Question about a lot in the last Hunt Auction

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I had absentee bids on several lots in Hunt's last auction. One of the lots was #397 where my absentee bid was $775 ($891 with the juice). The pre-auction estimate on the lot was $750-$1250. The auction ended and the lot did not sell. I asked Hunt what happened and here is their response:
"The estimate on lot 397 was incorrect (it should have been $1,250-$1,750) and was withdrawn."

It seems as though they created a new way to have a hidden reserve...

edited for title change.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

That stinks, but it could be an honest mistake. However i'd ask around and see if it happened to anyone else too.

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Since Hunt's is a live auction, I think it would only be questionable if the item was offered to the floor with no bids, and your absentee bid wasn't executed. If the item was withdrawn prior to the live bidding, then I suspect it was just as Hunt's says: the wrong pre-estimate was entered, and someone (perhaps the consignor) noticed a little late.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I get so annoyed when I hear these stories about auction companies and what they get away with.
That being said, I was at the Hunt Auction Friday, and according to the jottings I made, Lot 397 was hammered at $1200, so your bid of $775 would have been too low in any case.

Not that this means there WASN'T shady stuff going on....

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Max - I would suggest that even if it never made it to the floor, it still smells funny.
I would imagine that the majority of the lots were won by people not present and Hunt had a pretty good idea ahead of time what the lot was going to bring, even before it hit the floor, once all the absentee bids were in and phone lines were reserved.
The lots/descriptions were posted for weeks ahead of time - they only noticed the "mistake" the day of the auction?

Tim - your report only compounds the questions. Who bid $1200 and aren't they irate that they couldn't take the lot home? With the juice, $1200 puts them into the new post-auction estimate anyway...

edited for spelling.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

That does seem weird... If they misquoted the original estimate, and the consignor pulled it, why would they even go through with the floor bidding?

I know they do have reserves on many/most items, which are not stated. Of the 5 items I consigned to this past auction, reserves were placed on 4 of them. Two of my 5 consignments failed to make reserve last week, and will be going into their next Internet/Phone Auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...I put in a late ceiling bid of $525 and won my item at $425, so there was no shady shill bidding going on. Usually I don't like to put in ceiling bids as a result of shill concerns, but under the circumstances I had little choice. I was happy to get the $100 discount.

I have no comments on the withdrawl/pre-auction estimate issue.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Visit http://www.t206collector.com for my blog, interviews, articles, card galleries and more!

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

"I put in a late ceiling bid of $525 and won my item at $425, so there was no shady shill bidding going on. "

This may be a correct assumption on your particular lot, but I wouldn't assume that for all lots. I'm not saying Hunt shills, my experience is that they are a fine auction house. I'm simply saying that other auction houses may allow consigned items to go through normally, but shill their own items. So winning one lot below your max doesn't mean there is no shilling whatsoever.

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

As I asked in a previous post, what happened to the Joe Jackson P/C that was estimated at $20,000-$30,000? I heard a price of $7,500 and then the auction results appear like it did not sell. Hidden reserve???

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Phil - they openly acknowledge many of their lots have hidden reserves; if the Jackson hammered at $7500 and their estimate was $20k+ I'm certain the hidden reserve was not met. The case I described above indicates something else was going on since my bid was well within their pre-auction estimate.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If the rules state that they have reserves then a reserve is fine (even hidden). As far as the lot in question, sounds like they just made a mistake somewhere.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Matt,

Hunt Auctions is a very trustworthy auction house. I'm sure there would be a good (honest) explanation for anything that seemed inappropriate. I trust Hunt Auctions like I trust Barry's Auctions. That says a lot.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Fred - the explanation they provided was above and doesn't seem straightforward at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Weeks before the auction, I put in an absentee bid of $3,100 on lot 424 ($3,565 with juice). The lot sold for exactly my bid, but they awarded it to a bidder on the floor. Apparently if you bid in person, you win ties.

The live format is terrible for auctioning these kinds of items. You must be on the phone to bid live if you really care about the outcome.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Richard - they do state that would be the case in the auction rules. Nowhere do they say anything about changing a hidden reserve during the actual auction, once the bids are known.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Another reason why I never bid in live auctions. Internet only for me....

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

Why is it so difficult to believe that they made an error? When you have close to a thousand items to auction, it doesnt strike me as odd at all that the error might not be noticed until close to the auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Josh - what do you suggest the error was?

In their explanation, they say the lot was pulled, but a board member says he was there and it was not pulled. Furthermore, if the lot was hammered at $1200, then it should have sold since that was inside their new post-auction estimate.

I fail to see what mistake would justify all of this. I appreciate others saying they have had a good experience with Hunt in the past, but I don't see how anyone could be satisfied with the information that we know and their response in this incident.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Fusco

Gentlemen

My only response to this blog is simply this. Being an auctioneer myself I know how difficuly it is to conduct a 500+ lot auction with floor bidders, phone bidders, internet bidders, etc all while exercising reserves if there are any. Knowing Dave and his group, it was most likely an oversight or simply an honest mistake, which all auctioneers make. Believe it or not, we are human. At least the last time I looked we were. In our our auctions there are no hidden reserves, we simply start the bid at the reserve if there is one, that way there is complete transparency as far as what lots truly sell and what lots don't sell. But I do think that Dave and his company truly do a fantastic job 99.99% of the time. I'll bet if he tried to walk on water, he would drown. Only one guy can do that, that I know of.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

It never ceases to amaze me how when people see lights in the sky their first thought is of a passing UFO rather than an airplane. Why should it be so hard to believe in this instance that Hunt simply made an innocent mistake? Wasn't there a recent thread in which as I recall no one had anything but good words to say about their integrity and their dealings with them? Is there anybody who is not human and who on ocassion does not err? Even if one were so inclined to take liberties of a dishonest kind to make an extra buck, how stupid would a person have to be to risk so much on what is essentially a nickle and dime caper? With all due respect, I don't think Hunt deserved the innuendo of this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Rivera

For what it is worth-
The last lot I won from Hunt was a lot of T206s that I had to call 3 times for back scans. Finally after I received the scans, I placed a max bid of $3300 and won the lot at $2800.
So I am sure with everything that is going on, it is difficult to cover every detail on every lot, but Hunt seems honest to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry G

There is no question Hunt Auctions is a superior and quality auction house...they are ethical and attentive in service, possessing integrity and quality, only had great experiences with them!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I must be blind.

I understand a mistake explaining an estimate being too low and perhaps not catching it all month until the day of the auction. I still do not understand why their rep told me the lot was pulled when it wasn't or why the lot is marked as not being sold even though it hammered at $1200 which was above the "new" reserve.
Can someone please explain to me how saying it was a simple mistake address these issues?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Matt,

I think it's clear that you aren't going to get the explanation you want from board members, who in fact aren't in position to explain the practices of Hunt Auctions. If you really want an answer, I'd suggest contacting David Hunt directly either via phone or e-mail. I'm certainly not a big player in the hobby and have always found him to be accessible. I realize you've already talked to someone from the auction house, and obviously you're not satisfied. So why not ask the source (the auction house) again rather than beat a dead horse here by posting the same question over and over?

(edited twice for spelling)

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Rob - I'm asking the board because several posts above say the situation can simply be explained by saying it was a mistake, which I cannot understand for the reasons mentioned above. Assuming the people above thought out their posts ahead of time, I am asking them how the mistake explains the facts on the ground. I think that is a valid question, especially since I'm being called out for making this into an issue.

I contacted Hunt about the inconsistencies two days ago and have not yet heard back. I certainly did that before bringing it to the board.

I'd still ask Corey or Josh to step forward and answer the questions in my last post.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

How about these possibilities: Number 1 - the n54 member above who stated that the auction was hammered for 2k wrote the number down next to the wrong lot, wrote the wrong amount down or made some other error himself. I wasnt there, I dont know. What I do know is that live auctions move incredibly fast.

Scenerio No. 2 - the customer service person that you spoke to gave you wrong information.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

So Josh, now we are saying it was a confluence of mistakes.

It certainly could be explained that way.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick McQuillan

Paul, that one person who can walk on water - were you referring to Mr. Mint?

Rick

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Matt, Sounds like a sophmoric, quality control mistake that a company of this caliber should be immune from. Another thought, perhaps the owner panicked at the last minute and Hunts was trying to cover the snafu by sugarcoating the situation.


I'd be BS as well. Another reason to stick with Barry.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Yes it could be explained that way - and that's my point - for every assumption you've made, there is an equally plausible contrary assumption. We simply don't know what happened and to assume that Hunt's is doing something shady without any hard proof is irresponsible IMO. I suggest, rather than asking the board, you do as suggested above and go directly to David Hunt and ask him to explain what happened.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Josh - I'm glad you've come around from your previous position that this was a simple mistake based on volume. I would love to get a better explanation from them and have been waiting for it, but they have not responded so far.

In the meantime, I'd rather say there are unanswered questions here instead of believing this was a confluence of mistakes and sweeping it under the rug.

I also don't think bringing these questions to the board was irresponsible, but to each his own.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

I dont believe my position has changed at all. I have believed, from the beginning, that this was merely an error and not some nefarious plot to cover up rampent auction misdeeds.

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

i was gonna take a pass on this thread but had to finally jump in. hunt auctions always have alot of DNS where reserve wasn't met...this lot is prolly an example of that but somehow there was a clerical error. u should be satisfied with hunt's explanation. i'd trust their auctions 100% over a few who advertises on this board.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

I really hate to chime in on this one, but feel I must.

I am well-versed with the inner workings of the major auction houses, and personally want to vouch for the honesty and integrity of the folks at Hunt. They are upstanding individuals who do not employ such underhanded tactics as shill bidding. You don't have to take my word for this, and I have no interest in going into further detail. Those that know me also trust that I would not make such a definitive statement on any topic unless I both felt strongly and had adequate knowledge about the subject at hand. End of story.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I don't have a hard time believing it was an innocent mistake. Who knows? But if the reserve was supposed to be $1250 and they screwed up and said $750 and then somebody won it for $1200, then I think Hunt should eat the $50 since it was their mistake. Why should the winner not get the item if they did not make the mistake, especially if the difference is so minimal. Perhaps they would have bid another $50 had they know that was what it would take.
jimB

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

Matt,

I can think of a number of innocent explanations, any one of which IMO is far more likely to have happened than Hunt acting in a dishonest fashion. As to which one did occur, I don't know. As has been suggested, I believe the appropriate thing to do is to talk to David Hunt directly. He runs the company, is very friendly and accessible, and I think deserves final word before you jump to conclusions and start publicy raising questions about his integrity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

".. this was merely an error and not some nefarious plot to cover up rampent auction misdeeds."

But Josh, they're all nefarious plots and auction misdeeds, aren't they? The maybe reprints, the possible shillers, the could-be liars, all of them! Even on ebay. Crooks and criminals!

J

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

As an auctioneer myself I can tell you it's not hard to make a posting error, these things just happen.

When I conducted exclusively phone auctions and posted all the bids manually, there were times they came in so quickly it was hard to keep up. Occasionally I would even forget to post one, or mix up bidder numbers, and would get a call the next day from some angry bidder who claimed to have put in the top bid, yet still lost the lot. I would check my records and sure enough he would be right, and it was entirely my fault.

Hunt's format is different than mine was, but I certainly understand how errors happen. There are a lot of different things going on at the same time, and a lot that can go wrong. You just do the best you can to rectify them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

"Maybe the dingo ate your baby."

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

There are 3 stances to be taken here that I can see:
1) Due to Hunts impeccable reputation, there is no need for any further clarification on what happened here.
2) There are unanswered questions here that should be clarified by Hunt.
3) The facts on the ground mean Hunt did something wrong.

Somehow Corey believes I am in camp 3, when nowhere in this thread have I come to any such conclusion. I am firmly in camp 2; somehow by asking those questions, it has been assumed by some that I have concluded they did something wrong. What I am having a difficult time understanding is those in camp 1; the reason being that the explanation given by the Hunt rep does not answer all the questions at hand and may actually serve to raise more of them.

Quan, Jodi, Barry - if you read through the thread, you will see that even Josh, who seems to be disagreeing with me (although I think we agree), concedes that it cannot be explained by a single mistake, but rather a series of mistakes compounded on each other.

JimB - actually if their new estimate was $1250-$1750, then a $1200 bid is within that range due to the juice; the hidden reserve would be $1100 or so.

I have contacted Hunt about this 3 days ago and still no response. If I have time today I'll give them a call to follow up.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

Matt,

Being in camp 2 as you say, you should be seeking your answers from David Hunt, not from this board. David is the one to definitively say what happened; board members are just speculating.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Corey - when board members assert they are satisfied with the explanation already received then I can ask questions to the board about inconsistencies in the received explanation. If you had come on and said, those are valid questions, I hope Hunt answers them, then, you're right; nothing further should be asked of you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Why doesn't someone from Hunt simply come on here and provide an explanation? Surely they are aware of the existence of this thread by now.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

More from Hunt:

"David will be out of town for the next several days. I apologize if there
has been a misunderstanding on this lot. We erred in undervaluing the lot
and decided to pull it at the last minute. The lot will be offered again in
the future with a revised estimate."

Was anyone else there at the Live auction that can confirm Tim's notes that it was NOT pulled but was in fact offered?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

I have dealt with David Hunt for years and he is one of the most honest people in the hobby. If there was a mistake on one lot in his last auction it was simply that, a mistake. **** happens--move on.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

Really think its time for a reality check.

First, I think its quite plain from your initial post and your followups that if you haven't jumped to conclusions, you possess such an extraordinary skepticism that Hunt did not do something underhanded that you are not rationally considering other possibilities. Yes, you have every right to demand an explanation from them for what happened. But until you heard from David Hunt directly, or reasonably concluded he will not respond to you, I think you should have held off on raising this publicly. That is a simple courtesy people are entitled to, especially one with David Hunt's reputation.

Second, nowhere have I said or implied there is anything improper about you seeking an explanation from Hunt.

If you just calmly reflect for a minute, why would Hunt risk the reputation they built over many many years over something this trivial? Yes, it can happen. But for my nickel the notion that they felt they underestimated the lot, to the detriment of their consignor, and that there was confusion the day of the auction, leading bidders to reasonably not know at the time what was going on, does not seem so far-fetched. This is very much the exception for Hunt -- pulling lots due to a last minute belief they erred about the item's value -- and it doesn't seem shocking they could have handled the situation better.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

First of all I agree that I think Hunt runs a good auction. I have never had any issue with them though I don't think I have ever won too much I have certainly bid with them.

That being said maybe I am missing something here. Above Tim Newcomb said he has that the lot hammered at $1200. The response that Matt posted above (recently) was that their response is that it was pulled. Can a lot be hammered and pulled at the same time? Maybe this in semantics?

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

Leon,

Paragraph 3 of the Terms of Sale states "The auctioneer reserves the right to reject any bid or raise which, in the auctioneer's opinion, is not commensurate with the value of the lot being offered". Paragraph 8 says "Title of each lot passes when the auctioneer says 'SOLD'" (Capital letters of the word "sold" provided by Hunt). What this says to me is that the auctioneer hammering the lot is not sufficent. He must also say "sold".

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I still think it was just an honest mistake.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I'm an agnostic about whether anything dubious went on here-- I tend to think, like Barry, that it was some sort of honest screwup.

However, I can't get my head around the distinction between an auction being hammered and the auctioneer saying "sold". Does that mean that if he doesn't utter the particular word "sold," any lot can be withheld from any buyer for any reason? If so the whole auction concept is meaningless. Surely the hammering implies a sale to any reasonable person, whatever word is used to indicate the closing of the lot.

I also think that Matt has a perfect right to ask these questions, and that if the people ridiculing him found themselves on the other side of a situation like this, they wouldn't want to be crapped on for bringing it up. If you don't want to respond, then leave it alone. All that said, if it were me I'd probably just wait for Dave Hunt to explain, and move on.

For the record, I was there, I remember the lot, and I checked this morning with the friend who was sitting next to me. We both wrote down $1200 as the hammer price. There seemed nothing unusual about the hammer.

The way it works at Hunt is: the lot is announced, Dave Hunt announces the highest absentee bid, and the auctioneer then takes bids from the floor and Hunt's reps on phones. It goes fast but the auctioneer looks around pretty carefully everywhere, and takes a few extra seconds, to make sure there are no more bidders, before hammering the lot. He announces the amount, and -- always -- the number of the high bidder, whether on the floor, phone, or net. To the best of my recollection, that's exactly what happened with this lot. I wasn't writing down bidder numbers.