Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[theshowandme]

For those few arguing that the terms/conditions were clear in the listing, I disagree. On the surface it covers the bare minimum.

The absence of information on how one lot could end while the others continued is a huge miss by Heritage.

It should have explained in detail how this auction was set up. It should have also explained the absence of synchronized coding between the complete set and individual lots. It should have explained that the individual lots did not have a running tally and that users had to calculate the cumulative number themselves.

When you see all the conditions that played out that no one was made aware of from the beginning, the result is a disappointment in Heritage.

That small paragraph really should be around 12-16 sentences long with all the real rules/conditions that were in play.

[calvindog]

As typical of Net 54, there has to be hand-wringing over every possible legal avenue and people who just need to be contrarians. It’s very simple: the auction was screwed up by Heritage by shutting down the full set lot while continuing to allow the single lots to run. This was a failure which defeated the very concept of an auction. It is Heritage’s fault, period. No one else’s. As I wrote to a friend in a text at 11:26 pm that night, during extended bidding: “The poor guy who had the high for the set is screwed if we push it over.” Referring to bidding on the individual lots while the full set lot was closed.

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

I paid my invoice for the Baker yesterday via wire transfer. I now have a receipt showing “paid in full” and my account balance has been zeroed out with Heritage.

[Powell]

I relied on reading the lot, my account confirming I won and experience in bidding on thousands and thousands of items over 20 years. Did I sit down and read the “terms and conditions”? Of course not! Nor will I ever accept that I should have. That’s like the insurance company relying on the fine print to deny a just claim.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Powell

I relied on reading the lot, my account confirming I won and experience in bidding on thousands and thousands of items over 20 years. Did I sit down and read the “terms and conditions”? Of course not! Nor will I ever accept that I should have. That’s like the insurance company relying on the fine print to deny a just claim.

The whole “my account said I won” argument isn’t great.

I mean…PWCC just had an issue and had thousands of “you’ve won!” emails go out. Does that mean everyone should be awarded those items? Obviously not.

Obviously heritage should have ran this auction differently/better but the wording posted above in the set listing is very cut and dry.

Plus we all know as soon as we bid on something, we are agreeing to their rules, terms, conditions etc…even if they suck.

[molenick]

I don't think there will be a re-do. If the individual bidders like Aaron were invoiced and paid for their lots they now expect to get their cards. The only thing that would stop this is if Heritage decided not to send the cards. But then every individual bidder will say what Powell is saying now....you told me I won, you invoiced me, I paid, I want my card(s). With the difference that Powell was never invoiced.

In the view of Heritage, while at one point Powell was told he won his lot, at the end of the entire auction he was told he did not win his lot. So in their eyes, he did not win and he was not invoiced.

What should have appeared on Powell's screen was a message to the effect of "you are the high bidder on this lot and no one else can bid on it...however, you may not win this lot if the individual lots surpass your bid" (in a shorter version, of course). The problem is they told Powell he won when the bidding ended on the group lot...which he understandably took to mean, it is over, I won.

[Powell]

And here the fine print doesn’t say you must manually and constantly add up the individual lots and can’t rely on the web site or that you are declared the winner in your account or that closing the set doesn’t mean you didn’t win or that you must bid on every lot and against yourself on the set and do so before extended bidding or your shut out.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

I paid my invoice for the Baker yesterday via wire transfer. I now have a receipt showing “paid in full” and my account balance has been zeroed out with Heritage.

Hi Aaron
While I am glad you won the card, how would you feel if you were Powell?
.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

Originally Posted by Leon

Hi Aaron
While I am glad you won the card, how would you feel if you were Powell?
.

Hi Leon, I hope you are well. I have been trying to keep my feelings and opinions out of it, for that’s when I get in trouble (especially on a public forum). I originally posted on this thread out of joy and excitement because I “won” the Baker. I did not expect nor anticipate this thread would go “KABOOM!”

I empathize with Powell. I do. I hope any pain or anguish this has caused him will fade over time. I share his passion (and yours Leon) for collecting and I wish you all only the best.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

I've come around to this do-over approach. Those insisting that the individual lots won in accordance with the terms set forth in the description are missing the point entirely. In a race like this, a key implied term is that the listings close at the same time. It's the only way it can work without forcing bidders to use shills to bid against themselves and extend the auction.

Every participant understands that if the total bid for individual lots exceeds the bid for the whole set, the individual lots win. No participant in his/her right mind would have placed bids with the assumption that the complete set would be closed early due to lack of direct competition, while bidders on the individual lots could keep going. As Powell mentioned upthread, that would make the process of bidding on the entire set illusory in a scenario where a deep-pocketed bidder has no opponent but himself, and it's illogical to assume that Heritage, the consignor, or the bidder set the auction terms intending to create an illusory process that prevents competition and depresses the final price.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As typical of Net 54, there has to be hand-wringing over every possible legal avenue and people who just need to be contrarians. It’s very simple: the auction was screwed up by Heritage by shutting down the full set lot while continuing to allow the single lots to run. This was a failure which defeated the very concept of an auction. It is Heritage’s fault, period. No one else’s. As I wrote to a friend in a text at 11:26 pm that night, during extended bidding: “The poor guy who had the high for the set is screwed if we push it over.” Referring to bidding on the individual lots while the full set lot was closed.

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

I agree for the most part, although as even you noted at 11:26pm that night, this was outcome was predictable. I do think Heritage should extend the auction though. No need to restart from ground zero however. I prefer how PWCC handles it. They just extend the bidding from where things left off. All prior bids are still in place, and all eligible bidders are able to bid again. This is the solution I would offer.

But to just say Powell won is not an option. He did not win per the clearly stated rules. Regardless of how unfair it was.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I agree for the most part, although as even you noted at 11:26pm that night, this was outcome was predictable. I do think Heritage should extend the auction though. No need to restart from ground zero however. I prefer how PWCC handles it. They just extend the bidding from where things left off. All prior bids are still in place, and all eligible bidders are able to bid again. This is the solution I would offer.

But to just say Powell won is not an option. He did not win per the clearly stated rules. Regardless of how unfair it was.

I would normally agree with this, but I am sure invoices and payments have been sent out/paid by now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I would normally agree with this, but I am sure invoices and payments have been sent out/paid by now.

They could undo that. Just refund the money. To me the question is have they shipped any cards.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They could undo that. Just refund the money. To me the question is have they shipped any cards.

Its been 2 plus days since the auction closed. I think you have your answer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Its been 2 plus days since the auction closed. I think you have your answer.

Not sure I follow. So you're saying it's too soon for that to have happened?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I agree for the most part, although as even you noted at 11:26pm that night, this was outcome was predictable. I do think Heritage should extend the auction though. No need to restart from ground zero however. I prefer how PWCC handles it. They just extend the bidding from where things left off. All prior bids are still in place, and all eligible bidders are able to bid again. This is the solution I would offer.

But to just say Powell won is not an option. He did not win per the clearly stated rules. Regardless of how unfair it was.

I don’t disagree at all. Powell didn’t win unless all lots, the individual and aggregate, were kept open. And they weren’t. It’s an easy fix here. Re-auction the cards correctly, give everyone a fair chance, and make up any potential shortfall to the consigner so he agrees to this resolution. This is an easy fix — let’s see if Heritage can understand this.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I prefer how PWCC handles it.

Color me surprised

[felada]

Presumably the way this should have worked was the aggregate of the individual lots should have been a ‘bidder’ in the software. That way the high bid for the lot would have always been displayed and the lot would have remained open every time a bid was placed on an individual lots since it would have increased the bid of the set lot.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by felada

Presumably the way this should have worked was the aggregate of the individual lots should have been a ‘bidder’ in the software. That way the high bid for the lot would have always been displayed and the lot would have remained open every time a bid was placed on an individual lots since it would have increased the bid of the set lot.

Hi David! What you are proposing solves only half of the problem, and the easier half at that. What happens when the aggregate bidder exceeds the individual bidders? At some point all of them will be closed out with no way to bid with the aggregate lot now ahead. How do you allocate this differential back to the individual lots if more than one bidder wants to continue? The system is flawed on an individual lot closing basis. I think the only way to handle this type of bidding is under a format where the full auction closes at once and where bidders can raise their own bids. You need a Memory Lane/ REA type auction for this to work. On a HA individual lot closing format I don't think it works. I also don't think it works on the LOTG format unless all the lots involved go into extended bidding.

[Mattymc727]

I’m no lawyer, so I’ll refrain from fancy terms, but I side with Powell. This is BS. An auction house should have more competence than this for items this large. I think it’s worth a lawsuit if HA doesn’t redo the auction.

What if HA doesn’t even correct this behavior/error after this debacle? Make them.

[oldjudge]

I agree with Jeff that given the flawed auction process the only fair solution is to redo the auction of these cards. The question now becomes who is eligible to bid on the aggregate lot? Is it only those bidders who bid on the aggregate previously (that would represent a larger universe than just Powell) or can any prior individual lot bidders also bid on the aggregate? These questions would have to be resolved before any redo could take place.

[mrreality68]

From my reading (unless I misread) based on the email Powell said he got it looks like HA already made up their mind and giving the winnings to the individual lots and as a result not compensating or re-doing the auction on those items as still discussed.
Further I have not heard or read anywhere about a statement from HA or anything by googling it (Except this forum pops up)
Apparently they are treating it as business as usually and sticking to their terms and conditions and disclaimers and moving forward.
It is a sad situation with the way it all played out can only hope moving forward they improve their software to better handle/link the lots etc or they do not do this type of auction individual vs set.

[Centauri]

It seems pretty clear to me that this was set up from the start to be 2 separate, unrelated auctions. Both auctions were subject of the standard auction rules - if no bids after 30 mins, the auction is closed. Once both auctions were complete, the higher number would get the cards. At least one individual card bidder recognized that during the auction, so it was possible to understand the arrangement. (Someone said they texted their friend at 11:26 that the set bidder was going to lose to the individual).

The only way to ensure ownership of the cards was to bid both ways. As weird as that is, that was clearly the rules at the start.

[insidethewrapper]

If you can't outbid yourself, then I don't see how redoing the auction will change anything. the individual cards will be higher than the set. The rules were clear, the higher between individual and set wins. Also the rules are you can't outbid yourself, these are not new rules. Seems clear to me .

[molenick]

While I agree that a redo would be fair, I don't see how this can happen.

Not everyone who won a lot is on Net54. As far as they are concerned, they got an invoice and paid for their card, and expect to get that card. They may have no idea about the controversy and don't care that the process was unfair to one of the bidders.

Heritage can withhold the cards but I have no idea what that would mean legally. If Powell believes he has a legal claim to the set because at one point he was told he won on the screen (which later said he lost), the other bidders have a stronger claim because not only were they told they won, it never switched to telling them they lost, and they were invoiced when the auction ended.

And, no, I did not win any of the lots.

Also, I think it is a little unfair to make Aaron feel bad because he won a lot in an auction.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by molenick

While I agree that a redo would be fair, I don't see how this can happen.

Not everyone who won a lot is on Net54. As far as they are concerned, they got an invoice and paid for their card, and expect to get that card. They may have no idea about the controversy and don't care that the process was unfair to one of the bidders.

Heritage can withhold the cards but I have no idea what that would mean legally. If Powell believes he has a legal claim to the set because at one point he was told he won on the screen (which later said he lost), the other bidders have a stronger claim because not only were they told they won, it never switched to telling them they lost, and they were invoiced when the auction ended.

And, no, I did not win any of the lots.

Also, I think it is a little unfair to make Aaron feel bad because he won a lot in an auction.

From a legal standpoint, until someone actually takes possession of the cards, it would be difficult for any bidder to prove actual damages (beyond wasting their time). Paying an invoice -- whether it's the individual bidders or the complete set bidder -- changes little in this regard, because Heritage could simply refund the money and mitigate the damages.

Getting a court to order specific performance as an equitable remedy (requiring Heritage to accept payment and turn over the cards) is very difficult, even when the dispute is over something as unique as this set.

[felada]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hi David! What you are proposing solves only half of the problem, and the easier half at that. What happens when the aggregate bidder exceeds the individual bidders? At some point all of them will be closed out with no way to bid with the aggregate lot now ahead. How do you allocate this differential back to the individual lots if more than one bidder wants to continue? The system is flawed on an individual lot closing basis. I think the only way to handle this type of bidding is under a format where the full auction closes at once and where bidders can raise their own bids. You need a Memory Lane/ REA type auction for this to work. On a HA individual lot closing format I don't think it works. I also don't think it works on the LOTG format unless all the lots involved go into extended bidding.

Jay I think the way it would work is the aggregate lot remains open until all the individual lots are closed.the individual bidders really bid independent of the aggregate lot but there is at least a link that shows if the bidder is high bidder in the lot and if the individual lots are outbidding the aggregate. Then it is clear to everyone what they really are or are not winning. This way the aggregate bidder always a chance to top the bid and then presumably a remaining bidder on an individual lot go go back and up their bid if desired. Then it becomes the back and forth that makes auctions last until 4am

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by felada

Jay I think the way it would work is the aggregate lot remains open until all the individual lots are closed.the individual bidders really bid independent of the aggregate lot but there is at least a link that shows if the bidder is high bidder in the lot and if the individual lots are outbidding the aggregate. Then it is clear to everyone what they really are or are not winning. This way the aggregate bidder always a chance to top the bid and then presumably a remaining bidder on an individual lot go go back and up their bid if desired. Then it becomes the back and forth that makes auctions last until 4am

You said the aggregate lot should stay open until all the individual lots close and then the aggregate bidder could have a chance to top the bid, but then you say a remaining bidder could go back and increase an individual lot if desired. However, you already said that the individual lots were closed.

The only way for it to work is for all lots related to these cards (set and individual) to close at the same time after some period of time when none of them had any bids. Also, bidders need to be able to increase their own bid if it is already the highest one for a lot so they can change whether the complete set or the individual lots are winning depending on what they are trying to win.

[felada]

Becaue it would essentially come down to two bidders. The one for the aggregate lot and the one individual lot. Both are open until one stops bidding. The other individual lots are closed. The aggregate lot bidder is bidding against someone upping a bid against the individual lot. As soon as that bidder stops both the individual lot and the aggregate lot would close because neither are bidding. Even if the aggregate bidde upped his bid it would be a change to a ceiling bid.

[felada]

The other consideration is the bidding increments. The aggregate lot bidder has a much larger bidding increment. If I was bidding on one of the lower value BG lots the next level aggregate bid would be almost over a 100% increase in the bid of the lot. Am I really going to bid another 2-3x the current bid to out bid the aggregate bidder to win the individual card?