Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings
Maybe this has been explained before and I'm just tired, but I am curious to know why an AH doesn't just skip the buyer's premium altogether and take their 1/6 share from the final hammer price. If buyers are already aware of BPs and adjust their max bids accordingly, presumably their max bids would increase once free of BPs. If the ultimate price with BP is the same as without it, and buyers don't care who gets what split of their money, then it should make no difference, right? On the other hand, if, for whatever reason and in spite of logic buyers don't like BPs and withhold participation for that strange (IMO) reason, then they will bid more and the hammer price would be higher without them.
IOW, if the BP doesn't make any difference and bidders ultimately pay the same max price with or without it, then why won't an AH try it the other way and charge no BP, agreeing instead to take its cut from the consignor's share?
|
because the good Peter'th says so. that's why. and that's all that matters. His words are scripture and there is no denying this.
for Pete's sake / for christ's sake. this is not by coincidence.
sheesh, all 100,002 of us know that.