Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[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.

[puckpaul]

They should either declare you the winner of the whole set, or re open the bidding with new rules and let it finish on its own.

I HATE the dual bidding process, it’s a terrible way to auction these sets. This should be the last one.

[t206fanatic]

i also agree Powell won the lots, but Heritage really needs to step in with substantial compensation for the individual lot winners. It's a huge screwup on a marquee set, and the pain should be commiserate.

[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.”

[calvindog]

Aaron, the problem is as noted above. He couldn’t raise his bid on the full set lot with a ceiling bid and have it register unless someone else bid after him (but below the ceiling he had set).

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Aaron, the problem is as noted above. He couldn’t raise his bid on the full set lot with a ceiling bid and have it register unless someone else bid after him (but below the ceiling he had set).

+1.

Aaron, it’s a real shitty situation all around. But the fact that the full set closed and could not increase /add another bid, when the other lots were open and the set only wins if it’s price exceeds the aggregate, to me, is determinative.

Of course, all the lots should have stayed open until no garters lot got a bid for 30 minutes, bc Aaron could have easily been in Powell’s boat had his lot closed and he could not bid but the whole set stayed open

[Powell]

Aaron,

Respectfully, I did bid in extended time. My bid was accepted and I waited the full 30 minutes. I checked my account and it said I won (I lost my other bids and they were correctly identified as losers). Saturday morning I looked up my account and the set was listed as winner. I learned otherwise from this board later in the morning. The set lot ended with me as the winner, reported me as the winner and no one including me could bid on the set after I won. I’m optimistic Heritage will do the right thing. It’s not your fault and I don’t blame you. I am a processional trial lawyer and I would never let my clients get screwed by making a deal and having the rug pulled out from under them. I have had great relations with Heritage so I’m confident it won’t end up in Court but no fair minded person could say that I didn’t win the set fair and square.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If the intent was to run the set against the individual lots, it seems obvious that has to assume a comparison at the same time. Heritage should have foreseen that the normal closing rules could not accomplish that, and should apologize to winners of the individual lots and award the set to Powell.

[Rhotchkiss]

Here is an analogy - the eagles are playing the Lions (Baker v Cobb). The rules state that whoever has the most points at the end of 60 minutes, wins. When the clock expires after 60 minutes, the Lions are winning 30-20. But then, for some reason, the eagles are given the chance to keep playing until either they score more than 30 points or give up; all the while, the lions are stuck in the locker room and not able to defend their victory. While I am sure there are eagles fans who would declare this legit, my gut is all other NFL fans would declare the lions the proper victor.

[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?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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

I believe they don't have individual lot closings or didn't years ago when I bid on an auction of this type. Years ago I bid on some m101-5 cards that were being auctioned in this manner by Mile High. Late in the game the complete set lot was higher, and there was zero I could do about it because I couldn't raise my own high bids on the dozen or so cards I wanted. I had to hope that other cards were being bid that would jump the total or that someone would outbid me so I could increase my bids. That's why I asked in this thread how clearly the rules were spelled out. I wasn't as resourceful as Jay, who said he called the Auction House to basically force an increase in his bids.

[ncinin]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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

I may have overlooked an answer to this question so forgive me if it is redundant.

Mile High and other auction houses that utilizes the set bid or bids of cards comprising the set format, as the Boston Garters, uses Simple Auction site or Create Auction software.

It appears Heritage uses software they or another company beside Simple and Create developed which is why Mile High and other auction companies have not encountered this problem.

[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.

[insidethewrapper]

If all lots ( set and individual cards) closed after no bids for 30 minutes, then the individual cards would have been the winner , as it turned out.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

If all lots ( set and individual cards) closed after no bids for 30 minutes, then the individual cards would have been the winner , as it turned out.

Apparently that wasn't true when the lot for the complete set closed which is the problem because the high bidder for the set (Powell) was told he won when the complete set lot closed. If it had stayed open he would have been able to bid above the total cost of the individual lots.