thinking they won, get their invoice, pay it...and then Heritage says "you didn't win, here's your money back". Powell can't make a deal with all those bidders as well.

And, no, I don't know the answer either. But my guess is that Heritage will let the results stand as they played out (and compensate Powell in some way).

Powell, I feel terrible for you. After this, I hope you never have to deal wi Heritage again.

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.

How do you compensate Powell for what it would have meant to him to own and display the set?

I’m so sorry Powell....I hope you never deal with Heritage again. So messed up.

I don't know. I don't know the solution. Maybe compensate is the wrong word.

But if they award the set to Powell, what do they tell the person that thinks they won the Cobb and wants to display it with their Ty Cobb collection.

Just to be clear, I feel terrible for Powell. I am just saying that awarding the set to Powell raises issues with all the individual lot "winners".

Oh for sure, it's a no win situation now.

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

First, I’m glad to sell my Jackson and Herzog to help out Heritage and the other bidders even though I was not planning to do so.

Second, I don’t believe there should be a redo as the set was sold to me. At worst, I should have to pay $1 more than the high bids on the individual lots. Otherwise, the true motivation for the last individual bids was to beat me out of the set after the fact. Even though the auction should have been over for the BG’s when the clock ran out on the set, under no circumstances should individual lots that were closed be re-opened.

So what do people think Heritage will do here? Purely a guess, but I think they will let things stand, and hope they can make it up somehow with Powell.

Have they ready shipped some or all of the cards out to the winners of the individual lots? If so, then it’s hard to imagine rolling anything back.

If they haven’t shipped anything yet, then there’s a chance they could make a change, either to award the lot to Powell, or declare that their software was insufficient for the assigned task and therefore the auction needs to be re-completed using a system that allows all bidders an equal opportunity of winning under this somewhat exciting yet potentially very complicated format.

I doubt they have shipped yet, but once they do definitely becomes impractical or impossible to undo.

Yep.

I don't see how they can just decide to sell the set to Powell since their software allowed the bidding to continue. I think they will have to leave the results as is. Trying to reopen bidding for the lots related to the set seems like it would be challenging and probably wouldn't make anyone happy except maybe the consigner.

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.

That same software that allowed bidding to continue also locked Powell out from going higher once the individual lots surpassed his high bid. I feel bad for Powell, Aaron, and the rest of the bidders as they did nothing wrong and followed the AH rules. For the amount of money these guys are spending the process should have been vetted better and this exact scenario addressed. I'm not sure there will be any winners as this plays out, which is unfortunate.

But the software didn’t allow the bidding to continue for me, it said I won. I’m open to a reasonable solution as I stated earlier. I don’t want to take this further but won’t be steamrolled either.

I don't know if that means you are considering the possibility of a lawsuit, but as you know it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to get specific performance once the cards are shipped out around the country.

I think the software said you won because it can’t see the linkage between the individual and the aggregate lots. My guess is that even if there was a separate page added to the auction that showed the total of the individual lots as compared to the aggregate lot, the software wouldn’t let an aggregate lot bidder bump his own bids to catch up if he was behind. I had the reverse situation once where I was an individual lot bidder and the sum of the individual lots was just short of the aggregate. I wanted to bid but I was not allowed by the software to top myself. I had to call the auction house, explain the situation, and have them enter “house” bids against me so I could continue to bid and eventually throw the individual total above the aggregate bid.

That's what I was thinking. If the aggregate got outbid by the set bidder, and then several aggregate bidders bumped up their respective Max bids to beat the set bid, how would that be calculated?

Let's say the aggregate bid is $500k and the set bid is $520k. Several bidders of individual cards bump their Max bids by $10k, $17k, $14k, 19K, $12k... Does Heritage just bump all those bids to their max, or does there need to be a pro-rated calculation so that the new aggregate beats the set bid only by the required amount? Meaning, those individual bids don't go all the way to their max.

The simplest to do this, especially considering the logic in Heritage's programming, is this: Make it a 2-day close. The first day, all the individual lots close, with the caveat that a Set bid the following day may negate the results. This would encourage bidders to place hard bids higher than just what would be needed to be the top bidder on their lot. The second day, the minimum bid would be the aggregate plus whatever percentage it would need to be beaten by.

I would think that the cards would not be shipped before tomorrow at earliest so that should not be an issue.
The only fair thing to do is reauction the cards. The question then is whether the bidding will be limited to the initial bidders or completely open. I ask because I could see the possibility of new bidders entering the fray.

I would be shocked if Heritage goes that route with a completed auction of this magnitude.

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

I don’t see HA changing the current result if they don’t do this.

Yep. I think that's exactly what they will do, keep the result.

Every solution is unsatisfying, but the most logical would be to determine that the bid for the complete set is the winner because it exceeded the individual lots when it closed, and the individual bids that came in later are nullities.

Granted, I'm wearing my consumer hat rather than my lawyer hat, but that's the only reasonable way to interpret auction rules that don't provide any sort of disclaimer about staggered individual-lot closings after bidding on the complete set is locked.

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).

I'm sure Heritage has a disclaimer that covers any possible scenario and they have full authority to settle it in any manner they see fit.

I think they will leave it as is and sell to the individual bidders.

May not seem fair but it nets the consignor the most money and that is their #1 priority.

I believe they don't have individual lot closings or didn't years ago when I bid on an auction of this type. Years ago I bid on some m101-5 cards that were being auctioned in this manner by Mile High. Late in the game the complete set lot was higher, and there was zero I could do about it because I couldn't raise my own high bids on the dozen or so cards I wanted. I had to hope that other cards were being bid that would jump the total or that someone would outbid me so I could increase my bids. That's why I asked in this thread how clearly the rules were spelled out. I wasn't as resourceful as Jay, who said he called the Auction House to basically force an increase in his bids.

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?

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?

It also pisses off only one person, albeit of course one who is important to them.

We don’t know who won the individual lots. That said, as I said before, the right answer should be independent of the picket depth of the parties involved.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.