And here the fine print doesn’t say you must manually and constantly add up the individual lots and can’t rely on the web site or that you are declared the winner in your account or that closing the set doesn’t mean you didn’t win or that you must bid on every lot and against yourself on the set and do so before extended bidding or your shut out.

I don't think there will be a re-do. If the individual bidders like Aaron were invoiced and paid for their lots they now expect to get their cards. The only thing that would stop this is if Heritage decided not to send the cards. But then every individual bidder will say what Powell is saying now....you told me I won, you invoiced me, I paid, I want my card(s). With the difference that Powell was never invoiced.

In the view of Heritage, while at one point Powell was told he won his lot, at the end of the entire auction he was told he did not win his lot. So in their eyes, he did not win and he was not invoiced.

What should have appeared on Powell's screen was a message to the effect of "you are the high bidder on this lot and no one else can bid on it...however, you may not win this lot if the individual lots surpass your bid" (in a shorter version, of course). The problem is they told Powell he won when the bidding ended on the group lot...which he understandably took to mean, it is over, I won.

I've come around to this do-over approach. Those insisting that the individual lots won in accordance with the terms set forth in the description are missing the point entirely. In a race like this, a key implied term is that the listings close at the same time. It's the only way it can work without forcing bidders to use shills to bid against themselves and extend the auction.

Every participant understands that if the total bid for individual lots exceeds the bid for the whole set, the individual lots win. No participant in his/her right mind would have placed bids with the assumption that the complete set would be closed early due to lack of direct competition, while bidders on the individual lots could keep going. As Powell mentioned upthread, that would make the process of bidding on the entire set illusory in a scenario where a deep-pocketed bidder has no opponent but himself, and it's illogical to assume that Heritage, the consignor, or the bidder set the auction terms intending to create an illusory process that prevents competition and depresses the final price.

Hi David! What you are proposing solves only half of the problem, and the easier half at that. What happens when the aggregate bidder exceeds the individual bidders? At some point all of them will be closed out with no way to bid with the aggregate lot now ahead. How do you allocate this differential back to the individual lots if more than one bidder wants to continue? The system is flawed on an individual lot closing basis. I think the only way to handle this type of bidding is under a format where the full auction closes at once and where bidders can raise their own bids. You need a Memory Lane/ REA type auction for this to work. On a HA individual lot closing format I don't think it works. I also don't think it works on the LOTG format unless all the lots involved go into extended bidding.

Hi Leon, I hope you are well. I have been trying to keep my feelings and opinions out of it, for that’s when I get in trouble (especially on a public forum). I originally posted on this thread out of joy and excitement because I “won” the Baker. I did not expect nor anticipate this thread would go “KABOOM!”

I empathize with Powell. I do. I hope any pain or anguish this has caused him will fade over time. I share his passion (and yours Leon) for collecting and I wish you all only the best.

I’m no lawyer, so I’ll refrain from fancy terms, but I side with Powell. This is BS. An auction house should have more competence than this for items this large. I think it’s worth a lawsuit if HA doesn’t redo the auction.

What if HA doesn’t even correct this behavior/error after this debacle? Make them.

I agree with Jeff that given the flawed auction process the only fair solution is to redo the auction of these cards. The question now becomes who is eligible to bid on the aggregate lot? Is it only those bidders who bid on the aggregate previously (that would represent a larger universe than just Powell) or can any prior individual lot bidders also bid on the aggregate? These questions would have to be resolved before any redo could take place.

From my reading (unless I misread) based on the email Powell said he got it looks like HA already made up their mind and giving the winnings to the individual lots and as a result not compensating or re-doing the auction on those items as still discussed.
Further I have not heard or read anywhere about a statement from HA or anything by googling it (Except this forum pops up)
Apparently they are treating it as business as usually and sticking to their terms and conditions and disclaimers and moving forward.
It is a sad situation with the way it all played out can only hope moving forward they improve their software to better handle/link the lots etc or they do not do this type of auction individual vs set.

While I agree that a redo would be fair, I don't see how this can happen.

Not everyone who won a lot is on Net54. As far as they are concerned, they got an invoice and paid for their card, and expect to get that card. They may have no idea about the controversy and don't care that the process was unfair to one of the bidders.

Heritage can withhold the cards but I have no idea what that would mean legally. If Powell believes he has a legal claim to the set because at one point he was told he won on the screen (which later said he lost), the other bidders have a stronger claim because not only were they told they won, it never switched to telling them they lost, and they were invoiced when the auction ended.

And, no, I did not win any of the lots.

Also, I think it is a little unfair to make Aaron feel bad because he won a lot in an auction.

It seems pretty clear to me that this was set up from the start to be 2 separate, unrelated auctions. Both auctions were subject of the standard auction rules - if no bids after 30 mins, the auction is closed. Once both auctions were complete, the higher number would get the cards. At least one individual card bidder recognized that during the auction, so it was possible to understand the arrangement. (Someone said they texted their friend at 11:26 that the set bidder was going to lose to the individual).

The only way to ensure ownership of the cards was to bid both ways. As weird as that is, that was clearly the rules at the start.

Couldn't find an update to this in the thread. Did Heritage accept the payment? Send it back? Or is this still in limbo?

From a legal standpoint, until someone actually takes possession of the cards, it would be difficult for any bidder to prove actual damages (beyond wasting their time). Paying an invoice -- whether it's the individual bidders or the complete set bidder -- changes little in this regard, because Heritage could simply refund the money and mitigate the damages.

Getting a court to order specific performance as an equitable remedy (requiring Heritage to accept payment and turn over the cards) is very difficult, even when the dispute is over something as unique as this set.

If you can't outbid yourself, then I don't see how redoing the auction will change anything. the individual cards will be higher than the set. The rules were clear, the higher between individual and set wins. Also the rules are you can't outbid yourself, these are not new rules. Seems clear to me .

If I'm understanding correctly, your take is that the individual cards will be higher than the set because Heritage intended it from the outset, knowing full well that (1) extended bidding on individual lots would continue after the complete set closed, and (2) competition on the complete set would be limited to one deep-pocketed bidder, so it was always guaranteed to close sooner.

That approach doesn't make sense for a business where the goal is to promote competition and maximize the sale price. The rules are that "you can't outbid yourself," but surely the auction format is meant to leave room for the complete-set bidder to outbid the individual lots as the price increases. No?

When this format has been used by other auction houses, were you able to outbid yourself on set or individual cards ?

That would have made sense but Heritage did not put in place any special rules for this auction. On their site, you can put in a maximum bid but that bid is only used if your current bid is topped on that lot. The set bidding was not connected to the individual lot bidding. Not only that, the set closed before all the lots did. So even if Powell could "bid against himself", the lot was already closed.

The problem is that everyone involved played by the rules but the rules did not anticipate this situation (which, in retrospect, they should have).

I believe some auction houses let you put in a straight bid that is higher than you need to bid to become the highest bidder.

I think in Heritage you can put in a maximum bid, but that bid just takes you to the next increment needed to be the high bidder (on that lot). It is then used as needed to top subsequent bids.

Could it come under unfair and deceptive business practices?

I don't think so. It's just a poorly run auction. In any event, again, what are the damages?

What a mess.

When most auctions were live, I'd see that sort of bidding occasionally, and it was handled by auctioning the individual lots first, then the larger lot, asking for the next advance over the total of the individual lots as the opening bid.

I had a sort of similar thing happen with a bike auction.
Left bids by website on maybe 10 items. Bids I had to forgo other stuff to be sure I could cover it all if I won. Their system didn't handle bids electronically, more like the old fashioned system of writing the left bids down, only they accessed those bids by internet.
Checked the prices realized the day after the auction and it looked like I'd won 8 of them.
Monday, Tuesday, no invoice.....
So I ask, and they say I didn't win anything. Gave them a rough idea of the bids I'd left, and they said they had an internet problem, and couldn't access left bids for something like 120 items. So instead of waiting, they just kept going. Tough luck, sorry?

When I complained on the bike list I'm on everyone defended them.
I still won't bid there, won't visit the sale the day before, and will never consign anything with them. I do look when I get the announcement email, just in case there's something I really must have. But over a decade that's been a big no aside from one item that went for like 12K when their auction estimate was maybe 1500.....

No doubt Heritage effed this up by not keeping the set lot open for bidding while individual lots remained open. But in my opinion as I now see it, that doesn't make you the winner with a contract claim. It does mean Heritage should exercise its discretion to make it right.

Jay I think the way it would work is the aggregate lot remains open until all the individual lots are closed.the individual bidders really bid independent of the aggregate lot but there is at least a link that shows if the bidder is high bidder in the lot and if the individual lots are outbidding the aggregate. Then it is clear to everyone what they really are or are not winning. This way the aggregate bidder always a chance to top the bid and then presumably a remaining bidder on an individual lot go go back and up their bid if desired. Then it becomes the back and forth that makes auctions last until 4am

You said the aggregate lot should stay open until all the individual lots close and then the aggregate bidder could have a chance to top the bid, but then you say a remaining bidder could go back and increase an individual lot if desired. However, you already said that the individual lots were closed.

The only way for it to work is for all lots related to these cards (set and individual) to close at the same time after some period of time when none of them had any bids. Also, bidders need to be able to increase their own bid if it is already the highest one for a lot so they can change whether the complete set or the individual lots are winning depending on what they are trying to win.

Becaue it would essentially come down to two bidders. The one for the aggregate lot and the one individual lot. Both are open until one stops bidding. The other individual lots are closed. The aggregate lot bidder is bidding against someone upping a bid against the individual lot. As soon as that bidder stops both the individual lot and the aggregate lot would close because neither are bidding. Even if the aggregate bidde upped his bid it would be a change to a ceiling bid.

The other consideration is the bidding increments. The aggregate lot bidder has a much larger bidding increment. If I was bidding on one of the lower value BG lots the next level aggregate bid would be almost over a 100% increase in the bid of the lot. Am I really going to bid another 2-3x the current bid to out bid the aggregate bidder to win the individual card?

Do you think the consignor has a case or not? He could be out six figures.

I don't think so. I don't see the likely source of a contractual obligation to conduct an auction designed to produce the highest possible bid. Although obviously I don't know what specifically Heritage represented to the consignor.

I am glad Heritage didn't follow King Solomon's advise and rip the cards in half.

I also feel that, that as it appears the individual lots have trumped the aggregate, Heritage in the person of Chris Ivy needs to speak to Powell and offer something to him being the innocent party here. Powell could cause Heritage a serious migraine if he chooses to go public. A blowoff email, given Powell's long history and the sums spent over the years, is imo insulting. It is clear that the systems people were not in sync with management or vice versa. AI?

While it is a small thing, Heritage benefited by reaping a bit more BP by going with the individual bidders.

What is truly sad is I doubt we will never see such a beautiful lot
of BP cards again at auction.

This reminds me of my son's football game last weekend. They played four quarters and at the end of the game, my son's team was up 34-32. Refs blew the whistle, and said that his team had won. It was very exciting because they were a cross town rival who had beaten us that past few years. We went home and he went to bed very excited. Unfortunately, when we woke up the next morning the newspaper ran the headlines claiming the other team won on field goal 35-32 to beat my son's team. We were shocked.

I guess the other team, after the game, kept playing and scored a last second field goal against themselves to win it. I guess the refs deemed the other team wanted it more because they kept playing. They claimed victory and pointed to something about fine print and we should have read all the details.

I agree for the most part, although as even you noted at 11:26pm that night, this was outcome was predictable. I do think Heritage should extend the auction though. No need to restart from ground zero however. I prefer how PWCC handles it. They just extend the bidding from where things left off. All prior bids are still in place, and all eligible bidders are able to bid again. This is the solution I would offer.

But to just say Powell won is not an option. He did not win per the clearly stated rules. Regardless of how unfair it was.

I don't under how this is possible. Can you post the link to the story?

I would normally agree with this, but I am sure invoices and payments have been sent out/paid by now.

They could undo that. Just refund the money. To me the question is have they shipped any cards.

Disclosure
 

Going to give my two cents for what it is worth, because I don't feel it is fair what is going down on this thread generally..

Let me start with I have a tremendous amount of respect for all the legal eagles posting on this thread, and I am just going to state the obvious and leave it there.

I am in the real estate business, and disclosure is always a big issue when things go wrong. For example did the seller of the building disclose there was an obvious defect to his knowledge- just for example sake.. If they disclosed the issue- they are fine and not liable- if they did not disclose and they knew about an issue, they could be in for a shit storm.

Heritage at the bottom of every Boston Garter card disclosed the following--- """""""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 wording is not deceptive, it is black and white. It's not open for interpretation. Heritage disclosed the cards could be sold as a set, or individually depending what gets more- PERIOD.. If someone had intentions of winning the set they had this information and should have bid accordingly, meaning- bid on the individual lots and also the set if there was any doubt. Also they could have reached out to the auction house if you had any questions prior to clarify how the sale would go down..

I have known Derek Grady who brought in the Garters on consignment over 25 years. First as a kid collecting with my Dad who used SGC as our preferred grader, and the last 10 years or so as a consignor and hobby resource for my auction needs... Derek is a class act, and he had nothing but the best intentions for the consignors by running the Garters individually and as a set. Clearly it was very close in price realized whether the set or individual lots would net the sellers the most money- so it was the correct decision to run the auction the way he did... Derek was spot on, and also talking with him at the national the sellers are not card people at all, running the auction with the option for the set to sell, or the cards individually, gave the consignors comfort they absolutely would net the most from a collectible they knew nothing about. By the way again it was in the best interest of his client which I always have found to be true when giving Derek business both ways as a seller and buyer...

I feel for Powel that he bid a tremendous amount of money and thought he won the set, but it clearly was stated on each lot it could go either way. Logistically yes are there some math challenges to know where you stand- yes. That said it was not a hard close, lots were able to be extended with the individual lot close method implemented.. 30 minutes is enough time to run the math.

Be well my friends. I hope this message gives another respectable perspective, and no ill will towards anyone posting. Fair is fair..

Connor Ciallella

Its been 2 plus days since the auction closed. I think you have your answer.

I don’t disagree at all. Powell didn’t win unless all lots, the individual and aggregate, were kept open. And they weren’t. It’s an easy fix here. Re-auction the cards correctly, give everyone a fair chance, and make up any potential shortfall to the consigner so he agrees to this resolution. This is an easy fix — let’s see if Heritage can understand this.

Connor, respectfully, this is crazy. The bidder who wanted the full set lot should have to bid against himself? Because Heritage screwed up the software/auction? They screwed up! Let them ensure that a real auction occurred, as it didn’t. Even if it means an uncomfortable conversation with the consigner. After all, the consigner may have lost money here (and probably did) due to Heritage’s screwup. No auction house is perfect. But it’s how they handle the glitches that matters.

I agree with you 100% about Derek. He’s the best part of Heritage and the only reason I’d consign with them. And the only reason many people would consign with them.

The whole point of having a set lot option is so someone who wants the set doesn't have to win all 12 individual lots if he bids aggressively enough. I can't believe people are faulting Powell here.

Not sure I follow. So you're saying it's too soon for that to have happened?

No, I am saying too much time has passed for a redo. Heritage is moving forward with the sale of the individual cards.

Ah got you. I suspect that's right. And all these suggestions of a redo are moot if any cards have gone out.

They can easily fix it by not sending out the cards — which they surely haven’t done as of today. The question is whether Heritage wants to do the right thing for its bidding customers and also reveal to the non-hobby consigner that they a) screwed up and b) may have cost the consigner money. My guess is they will never have that conversation. This isn’t REA.

Even if there was a redo, which almost certainly isn't going to happen, the rules would have to be amended or the same unfair result could happen again.
There would need to be thirteen lots, the twelve individual cards plus the complete set lot. All thirteen lots would have to remain open until no bids are received on any of the thirteen lots for 30 minutes. That way no bidder can be shut out.

The outcome is not going to change-- the individual card winners will get their cards.

I am not taking sides, and would emphasize that this all falls on Heritage for not clarifying the rules and/or adjusting its software to allow for the type of bidding that Powell believed was in effect. Still, I believe the ship has sailed, and it does not matter if the AH has not sent out the cards.

If I were a winner of one of the 12 I would be pissed if they changed it now. Had I known I was foreclosed from bidding a half hour or whatever earlier and that my efforts to win my lot were basically a nullity, I could have used that tens of thousands of dollars (or more) to go after other cards I wanted that were still active at the time. Instead I'll take nothing and like it?

IMO the rules as they played out were not unconscionable. Bidders are for the most part at the mercy of others to get to the finish line in an auction set up like this one. "Winners" of the individual lots have to hope that others bid up the remaining cards in order to actually exceed the set chaser, and the latter has to hope that there is competition for his lot so that he can keep bumping his bid. Not an ideal format and not necessarily fair, but I can see it as a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Just out of curiosity, suppose the Complete set lot never went to extended bidding-- that Powell put in the initial bid and that when initial bidding ended, it was greater than the aggregate 12 singles. Is it the view of this forum that he should have won then and there-- that none of the 12 individual lots would be subject to extended bidding? If so I understand your logic, but could only imagine the outcry that would have generated.

I wonder if the high bidder of the set wasn’t a well known collector, if everyone would be so up in arms.

I mean the set/cards were up for auction for a month or so and no one seemed to have any issues with the format…

Color me surprised

I don’t have a clue who Powell is. I’m just pissed at Heritage’s incompetence and failure to acknowledge its obvious mistake.

But there was never a mistake. The auction proceeded exactly as described beforehand. And there was no part of the auction that went other than described beforehand.

If you are going to argue, even when wrong, you still need your full name out here, per the rule near the top of every page. Thanks
.

Heritage absolutely should’ve done a much better job of managing the closing process, including linking the lots. Or if not that, then more clearly explaining precisely how the closing process would work.

At the same time, Powell is clearly a big time collector. He craps bigger than me. And bigger than almost all of us. Put together. And not just that, but he is obviously a great professional in his field. And this set obviously meant a great deal to him. It wasn’t some little lot that he was hoping to maybe pick up a good deal if nobody else bid, but didn’t really care if he lost. He wanted this, and wanted it badly. Enough to pay the better part of a cool million to get it. So the stakes are high.

Additionally, auctions are pretty final. When the hammer falls, barring shenanigans and nonsense and software outages, when it’s over, it’s over. Finished. No going back. You only get one bite at the apple. So the stakes are that much higher to make sure that you don’t get caught off guard by stupid nonsense like the closing process.

In this case, the format was obviously not normal. Given the stakes, how do you not do some digging into the rules? How do you not think through the closing mechanics and figure out how you might get screwed?

Before Powell walks into a courtroom, I’ve got to think that he prepares religiously. He knows what’s going to happen before it happens. He’s researched similar cases. Practiced his arguments. Refined his wording. Anticipated everything that the other side will do, and he’s ready to counter. Nothing is left to chance.

Given all of this, if it was me, I would have made darn sure that I knew how the closing process worked. I would’ve been obsessing about it for weeks before the close. I would’ve lost sleep having nightmares about how someone was going to outwit me and I would lose. I would’ve called up Heritage and asked them about anything that wasn’t clear. If the morons I talked to on the phone didn’t answer my questions to my satisfaction, I would’ve moved up the chain of command until someone got me the real answers. Assuming that I know how it was going to work seems like you’re living dangerously. You’re hoping that it will work the way you think it will work. I don’t understand how you don’t nail it all down so that you don’t get screwed by the closing format working against you.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20. And I’m not trying to blame Powell. I just don’t understand the lack of serious investigation into and preparation for the closing mechanics, given how badly he wanted it. Maybe he was busy at work on a case. Maybe other auctions were just as important and took up his attention. Whatever the reason, I just don’t understand this element. But maybe I’m just a paranoid obsessive who doesn’t like to lose auctions for stuff I really want due to nonsense.

IMO absent some very specific disclosure to the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the world's leading auction house running a set against the individual cards is not going to freeze out the set bidders while the individual lots are still live.

If anyone actually thinks this auction went according to plan, went down appropriately, I can’t help you as you’re beyond help. I can assure you this theory doesn’t hold up under two minutes of questioning. That I’m even typing this gives me less faith in the hobby as it should be that obvious.

And Powell isn’t at fault here. Could he have done more? Yes. Should he have had to do more? No.

lol

No good solution
 

I don't see any good solution to this, but if I were me, I'd make a public apology to all involved, saying I screwed up. Then I would run it again, but I would give half the buyer's premium to the winner's charity of choice, something like that. As it is now, there will be no "closure" as to what would have been. Just run it again, and let the process play itself out correctly. Just my two cents...

Why would Powell bid on every lot??? The entire point of having the cards offered as a set is so a bidder, who wanted the entire set of cards, didn’t have to do that exact thing!!!! Otherwise, the cards would’ve never been offered as a set! Furthermore, it was designed to maximize the consignor profit.

How this unfolded was not the design or intention of the auction. The manner this was conducted made the set bidding pointless because Powell could not make competing bids and did not maximize profit for the consignor.

Also, just my opinion, I think the cards sold for about the max they would have, give or take. Powell may have been willing to go much higher, I have no idea, but considering he had no other competition in the set auction and, at the time the set lot closed it was slightly ahead of the aggregate and then only a few more bids were placed to push the individual lots over the set lot, it doesn’t seem like there was a lot of runway left in this situation. And, if you assume an auction house’s number one priority is the consignor (and it’s own bottom line) then if an auction house thought there was a lot of room for increased profit on restarting an auction - it would! Risk/reward….

Lastly, I always see, stuff trumps all. Which, often is the case for many people situations - to each their own. However, I’ll say this, if you don’t like how any auction house treats people or situations, don’t consign material to them. Without selling YOUR stuff, an auction house has nothing to sell. And there are many different auction houses at different levels specializing in different material - options are plentiful.

Andr.ew Ken.edy

Can anyone point to some part, any part of the auction that did *not* go according to the rules established before the auction began?

Seems like a lot of people disagree with the auction format, but the rules were known and followed perfectly.

Because given the auction format, as stated in the listings, bidding on every lot was the only way one could ensure a victory. Had I been in his shoes, those cards would be getting shipped to me, instead of getting shipped to someone else. It would have cost more, but I wouldn't have lost.

No, of course not.

When the person bidding on the set is locked out because the 30 minute timer elapsed AND is informed that he was the winner of the lot all the while the individual lots were still open to be bid on is NOT part of the auction format. Their terms plainly says that the higher dollar amount of the individual cards vs the set price is the winner BUT when one group can bid while the other is locked out and unable to bid it changes the whole auction dynamic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems to me that the consignor suffered the most. Probably $10-50K. more in bids, at least.

Meanwhile, no update from Powell, so presumably Heritage has not budged.

Having to bid on every individual lot defeats the purpose of having the full set listed as well. With only 12 cards it's doable but shouldn't be necessary. Apparently other AHs have had the same type of auction format with a T206 set and a 1952 Topps set. I don't think the expectation would have been the need to bid on every individual card if your goal was to win the whole set.

It's worse than that, you'd be bidding against yourself. Every bid you make on an individual lot drives up the aggregate price, requiring a higher set price to beat it. It makes zero sense.

The consignor is probably thrilled, but might have missed out on the true bidding war.

FWIW, this is how it's been successfully executed in the past by auction houses like Mastros, Mile High, REA, Memorylane, etc. There's clear communication at the top of each lot (note the sentence at the very top of each lot page), and the lots are all linked and work together in unison. So bidders have real-time (official) visibility as to which is wining, and then can pivot and change bidding strategy if need be. (Images courtesy of a gentleman from New Jersey).

The consignor didn't know what they had, right? If Powell had been able to place another bid, it would have been another $5K for the consignor, right?

I’m moving on. It was a bad scene. I’m not suing anybody. I hope Aaron enjoys his card. It wasn’t his fault. I never thought I should get special treatment because I spend a lot of money. I should have had a fair chance to compete. The set lot was doomed and there is the unfairness. Anyway, I hope this experience reduces the risk it ever happens again. I appreciate the support from many of you. There are passionate collectors and many great people on this board whom I’ve learned a lot from. Thank you!

Powell

The auctions rules stated the 2 auctions would be run independently. If the aggregate of the individual winners was higher than the winner of the set auction, then the individual would get the cards. So yes, each side would have an auction winner declared, then the higher aggregate would take delivery. The set winner was supposed to be given notice that they “won” their leg. As to when an individual auction ends, that was also established before the auction began - after entering the final bidding, any lot that goes 30 minutes without a bid will be closed. So that rule was also followed correctly.

Again, there never was an error in the administration of the auction. The rules were set beforehand, and there were no deviations. Most, maybe all agree this is not the best way to maximize value. But the auction house should not be held to blame here.

Well handled.

I am sorry it worked out this way for you. As a lawyer i am glad you shared it because it certainly made for a fascinating discussion.

The auction house can 100% be accountable, this is the most irresponsible way to run an individual/aggregate auction, especially with such a significant set.

Look at the example kindly provided above to see the standard for running auctions like this, it's pretty simple and keeps everybody informed, maximizes seller return, and fair to all parties bidding.

No, Heritage stepped in a bucket of manure for not vetting their own process, furthermore the way they treated Powell post shitshow was weak and unprofessional. Not to mention the awkward position people like Aaron were subjected to. At the very least they owe the parties involved a personal apology.

When an AH treats longtime million dollar clients like that how do you think they view normal folks like us?

Apologies if this has already been addressed, I'm late to this party :

The aggregate total of the single lots should have been treated as another bidder in the full set auction, with the time on the full set auction not ending until no bids had been placed for 30 minutes on any of the individual or full auctions.

I believe that the winner of the full set lot should be given the opportunity to bid one more time for a single bid increment above the aggregate total.

Doug "the whole thing was a bad idea from the start" Goodman

Thanks for making me laugh Doug, reminds me of several of my adventures. See also; "Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

You're welcome Phil.

Doug "happy to be the court jester" Goodman

While it may seem like you'd be bidding against yourself by bidding on both sides, the math doesn't actually work out that way. The game theory optimal strategy here would be to focus on the individual lots first, and to ensure participation in the set lot as a backup plan, since the individual lots should be the favorite to win out. You're not effectively bidding against yourself because you only bid on one side of the auction unless two or more bidders overtake you on the other side, in which case *they* are the ones who bid you up, not yourself, as they have rendered your losing bids on the other side irrelevant. You never bid up both sides at the same time. You only switch sides if forced to. You will still have to overtake all bidders on both sides regardless if you intend to win. A single competitive bidder on one side cannot overtake you if you control the other side unless the two sides are in a dead heat already, in which case you'd still have to overtake him regardless of which side he is on, and you'd be bidding against him, not yourself. And if a single competitive bidder bids against you on both sides, then it doesn't matter which side he chooses as the decision is arbitrary and you have to overtake him either way.

Hi Pete! Just another wringing observation (hi Jeff) how could damaged be claimed in such an event? Someone staying up all night and being heart broken? I just don't see the case here. It sucks and Heritage wouldn't even respond to consignor my signed 1952 topps set, but I can even begin to see what damages are here

You have certainly shown an admirable attitude toward this difficult situation. As a set collector who regretably anticipates that day arriving when I’ll have to make decisions on how my pre-war vintage collection is ultimately sold, it has certainly been a learning experience for me, and I suspect, others in the hobby.

B@b Marq@ette

I thought I recall those and the technology/software is there so why did HA which is a big auction house with deep pockets not have this in place.

Hopefully they put this in place prior to the next time they sell set vs Individual auction

Ted as I posted a couple of times I don't see any claim for damages. In theory, if Heritage still had the cards, there could have been a claim for specific performance but one would have needed injunctive relief to keep the cards in place.

Suppose lete in the bidding there's just one or two lots where it's obvious another bidder really wants them and would go to the moon to get them. You really want the set so abandon the plan to win all individual lots and chase the set. Suppose too nobody else would have bid higher on the other individual lots on which you are now high. At that point aren't all your other bids built into the set price you now have to beat? Wouldn't you have done better just to chase the set from the get go?