[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.