Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[oldjudge]

I would think that the cards would not be shipped before tomorrow at earliest so that should not be an issue.
The only fair thing to do is reauction the cards. The question then is whether the bidding will be limited to the initial bidders or completely open. I ask because I could see the possibility of new bidders entering the fray.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I would think that the cards would not be shipped before tomorrow at earliest so that should not be an issue.
The only fair thing to do is reauction the cards. The question then is whether the bidding will be limited to the initial bidders or completely open. I ask because I could see the possibility of new bidders entering the fray.

I would be shocked if Heritage goes that route with a completed auction of this magnitude.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would be shocked if Heritage goes that route with a completed auction of this magnitude.

I don’t see HA changing the current result if they don’t do this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I don’t see HA changing the current result if they don’t do this.

Yep. I think that's exactly what they will do, keep the result.

[gunboat82]

Every solution is unsatisfying, but the most logical would be to determine that the bid for the complete set is the winner because it exceeded the individual lots when it closed, and the individual bids that came in later are nullities.

Granted, I'm wearing my consumer hat rather than my lawyer hat, but that's the only reasonable way to interpret auction rules that don't provide any sort of disclaimer about staggered individual-lot closings after bidding on the complete set is locked.

[yomass]

Mile High (and Mastro/Legendary back in the day) avoided this issue because all lots closed at once, not individually, and all lots showed which total was winning (set or individuals).

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by yomass

Mile High (and Mastro/Legendary back in the day) avoided this issue because all lots closed at once, not individually, and all lots showed which total was winning (set or individuals).

Does Mile High allow you to increase your own bid, if necessary, to change which outcome is ahead (set vs individual lots) or do you have to contact them so they can adjust the bid?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by yomass

Mile High (and Mastro/Legendary back in the day) avoided this issue because all lots closed at once, not individually, and all lots showed which total was winning (set or individuals).

Does Mile High allow you to increase your own bid, if necessary, to change which outcome is ahead (set vs individual lots) or do you have to contact them so they can adjust the bid?

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Does Mile High allow you to increase your own bid, if necessary, to change which outcome is ahead (set vs individual lots) or do you have to contact them so they can adjust the bid?

Yes, you could bid against the aggregate total of all cards. Both totals showed on the set price and the individual prices.

It worked perfectly and as far as I know they never had an issue.

Most of the time the single aggregate won so each card sold separately but they also had some set totals that won.

As previously stated, all lots ended at the same time.

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by yomass

Mile High (and Mastro/Legendary back in the day) avoided this issue because all lots closed at once, not individually, and all lots showed which total was winning (set or individuals).

not sure if precedent by another auction house matters, but
rea ran a 1980 topps pepsi set vs individual cards a few years back. i dont remember exactly if it all ended at same time, but indiviudal cards won out. just providng another example of set vs individual cards being run by major auction house. does anyone remember if it all closed at once. again, probably a moot point here since heritage screwed the pooche here

[oldjudge]

This reminds me of the REA computer glitches in overtime when, if I remember correctly, some items showed that they were closed when in fact they weren’t. I still think the cards should be reauctioned and, unlike others, I think that everyone should be able to bid (I’m sure the consignor agrees with me). I would end the auction for all lots at a fixed time to avoid a repeat of this issue. Otherwise, you can use the same software; you just need a total vs parts page.
As for the consignor being happier if the cards stay together I agree, unless of course it costs him any money.

[calvindog]

I agree, Jay. Ultimately the consigner’s wishes should be honored first. Who knows, he may want the cards to sell as they just did.

[theshowandme]

These auction companies are moving hundreds of millions of dollars through their catalogs annually.

Pay the team of 10 software engineers their juicy six figure salaries and bonuses to make your website and tools as modern as possible.

I hope Heritage has a way to work with all the parties involved here and ensure this never happens again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

This reminds me of the REA computer glitches in overtime when, if I remember correctly, some items showed that they were closed when in fact they weren’t. I still think the cards should be reauctioned and, unlike others, I think that everyone should be able to bid (I’m sure the consignor agrees with me). I would end the auction for all lots at a fixed time to avoid a repeat of this issue. Otherwise, you can use the same software; you just need a total vs parts page.
As for the consignor being happier if the cards stay together I agree, unless of course it costs him any money.

Right, the consignor obviously agreed to sell them individually if that resulted in more money, so I am not sure from where we are getting that the consignor prefers to keep them as a group.

[Yoda]

I believe that Heritage is the biggest auction house in the world by volume, so their reputation is of paramount importance and a mess up such as this might frighten their huge customer base. I don't know how this is going to play out but a public apology would be a good start.

My buddy Aaron mentioned that he has already been invoiced for the beautiful Baker. If he pays immediately then a contract has been made with an offer and acceptance then fulfilled and he legally owns the card. Any court would agree.

Powell is quite obviously a large and valued customer of Heritage and has a valid case to claim all the lots. Heritage cannot dismiss his claim with crying "software glitch". Heritage is a legally incorporated company with shareholders, officers etc. not a computer.

No matter how this all shakes out but the bluebird of unhappiness is going to land on someone.

Finally, I always thought that this AH gimmick of single lots versus total aggregate was just a way to entice bidders to open their wallets a bit more than they normally might.

[rand1com]

I'm sure Heritage has a disclaimer that covers any possible scenario and they have full authority to settle it in any manner they see fit.

I think they will leave it as is and sell to the individual bidders.

May not seem fair but it nets the consignor the most money and that is their #1 priority.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rand1com

I'm sure Heritage has a disclaimer that covers any possible scenario and they have full authority to settle it in any manner they see fit.

I think they will leave it as is and sell to the individual bidders.

May not seem fair but it nets the consignor the most money and that is their #1 priority.

It also pisses off only one person, albeit of course one who is important to them.

[oldjudge]

We don’t know who won the individual lots. That said, as I said before, the right answer should be independent of the picket depth of the parties involved.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It also pisses off only one person, albeit of course one who is important to them.

Peter, I disagree. Doing this will presumably piss off both Powell and the consignor, who would have realized more from the sale of his set if Powell had known he needed to increase his bid and been able to do so.

As I see it, FWIW, the only equitable solution is to re-auction these cards with only those who previously bid on them permitted to participate. And, obviously, the total of the bids on the individual cards needs to be made continuously available to all bidders. And, all bidders need to be able to increase their own bids, and all lots need to close at the same time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Peter, I disagree. Doing this will presumably piss off both Powell and the consignor, who would have realized more from the sale of his set if Powell had known he needed to increase his bid and been able to do so.

As I see it, FWIW, the only equitable solution is to re-auction these cards with only those who previously bid on them permitted to participate. And, obviously, the total of the bids on the individual cards needs to be made continuously available to all bidders. And, all bidders need to be able to increase their own bids, and all lots need to close at the same time.

And what if some of the individual bidders are pissed off and don't participate and it all goes lower? Heritage is not going to risk that IMO.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And what if some of the individual bidders are pissed off and don't participate and it all goes lower? Heritage is not going to risk that IMO.

I agree. No way they would start everything over from the beginning. If they're going to restart bidding, it will be from where everything currently is.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And what if some of the individual bidders are pissed off and don't participate and it all goes lower? Heritage is not going to risk that IMO.

If that happens the base price is what the aggregate lots closed for plus $1 which Powell has already agreed to so the consignor is protected and only has upside potential.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And what if some of the individual bidders are pissed off and don't participate and it all goes lower? Heritage is not going to risk that IMO.

Peter, Heritage could re-start the auction with the bids as they were (1) at the start of the overtime period, or (2) at the point in time when the bidding on the complete set was closed.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Peter, I disagree. Doing this will presumably piss off both Powell and the consignor, who would have realized more from the sale of his set if Powell had known he needed to increase his bid and been able to do so.

As I see it, FWIW, the only equitable solution is to re-auction these cards with only those who previously bid on them permitted to participate. And, obviously, the total of the bids on the individual cards needs to be made continuously available to all bidders. And, all bidders need to be able to increase their own bids, and all lots need to close at the same time.

Much like a live auction format with all 13 bidders on the phone, no 30 minute waiting period, Powell against 12, at that point it becomes who outspends the others, good for the consignor probably bad for Powell but it does give everybody a fighting chance, unfortunately you can never recreate auction night and bidder anonymity is no longer there.