Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[brunswickreeves]

According to HA Web Tips (linked below at end):

Heritage Live FAQ:
‘How do I know if I won the lot?

When the lot closes a message in green indicating you won will be displayed (see example below). In addition, you can check the item status in the "Realized Prices" tab.

You Won!’

HOWEVER, further down this reference page under Bidding Guidelines it states:

‘If you are the successful high bidder when the auction closes, you will receive an Email confirmation immediately following the auction followed by an E-mail invoice in the next few days for your winnings.‘

https://sports.ha.com/c/ref/web-tips...nes-incrementsAttachment 591429Attachment 591429

Do these conflict in this scenario??

Perhaps the most equitable thing HA can do is refund any money paid so far, declare no true winner given conflicting communications to the individual and lot buyers, and reset the individual and lot auction, which will give everyone a fair and fully informed chance at bidding again.

[calvindog]

Three things are true here: this is entirely Heritage’s fault by not knowing how to run this particular type of auction (individual lots/full set competing simultaneously), Powell is a huge consigner and customer, and the consigner of the BGs lost money due to Heritage’s error. At the very least, Heritage has to re-do the auction, although at the time Powell was prevented from bidding anymore he was the rightful winner. If I was in charge, I’d give the cards to Powell and compensate all the other parties greatly, although it pains me to say that as Aaron is a great dude and an innocent party here.

If Leland’s was capable of doing the right thing by not trying to force payment from the winner (and my client) of the Tom Brady “final TD pass football” which wasn’t his final TD pass when he announced his comeback the day after the auction end, somehow I think Heritage is capable of being fair here as well.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

I received the invoice/email at 3 a.m. this morning for the Baker.

[Rhotchkiss]

Powell, I got your voicemail. I will call you back later today. This really sucks. That’s a serious f-up that the set auction closed while the individual lots stayed open. I agree, if you were the winner when the set lot closed, you should be the winner- it closed and you won. Plain and simple

[calvindog]

What’s astonishing to me is that they had a month to fix the software to at the very least make it clear who was winning with each bid: the individual lots or the whole set lot. And didn’t do a thing.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What’s astonishing to me is that they had a month to fix the software to at the very least make it clear who was winning with each bid: the individual lots or the whole set lot. And didn’t do a thing.

If the auction was the higher of the set or the aggregate of the lots, and the set closed as the winner, then it’s the winner. Period, full stop. Especially without disclosure that one option could stay open while another closed. Not only is the set the winner of it ended as the winner, but it’s fundamentally unfair to allow one of the two competing items to stay open longer than the other.

This is a big mess up. Of course Heritage did not mean or anticipate this. I expect they will do the right thing, which in my opinion is sell the set to Powell at the closing price and pay the consignor the difference between the individual lots and the final price. The winners of the individual lots will be left with nothing, which sucks, but is the correct result bc they rightfully lost the minute the entire auction closed as the high bidder

[Powell]

Thank you Ryan. I believed at the time that the set beat the individual lots or it would not have closed the lot with me as the winner. I did not think I had to do the math myself in the middle of the night and add up the 12 individual lots to confirm that I won. Thanks to astute folks on this board I now see that not only did the lot close with me as the winner the set was higher than the individual lots at the time the set closed. This is a clear case that I won the lot when the hammer went down by the rules. I went to sleep happy and excited. It was wrong to then allow continuing bids on the individual lots after the set lot closed.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

If the auction was the higher of the set or the aggregate of the lots, and the set closed as the winner, then it’s the winner. Period, full stop. Especially without disclosure that one option could stay open while another closed. Not only is the set the winner of it ended as the winner, but it’s fundamentally unfair to allow one of the two competing items to stay open longer than the other.

This is a big mess up. Of course Heritage did not mean or anticipate this. I expect they will do the right thing, which in my opinion is sell the set to Powell at the closing price and pay the consignor the difference between the individual lots and the final price. The winners of the individual lots will be left with nothing, which sucks, but is the correct result bc they rightfully lost the minute the entire auction closed as the high bidder

No question. Re-doing the auction is a recipe for disaster. Heritage legally can make this result happen and I suspect they will.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

If the auction was the higher of the set or the aggregate of the lots, and the set closed as the winner, then it’s the winner. Period, full stop. Especially without disclosure that one option could stay open while another closed. Not only is the set the winner of it ended as the winner, but it’s fundamentally unfair to allow one of the two competing items to stay open longer than the other.

This is a big mess up. Of course Heritage did not mean or anticipate this. I expect they will do the right thing, which in my opinion is sell the set to Powell at the closing price and pay the consignor the difference between the individual lots and the final price. The winners of the individual lots will be left with nothing, which sucks, but is the correct result bc they rightfully lost the minute the entire auction closed as the high bidder

I respectfully disagree. Powell could have upped his bid in the extended half hour to anticipate and protect the complete set from getting outbid. The complete set received 0 bids in extended bidding similar to 6 or 7 of the individual lots which closed at the same time, including the Baker which I was high bidder on. Several of the individual lots received bids in the extended half hour which, of course, resets their timer. Most notably the Tinker & Maranville continued much later.

Heritage’s rules were listed (and still are) not once but twice in each lot. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Here is what each lot said twice:

“ Please note that this auction will list each card as an individual lot along with another listing for the complete set. If the aggregate winning bids of the twelve individual lots exceeds the high bid on the complete set, the cards will be sold to each individual winner. If the price of the set exceeds the sum of the twelve individual cards, the victory will be awarded to the high bidder for the complete set.”

[oldjudge]

As Jeff alluded to, the problem is that the auction software can’t handle this type of bidding. The individual lot totals have to be linked to the aggregate lot so when their total exceeds the aggregate the aggregate needs to be shown as open with the next bid topping the sum of the individual bids. That is the easy part. The hard part is what to do with individual bids when the aggregate exceeds the sum of the individual bids. For example, let’s say that at a point in the auction the aggregate is at $600k and the sum of the individual lots was at $500k. If I only wanted to win one individual lot would the auction software have to keep bumping my bids till I increased the bid on that individual lot by over $100k?
I think my conclusion is that conceptually this type of auction sounds nice, but practically there is no easy way to handle the bidding.
I think this is an unfortunate situation for all involved and that the only fair solution is to reauction the group. Also, if there is a right answer to how to handle this situation that answer must be independent of how much or how little business any of the involved parties has done with HA.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As Jeff alluded to, the problem is that the auction software can’t handle this type of bidding. The individual lot totals have to be linked to the aggregate lot so when their total exceeds the aggregate the aggregate needs to be shown as open with the next bid topping the sum of the individual bids. That is the easy part. The hard part is what to do with individual bids when the aggregate exceeds the sum of the individual bids. For example, let’s say that at a point in the auction the aggregate is at $600k and the sum of the individual lots was at $500k. If I only wanted to win one individual lot would the auction software have to keep bumping my bids till I increased the bid on that individual lot by over $100k?
I think my conclusion is that conceptually this type of auction sounds nice, but practically there is no easy way to handle the bidding.
I think this is an unfortunate situation for all involved and that the only fair solution is to reauction the group. Also, if there is a right answer to how to handle this situation that answer must be independent of how much or how little business any of the involved parties has done with HA.

That's what I was thinking. If the aggregate got outbid by the set bidder, and then several aggregate bidders bumped up their respective Max bids to beat the set bid, how would that be calculated?

Let's say the aggregate bid is $500k and the set bid is $520k. Several bidders of individual cards bump their Max bids by $10k, $17k, $14k, 19K, $12k... Does Heritage just bump all those bids to their max, or does there need to be a pro-rated calculation so that the new aggregate beats the set bid only by the required amount? Meaning, those individual bids don't go all the way to their max.

The simplest to do this, especially considering the logic in Heritage's programming, is this: Make it a 2-day close. The first day, all the individual lots close, with the caveat that a Set bid the following day may negate the results. This would encourage bidders to place hard bids higher than just what would be needed to be the top bidder on their lot. The second day, the minimum bid would be the aggregate plus whatever percentage it would need to be beaten by.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Mark17

That's what I was thinking. If the aggregate got outbid by the set bidder, and then several aggregate bidders bumped up their respective Max bids to beat the set bid, how would that be calculated?

Let's say the aggregate bid is $500k and the set bid is $520k. Several bidders of individual cards bump their Max bids by $10k, $17k, $14k, 19K, $12k... Does Heritage just bump all those bids to their max, or does there need to be a pro-rated calculation so that the new aggregate beats the set bid only by the required amount? Meaning, those individual bids don't go all the way to their max.

The simplest to do this, especially considering the logic in Heritage's programming, is this: Make it a 2-day close. The first day, all the individual lots close, with the caveat that a Set bid the following day may negate the results. This would encourage bidders to place hard bids higher than just what would be needed to be the top bidder on their lot. The second day, the minimum bid would be the aggregate plus whatever percentage it would need to be beaten by.

Apparently Mile High has run auctions like this. Does anyone know how they manage to avoid problems like this?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As Jeff alluded to, the problem is that the auction software can’t handle this type of bidding. The individual lot totals have to be linked to the aggregate lot so when their total exceeds the aggregate the aggregate needs to be shown as open with the next bid topping the sum of the individual bids. That is the easy part. The hard part is what to do with individual bids when the aggregate exceeds the sum of the individual bids. For example, let’s say that at a point in the auction the aggregate is at $600k and the sum of the individual lots was at $500k. If I only wanted to win one individual lot would the auction software have to keep bumping my bids till I increased the bid on that individual lot by over $100k?
I think my conclusion is that conceptually this type of auction sounds nice, but practically there is no easy way to handle the bidding.
I think this is an unfortunate situation for all involved and that the only fair solution is to reauction the group. Also, if there is a right answer to how to handle this situation that answer must be independent of how much or how little business any of the involved parties has done with HA.

I disagree and it's been said elsewhere. The right way to handle this is that all individuals and the aggregate stay open until NO card (or set) has a bid for the bid period. It's actually not hard. One bid keeps all lots in question open, like a lot of auction companies used to do for their whole auctions.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I disagree and it's been said elsewhere. The right way to handle this is that all individuals and the aggregate stay open until NO card (or set) has a bid for the bid period. It's actually not hard. One bid keeps all lots in question open, like a lot of auction companies used to do for their whole auctions.

This

Sounds like HA didn't connect the individual lots and the set lot on the backend software. IMO, HA should award the set to Powell and pay the delta to the consigner.

[bgar3]

It seems to me Powell has a very good and reasonable reliance argument.