What would a 1914 Baltimore Ruth sell for today?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Bob: There's at least one auction house today that will accept "TOP ALL BIDS" bids, and there could be more.

I've never attempted it, but I've always been intrigued by the concept. Like you posited, part of the challenge would be the potential for someone to keep bidding it up to the point where even those of us who are willing to pay outrageous prices would finally decide it just isn't worth it.

Proof: https://memorylaneinc.com/site/terms.pdf

Scroll down about halfway down the first page, to where they have a quick sentence about the Top All Bids feature.

Nic,

There is? Was not aware of that. Not going to ask you to name them, but just out of curiosity, are they headquartered in Texas?

I would hope that the big difference in someone doing/allowing that today is that when someone else bids, they do get immediately told they've been outbid then. If so, it is still pretty much the same thing as putting up a ridiculous max bid.

Silly follow-up question then. Does this auction seller in their bidding rules say what happens if two or more people want to put up a "Tops All Bids" bid then on the same particular item? I imagine that if an item is rare and valuable enough, say like a 1914 Baltimore News Ruth, it wouldn't be too hard to think that two, or maybe even more, people would possibly want to use that "Tops All Bids" option, if it is known to be available. So, am curious then what their rules say if that happens, because they technically, and literally, can't give that option to two different bidders on the same item, can they? And if they end up only allowing one person to put in such a bid on each item, pretty much everyone who knows they even allow the "Tops All Bids" option on items will immediately know someone else beat them to it on a particular item that get told they can't use the "Tops All Bids: option on. And if it were me that got told I couldn't put a "Tops All Bids" bid in because I was too late, I'd have no trouble bidding up that person that beat me to it to the moon and back, and make them pay. The consignor would probably love it, but you'll likely end up with one real pissed off bidder.

Another possible bad result an AH could end up with by allowing "Tops All Bids" bids, would be if I was again too late and got beat out by someone else already using that option on an item. Except in this case, I just didn't waste my time bidding on the item at all then, since I knew I'd never win it. And as a result, the consignor maybe ends up getting screwed because no one else that was bidding would have gone anywhere near as high as I would have. And now the AH has a pissed off consignor. Let us all know what you do know then.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

Nic,

There is? Was not aware of that. Not going to ask you to name them, but just out of curiosity, are they headquartered in Texas?

I would hope that the big difference in someone doing/allowing that today is that when someone else bids, they do get immediately told they've been outbid then. If so, it is still pretty much the same thing as putting up a ridiculous max bid.

Silly follow-up question then. Does this auction seller in their bidding rules say what happens if two or more people want to put up a "Tops All Bids" bid then on the same particular item? I imagine that if an item is rare and valuable enough, say like a 1914 Baltimore News Ruth, it wouldn't be too hard to think that two, or maybe even more, people would possibly want to use that "Tops All Bids" option, if it is known to be available. So, am curious then what their rules say if that happens, because they technically, and literally, can't give that option to two different bidders on the same item, can they? And if they end up only allowing one person to put in such a bid on each item, pretty much everyone who knows they even allow the "Tops All Bids" option on items will immediately know someone else beat them to it on a particular item that get told they can't use the "Tops All Bids: option on. And if it were me that got told I couldn't put a "Tops All Bids" bid in because I was too late, I'd have no trouble bidding up that person that beat me to it to the moon and back, and make them pay. The consignor would probably love it, but you'll likely end up with one real pissed off bidder.

Another possible bad result an AH could end up with by allowing "Tops All Bids" bids, would be if I was again too late and got beat out by someone else already using that option on an item. Except in this case, I just didn't waste my time bidding on the item at all then, since I knew I'd never win it. And as a result, the consignor maybe ends up getting screwed because no one else that was bidding would have gone anywhere near as high as I would have. And now the AH has a pissed off consignor. Let us all know what you do know then.

As an auctioneer I think "top all bids" is an horrific idea. For the reasons you mentioned, but also for the simple fact that an auction is supposed to be about determining the market through open competition. It's the same reason I'm not a fan of reserves, or even worse of auctions retaining the right to put "bad faith" bids in to lift items to just below a reserve and a number of other practices that seek to remove all risk from the auction process. If you want to remove the risk of an auction and have only the reward, you don't really want to run an auction.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

As an auctioneer I think "top all bids" is an horrific idea. For the reasons you mentioned, but also for the simple fact that an auction is supposed to be about determining the market through open competition. It's the same reason I'm not a fan of reserves, or even worse of auctions retaining the right to put "bad faith" bids in to lift items to just below a reserve and a number of other practices that seek to remove all risk from the auction process. If you want to remove the risk of an auction and have only the reward, you don't really want to run an auction.

I hear you, and couldn't agree more. Still very surprised if Nic is correct and some AH actually still does that today.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

As an auctioneer I think "top all bids" is an horrific idea. For the reasons you mentioned, but also for the simple fact that an auction is supposed to be about determining the market through open competition. It's the same reason I'm not a fan of reserves, or even worse of auctions retaining the right to put "bad faith" bids in to lift items to just below a reserve and a number of other practices that seek to remove all risk from the auction process. If you want to remove the risk of an auction and have only the reward, you don't really want to run an auction.

Hell, Scott, no one who owns a card wants to run it in an auction; we'd all prefer a sure thing. Auctions just happen to generate sales more readily than parking the items in an eBay 'museum', but make no mistake: when I consign, I don't give a rat's ass about the 'market'. I ain't selling to determine a market, I am selling to make money, as much as I can. If my choice is between a 'market' price or getting paid stupid money by some idiot who has to have the item no matter what, I am all for the latter option.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Hell, Scott, no one who owns a card wants to run it in an auction; we'd all prefer a sure thing. Auctions just happen to generate sales more readily than parking the items in an eBay 'museum', but make no mistake: when I consign, I don't give a rat's ass about the 'market'. I ain't selling to determine a market, I am selling to make money, as much as I can. If my choice is between a 'market' price or getting paid stupid money by some idiot who has to have the item no matter what, I am all for the latter option.

I'm all for the idiot, preferably two for each item, but let that idiot win it the old fashioned way, that's establishing the market the way an auction should. I'm definitely a snob about the auction process, and I know that makes me a weirdo, even among people I genuinely like and respect.

[oldjudge]

Do auctions really establish a "market"? Take an example--on a scarce card buyer A is willing to pay up to $10,000 for it. The next best buyer, buyer B, is only willing to pay $6,000 for it. If it goes to auction it will sell for one increment over $6000, say $6250. If sold privately it will sell for $10,000. Now, what's the "market" for the card? I think this illustrates the problem with auctioning off scarce items--the fact that the price is set by the second most aggressive bidder, not the most aggressive bidder.

[Schwertfeger1007]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Do auctions really establish a "market"? Take an example--on a scarce card buyer A is willing to pay up to $10,000 for it. The next best buyer, buyer B, is only willing to pay $6,000 for it. If it goes to auction it will sell for one increment over $6000, say $6250. If sold privately it will sell for $10,000. Now, what's the "market" for the card? I think this illustrates the problem with auctioning off scarce items--the fact that the price is set by the second most aggressive bidder, not the most aggressive bidder.

The counter argument here is that someone might not be willing to pay an aggressively high price for something they want if there are no public sales in that range for fears of overshooting by potentially thousands. In an auction, (theoretically and shilling aside) you can be confident that no matter what you spend, someone else is willing to buy it at one bid less.

[oldjudge]

Agree with what you're saying but that addresses confidence in bidding, not defining a market value.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Do auctions really establish a "market"? Take an example--on a scarce card buyer A is willing to pay up to $10,000 for it. The next best buyer, buyer B, is only willing to pay $6,000 for it. If it goes to auction it will sell for one increment over $6000, say $6250. If sold privately it will sell for $10,000. Now, what's the "market" for the card? I think this illustrates the problem with auctioning off scarce items--the fact that the price is set by the second most aggressive bidder, not the most aggressive bidder.

To my way of thinking the market is actually one bid higher than the 2nd place bidder is willing to bid. Look at it this way. In your scenario why is the market $10,000? The guy who bought it for that can't sell it for that because the next guy in the market is only willing to go $6,000. A competitive situation sets the market much more accurately than a one on one sale. Again, all just my opinion, and pretty self-serving at that, but it is a decent argument I think.

[edhans]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Do auctions really establish a "market"? Take an example--on a scarce card buyer A is willing to pay up to $10,000 for it. The next best buyer, buyer B, is only willing to pay $6,000 for it. If it goes to auction it will sell for one increment over $6000, say $6250. If sold privately it will sell for $10,000. Now, what's the "market" for the card? I think this illustrates the problem with auctioning off scarce items--the fact that the price is set by the second most aggressive bidder, not the most aggressive bidder.

+1, Jay. Been beating that drum for a while now.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Do auctions really establish a "market"? Take an example--on a scarce card buyer A is willing to pay up to $10,000 for it. The next best buyer, buyer B, is only willing to pay $6,000 for it. If it goes to auction it will sell for one increment over $6000, say $6250. If sold privately it will sell for $10,000. Now, what's the "market" for the card? I think this illustrates the problem with auctioning off scarce items--the fact that the price is set by the second most aggressive bidder, not the most aggressive bidder.

Great point Jay, and also, maybe not everyone that would be interested in that same card knew that it was even being auctioned, or that at that particular time they had enough cash to buy it. There could have been another card in the same auction they wanted more and spent the money they had on it instead. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have paid more for the card they passed on. Also, what about some people that would actually go into debt, use a credit card, etc., to buy a particular card. If the AH didn't offer such an option, then you possibly aren't getting all the actual interested customers in on the bidding, and thus it isn't the "true" market value at all that ends up winning.

To really be able to say you're getting a "true" market value for a card being sold at auction, I'd think you need to know that every single person on Earth that might want that particular card, knew about the auction in advance, had easy access to it, and even if they didn't have the actual cash, had access to credit cards, a line of credit, or other debt options to be able to effectively bid what they feel the card is worth. Then, and only then, may you have realized a "true" market value for a card sold through and auction.

Otherwise, think about how market values of things like houses would be if you could only buy them via bidding in an auction, with ready cash.

[oldjudge]

Scott—in most situations the market is set by the best bid and the best offer. Look at stock and commodity markets. You can also look at other forms of auctions, like Dutch Auctions. There the starting price is begun high and is continuously lowered till the item is sold. Such an auction price is set by the best bidder, not the second best bidder. I would not be surprised if some day a Dutch Auction is offered as an alternative for selling collectibles.