Question about a lot in the last Hunt Auction

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I've long thought that terms that auction folks use are inaccurate.

When an estimated price or value is listed, that seems that it should normally mean the house's estimate of the value of the item. If they want to list a minimum bid, they could do that... and a minimum bid would mean the minimum bid that would be excepted. That isn't rocket science.

If they don't want to list what the minimum bid is, that seems acceptable to me. But in that instance they should note in the listing that there is an undisclosed reserve.


I say all of this because I understand Matt's frustration. This would not have happened if the practice was what I set out above. The lot would have been listed with an estimated value range and a notation that there is an undisclosed reserve. Matt should have been able to ask if his bid had reached the minimum, and been told whether it had. Kinda like on eBay where it says your bid is the highest, but that it has not reached the reserve. Whenever there is an undisclosed reserve the auction house should announce when the reserve has been met.

And I agree with Barry on the 'sold' and 'pass'. I don't think it is correct for the auctioneer to indicate or announce that a lot sold if it didn't. An announcement of 'the bidding has ended and the reserve has not been met, the lot is passed', or something along those lines.