Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Centauri

But there was never a mistake. The auction proceeded exactly as described beforehand. And there was no part of the auction that went other than described beforehand.

If you are going to argue, even when wrong, you still need your full name out here, per the rule near the top of every page. Thanks
.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by leon

if you are going to argue, even when wrong, you still need your full name out here, per the rule near the top of every page. Thanks
.

lol

[HercDriver]

I don't see any good solution to this, but if I were me, I'd make a public apology to all involved, saying I screwed up. Then I would run it again, but I would give half the buyer's premium to the winner's charity of choice, something like that. As it is now, there will be no "closure" as to what would have been. Just run it again, and let the process play itself out correctly. Just my two cents...

[mordecaibrown]

Why would Powell bid on every lot??? The entire point of having the cards offered as a set is so a bidder, who wanted the entire set of cards, didn’t have to do that exact thing!!!! Otherwise, the cards would’ve never been offered as a set! Furthermore, it was designed to maximize the consignor profit.

How this unfolded was not the design or intention of the auction. The manner this was conducted made the set bidding pointless because Powell could not make competing bids and did not maximize profit for the consignor.

Also, just my opinion, I think the cards sold for about the max they would have, give or take. Powell may have been willing to go much higher, I have no idea, but considering he had no other competition in the set auction and, at the time the set lot closed it was slightly ahead of the aggregate and then only a few more bids were placed to push the individual lots over the set lot, it doesn’t seem like there was a lot of runway left in this situation. And, if you assume an auction house’s number one priority is the consignor (and it’s own bottom line) then if an auction house thought there was a lot of room for increased profit on restarting an auction - it would! Risk/reward….

Lastly, I always see, stuff trumps all. Which, often is the case for many people situations - to each their own. However, I’ll say this, if you don’t like how any auction house treats people or situations, don’t consign material to them. Without selling YOUR stuff, an auction house has nothing to sell. And there are many different auction houses at different levels specializing in different material - options are plentiful.

Andr.ew Ken.edy

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by mordecaibrown

Why would Powell bid on every lot???

Because given the auction format, as stated in the listings, bidding on every lot was the only way one could ensure a victory. Had I been in his shoes, those cards would be getting shipped to me, instead of getting shipped to someone else. It would have cost more, but I wouldn't have lost.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Because given the auction format, as stated in the listings, bidding on every lot was the only way one could ensure a victory. Had I been in his shoes, those cards would be getting shipped to me, instead of getting shipped to someone else. It would have cost more, but I wouldn't have lost.

Having to bid on every individual lot defeats the purpose of having the full set listed as well. With only 12 cards it's doable but shouldn't be necessary. Apparently other AHs have had the same type of auction format with a T206 set and a 1952 Topps set. I don't think the expectation would have been the need to bid on every individual card if your goal was to win the whole set.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Having to bid on every individual lot defeats the purpose of having the full set listed as well. With only 12 cards it's doable but shouldn't be necessary. Apparently other AHs have had the same type of auction format with a T206 set and a 1952 Topps set. I don't think the expectation would have been the need to bid on every individual card if your goal was to win the whole set.

It's worse than that, you'd be bidding against yourself. Every bid you make on an individual lot drives up the aggregate price, requiring a higher set price to beat it. It makes zero sense.

[JeremyW]

The consignor is probably thrilled, but might have missed out on the true bidding war.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's worse than that, you'd be bidding against yourself. Every bid you make on an individual lot drives up the aggregate price, requiring a higher set price to beat it. It makes zero sense.

While it may seem like you'd be bidding against yourself by bidding on both sides, the math doesn't actually work out that way. The game theory optimal strategy here would be to focus on the individual lots first, and to ensure participation in the set lot as a backup plan, since the individual lots should be the favorite to win out. You're not effectively bidding against yourself because you only bid on one side of the auction unless two or more bidders overtake you on the other side, in which case *they* are the ones who bid you up, not yourself, as they have rendered your losing bids on the other side irrelevant. You never bid up both sides at the same time. You only switch sides if forced to. You will still have to overtake all bidders on both sides regardless if you intend to win. A single competitive bidder on one side cannot overtake you if you control the other side unless the two sides are in a dead heat already, in which case you'd still have to overtake him regardless of which side he is on, and you'd be bidding against him, not yourself. And if a single competitive bidder bids against you on both sides, then it doesn't matter which side he chooses as the decision is arbitrary and you have to overtake him either way.