Mound City Auctions

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

I think poor procedure more accurately describes what happened.

 

 

 

Oh. So MCA is not shady. They're just incompetent.

 

Well, that changes everything. I can't wait to purchase something from them.

[Prince Namor]

When bidding in an auction you often consider the market interest in a book as one of the influences in what you are willing to bid.

 

If you are bidding and there there are other interested parties you may bid differently than if you are bidding and know there are no other interested parties.

 

If all bidders (online, offline, video chat, skype, semaphor, or smoke signal) knew that the "other bidder" was actually not an interested bidder and just the reserve being reinforced then I say fine as long at that is explicit for each time it occurred.

 

And to be clear, the above is different than merely showing a book as having a reserve.

 

If everyone bidding did not know this information it was an uneven playing field.

 

Sounds like the seller (and by extension the auction) house wanted both their cake (a reserve) and to eat it too (have the option of taking a sub-reserve bid (that had been bid up buy the reserve, not by another bidder) if the buyer decided to drop the reserve).

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that this hobby's collectors will never accept 3 things.... pressing, shiny stickers, and shill bidding.

 

No matter how much VintageComics puts an alternative spin on them.

 

Am I wrong? I've been wrong before. I can't remember the last time, though. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

 

This forum is full of a lot of smart people, but you still do not have a firm grasp on shill bidding. If you want to know more about Auctions and Auction Law I suggest you read Mike Brandly's post. Mike is a fellow National Auctioneers Association member and like myself and Lite holds the highest designation in the Auction World CAI or Certified Auctioneers Institute. Here is his blog post on what is Shill Bidding http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/what-is-shill-bidding/

 

From the blog:

"What shill bidding involves is bidding without the genuine intent to purchase"

 

didn't people just recently argue with you over an article you cut/pasted?

Further along it says:

Otherwise, in a with reserve auction, the seller may bid if that right has been reserved (if the other bidders have knowledge).

 

People were arguing with me over something I didn't write. What that has to do with this I don't understand.

 

In regards to this, according to the 'blog' they referred to, what they are doing is shilling.

They may have a loophole that makes it legal, but the intent still isn't to purchase the item. It's to raise the price.

And blue chips was not aware he was bidding against the owner.

They may not have intentionally tried to hide that fact.... They may have made changes to keep it from happening again...

But regardless of it's legal or not, the definition of shilling, stated in the blog they've provided, says it is.

 

[skypinkblu]

Roy, I agree with most of what you've posted, as it's been an even-handed approach. BUT, when the auction house bids, then retracts and leaves the 2nd highest bidder as high bidder, that's deceptive. And it's wrong, don't you think?

 

 

In the video it was very clear that there was full disclosure every step of the way. If you were live and in person, I don't think the word deceptive applies because they didn't hide anything.

 

If the internet bidders were not privy to the same information then it's a different story. I did ask earlier in the thread whether they fully disclosed it to internet bidders the way they did on the video to live bidders. Was it in the agreement (although I suppose anyone could have also watched the live feed) I never got an answer.

 

That is where I think the disconnect stems from.

 

Wrong?

 

At this point, not for the live bidder but possibly for the internet bidder if they were unaware of what was happening.

 

Additionally, it's complicated by the fact that MCA said bluechip could withdraw his bid but he said he was unable to figure out how to do so.

 

 

It's was a mess.

 

I personally wouldn't auction something that way myself but I think poor procedure more accurately describes what happened.

 

 

 

Actually, this is the first video

I watched the first few minutes of the one you posted (video 3) and it had no information, just bids.

 

In the first video, I only watched about 7.5 minutes, until the auction started. He DID introduce his wife, and said she would be doing "absentee" bids

 

. I didn't hear anything about the owner bidding...so unless he said it later, "absentee" bids, means something entirely different than someone bidding on the owner's behalf...or if it didn't, it certainly was not clear.

 

If I went to an auction and they said the owner was bidding, I would have left...that's not what was indicted in a clear fashion here...unless he said it later on and you can point me to the time on the tape.

[gaz973]

I think poor procedure more accurately describes what happened.

 

 

 

Oh. So MCA is not shady. They're just incompetent.

 

Well, that changes everything. I can't wait to purchase something from them.

 

Don't forget that according to Bluechip, they also threatened to keep the books that he'd already paid for if he didn't also pay for the disputed item.

[dupont2005]

bluechip why would you ever pay for something in that type of situation?

 

Why would he ever put in a bid that's more than he was willing to pay? I bought a few books from that same auction, although mine were snipes so there was no time for shills to bid me up. But if I had put my bids in early, ultimately I'd only put in a price that I thought was fair, so while I'd certainly be pissed about the shilling, I'd still be fine with paying a price I was already willing to pay.

 

His story sounds more like there was a reserve which was removed at some point and then got slapped in the face with buyers remorse. Just my 2 pesos.

 

The proper way for reserves to be withdrawn is before a bid is made above that reserve. It is not proper to do it afterward.

 

And in this case it was not a reserve, and it was not an owner testing the limits of the sale and taking a willing chance on losing the sale and ending up holding the book.

 

It was the owner of the book in the room, a few feet from auctioneer, bidding live against my bids online, knowing all along he could withdraw his last bid when I reached and he outbid me one more time. Once he knew I was not going to bid higher, he withdrew his final bid.

 

That is not just my perception; the auction house admitted it, and claimed that I could have also withdrawn my bid. At first they claimed it was possible for me to withdraw a bid online, then later said I should have bid live or by phone. Then called me names and threatened me.

 

As for buyer's remorse, it wouldn't matter whether that was a factor or not. Because every bidder bases their bids on value expresses by others, and he needs to know that bids made by others carry a risk.

 

Either that the other bidder will end up with the book he might not want, because he guessed wrong about your limit, or that he will lose a sale to you that he might have had if he hadn't outbid you.

 

That risk by the other bidder is something everybody figures into the value and the level of bids they are willing to make. Even if it's just that the seller won't let it go for that. Once the seller says no to an offer, he should be able to ask the bidder if he wants to sell at his previous offer. But he should not be able to demand the bidder hold to the offer that was previously rejected.

 

 

Full and complete disclosure was made.

Again, it was not the owner bidding as the board member has incorrectly stated. My wife was not the owner and she is 100% within the law to bid an announced reserve under the UCC and Missouri law. We did not break the law.

 

I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Missouri Professional Auctioneers Association. I will not be slandered or libeled on this board. By stating things as facts that I have clearly proven to be untrue you have damaged my reputation. You are costing me bids. I suggest you take this opportunity to publicly retract your incorrect statements.

So you own the auction house and your wife is there bidding on items?

[Sqeggs]

Roy, I agree with most of what you've posted, as it's been an even-handed approach. BUT, when the auction house bids, then retracts and leaves the 2nd highest bidder as high bidder, that's deceptive. And it's wrong, don't you think?

 

 

In the video it was very clear that there was full disclosure every step of the way. If you were live and in person, I don't think the word deceptive applies because they didn't hide anything.

 

If the internet bidders were not privy to the same information then it's a different story. I did ask earlier in the thread whether they fully disclosed it to internet bidders the way they did on the video to live bidders. Was it in the agreement (although I suppose anyone could have also watched the live feed) I never got an answer.

 

That is where I think the disconnect stems from.

 

Wrong?

 

At this point, not for the live bidder but possibly for the internet bidder if they were unaware of what was happening.

 

Additionally, it's complicated by the fact that MCA said bluechip could withdraw his bid but he said he was unable to figure out how to do so.

 

 

It's was a mess.

 

I personally wouldn't auction something that way myself but I think poor procedure more accurately describes what happened.

 

 

 

Thanks for the response. As usual, it's thoughtful and well-taken. Presenting the MCA side better than MCA did has provided food for thought.

 

Here's my take on what can happen: Businesses can gradually edge away from conventional practice. People who regularly deal with a business are aware of their practices and can either stop dealing with them if they find the practices unacceptable or accept the practices with full knowledge that they aren't conventional. So, in that sense, the business is being transparent -- people who deal with them regularly know their practices.

 

When someone new starts dealing with the business, though, problems can arise. In this case, MCA has apparently adopted the practice of allowing house bids/shill bids/whatever you want to call them to be withdrawn, leaving the next highest bid as the (binding) top bid.

 

As Dr. Love usefully pointed out, this practice is not standard auction procedure according to the authority MCA directed us to. So although regular bidders on MCA auctions may have been aware of this practice, it seems unlikely that new -- or occasional -- bidders were.

 

Whether enforcing non-standard rules on people who for good reason may have been unaware of them is best characterized as just "poor procedure" is an interesting question.

[comicwiz]

Roy, I agree with most of what you've posted, as it's been an even-handed approach. BUT, when the auction house bids, then retracts and leaves the 2nd highest bidder as high bidder, that's deceptive. And it's wrong, don't you think?

 

 

In the video it was very clear that there was full disclosure every step of the way. If you were live and in person, I don't think the word deceptive applies because they didn't hide anything.

 

If the internet bidders were not privy to the same information then it's a different story. I did ask earlier in the thread whether they fully disclosed it to internet bidders the way they did on the video to live bidders. Was it in the agreement (although I suppose anyone could have also watched the live feed) I never got an answer.

 

That is where I think the disconnect stems from.

 

Wrong?

 

At this point, not for the live bidder but possibly for the internet bidder if they were unaware of what was happening.

 

Additionally, it's complicated by the fact that MCA said bluechip could withdraw his bid but he said he was unable to figure out how to do so.

 

 

It's was a mess.

 

I personally wouldn't auction something that way myself but I think poor procedure more accurately describes what happened.

 

 

 

Actually, this is the first video

I watched the first few minutes of the one you posted (video 3) and it had no information, just bids.

 

 

Here is what I saw from the video Roy posted. He introduced the comic. Not as concisely as someone had to ask what issue later on, unless the tagged chapter of the video already introduced it prior. He then explains there is a reserve on the item several times.

 

He also indicates his wife will be "bidding the reserve" which I interpreted as another way of saying she was going to reveal the ceiling of the reserve price as the bidding unfolded. He also mentioned that they would announce when the reserve was met, or in the case it didn't meet the reserve, they would ask the owner if they were willing to sell less than reserve to the highest bidder.

 

As a sideline observer to the whole situation as it's been explained by bluechip and MC, I think the video clearly shows they were transparent about the fact his wife would be bidding on the item.

 

Again, remaining neutral on this subject, the way he explained his wife was going to be "bidding the reserve," the item not meeting reserve, and having her bid pulled out after the owner agreed to sell to the highest bid (at that point $5500) seemed consistent with the way they explained how the item would sell if it didn't meet reserve.

 

The part I'm not understanding is whether this video was also live streamed via the Web during the time the auction took place, whether there were any delays, technical issues, and whether bidders had to watch this video in order to place a bid.

 

If the only live bidding feature available to bluechip via Web was a countdown clock, and he placed a max bid according to how much he was willing to pay, then I can see how hearing about the process later, during conversation, or watching this video, would raise questions.

 

If he hasn't already, maybe bluechip could elaborate on the technical side of bidding via the Internet. The other question I would ask bluechip is whether he recalls reviewing anywhere in the "fine print" when signing-up for live bidding where it explained the bidding process in the manner it was explained in the video?

[david20009]

Read part of the thread but could not make it through all of it.

 

What I will say is I participated in their first big comic book auction, won a few books. Had them delivered way way way after the fact, slow communication and did not get the right certificates (the books came with certs to say they were from the Mound City Auction). Was told I would get the right certs but they never came in the mail (not a big deal).

 

After my first experience with them I have chosen not to deal with them again and can't see that changing. Nor would I recommend them to anyone.

 

Roy's experience might have been different since he was far and away the largest buyer at their first comic auction.

[Mark 1]

I wouldn't bid on an auction where the owner or his wife are bidding against me.

 

If I also listened to the auction and heard the his wife would be bidding the reserve...I wouldn't know what that means unless explained to me.

 

Sounds shady and not something I would want to take part in.

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

. I didn't hear anything about the owner bidding...so unless he said it later, "absentee" bids, means something entirely different than someone bidding on the owner's behalf...or if it didn't, it certainly was not clear.

 

.

 

Sharon, did you watch the video that links directly to the book bluechip was buying?

 

As a sideline observer to the whole situation as it's been explained by bluechip and MC, I think the video clearly shows they were transparent about the fact his wife would be bidding on the item.

 

Again, remaining neutral on this subject, the way he explained his wife was going to be "bidding the reserve," the item not meeting reserve, and having her bid pulled out after the owner agreed to sell to the highest bid (at that point $5500) seemed consistent with the way they explained how the item would sell if it didn't meet reserve.

 

The part I'm not understanding is whether this video was also live streamed via the Web during the time the auction took place, whether there were any delays, technical issues, and whether bidders had to watch this video in order to place a bid.

 

If the only live bidding feature available to bluechip via Web was a countdown clock, and he placed a max bid according to how much he was willing to pay, then I can see how hearing about the process later, during conversation, or watching this video, would raise questions.

 

If he hasn't already, maybe bluechip could elaborate on the technical side of bidding via the Internet. The other question I would ask bluechip is whether he recalls reviewing anywhere in the "fine print" when signing-up for live bidding where it explained the bidding process in the manner it was explained in the video?

 

(thumbs u

 

Roy's experience might have been different since he was far and away the largest buyer at their first comic auction.

 

They subcontracted a packaging/shipping company and when problems arose they changed companies. The books I bid on and won were also shipped a little slow and they were expensive to ship but MCA made that right and (confirmed earlier by several people). I believe they offered free shipping on subsequent auctions.

[bababooey]

When bidding in an auction you often consider the market interest in a book as one of the influences in what you are willing to bid.

 

If you are bidding and there there are other interested parties you may bid differently than if you are bidding and know there are no other interested parties.

 

If all bidders (online, offline, video chat, skype, semaphor, or smoke signal) knew that the "other bidder" was actually not an interested bidder and just the reserve being reinforced then I say fine as long at that is explicit for each time it occurred.

 

And to be clear, the above is different than merely showing a book as having a reserve.

 

If everyone bidding did not know this information it was an uneven playing field.

 

Sounds like the seller (and by extension the auction) house wanted both their cake (a reserve) and to eat it too (have the option of taking a sub-reserve bid (that had been bid up buy the reserve, not by another bidder) if the buyer decided to drop the reserve).

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that this hobby's collectors will never accept 3 things.... pressing, shiny stickers, and shill bidding.

 

No matter how much VintageComics puts an alternative spin on them.

 

Am I wrong? I've been wrong before. I can't remember the last time, though. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

 

This forum is full of a lot of smart people, but you still do not have a firm grasp on shill bidding. If you want to know more about Auctions and Auction Law I suggest you read Mike Brandly's post. Mike is a fellow National Auctioneers Association member and like myself and Lite holds the highest designation in the Auction World CAI or Certified Auctioneers Institute. Here is his blog post on what is Shill Bidding http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/what-is-shill-bidding/

 

From the blog:

"What shill bidding involves is bidding without the genuine intent to purchase"

 

didn't people just recently argue with you over an article you cut/pasted?

Further along it says:

Otherwise, in a with reserve auction, the seller may bid if that right has been reserved (if the other bidders have knowledge).

 

People were arguing with me over something I didn't write. What that has to do with this I don't understand.

 

In regards to this, according to the 'blog' they referred to, what they are doing is shilling.

They may have a loophole that makes it legal, but the intent still isn't to purchase the item. It's to raise the price.

And blue chips was not aware he was bidding against the owner.

They may not have intentionally tried to hide that fact.... They may have made changes to keep it from happening again...

But regardless of it's legal or not, the definition of shilling, stated in the blog they've provided, says it is.

I guess I laughed because people see what they want to see or take issue with what they want to argue about when it comes to stuff posted here...no offense intended. The common ground is that people (most) who don't click the link will believe what is posted here as gospel.

 

I read that blog and wondered why they posted it at all too, it gave a great description of shilling but it does support their position if you read the link as "when is shilling not shilling" link (supporting their position) rather than a "when can we legally screw you over by shilling auctions" which seems to be the way most are viewing what MCA posts.

 

[fantastic_four]

I wouldn't bid on an auction where the owner or his wife are bidding against me.

 

If I also listened to the auction and heard the his wife would be bidding the reserve...I wouldn't know what that means unless explained to me.

 

Sounds shady and not something I would want to take part in.

 

So you've boycotted Heritage for that same practice then? The main differences I see between Mrs. Mound City bumping up the Mound City reserve and N. P. Gresham bumping up the Heritage reserve is that Gresham does it automatically well before the end of the auction (we call it the "Heritage bump" around here), Gresham bids to win when it suits Heritage, Gresham doesn't ever sell the item to the high bidder under the reserve like Mound City does, and Gresham does all of it silently without telling you like Mound City does. But Gresham of Heritage does everything you're describing above that makes Mound City sound shady to you and more.

 

For those that don't know, N. P. Gresham is a name Heritage has used in the past to bid on their own items. Don't know if they still use that name or not--I'd guess not since the fact that it's them became so public and so controversial.

[fantastic_four]

Here is what I saw from the video Roy posted. He introduced the comic. Not as concisely as someone had to ask what issue later on, unless the tagged chapter of the video already introduced it prior. He then explains there is a reserve on the item several times.

 

He also indicates his wife will be "bidding the reserve" which I interpreted as another way of saying she was going to reveal the ceiling of the reserve price as the bidding unfolded. He also mentioned that they would announce when the reserve was met, or in the case it didn't meet the reserve, they would ask the owner if they were willing to sell less than reserve to the highest bidder.

 

As a sideline observer to the whole situation as it's been explained by bluechip and MC, I think the video clearly shows they were transparent about the fact his wife would be bidding on the item.

 

Again, remaining neutral on this subject, the way he explained his wife was going to be "bidding the reserve," the item not meeting reserve, and having her bid pulled out after the owner agreed to sell to the highest bid (at that point $5500) seemed consistent with the way they explained how the item would sell if it didn't meet reserve.

 

The part I'm not understanding is whether this video was also live streamed via the Web during the time the auction took place, whether there were any delays, technical issues, and whether bidders had to watch this video in order to place a bid.

 

If the only live bidding feature available to bluechip via Web was a countdown clock, and he placed a max bid according to how much he was willing to pay, then I can see how hearing about the process later, during conversation, or watching this video, would raise questions.

 

If he hasn't already, maybe bluechip could elaborate on the technical side of bidding via the Internet. The other question I would ask bluechip is whether he recalls reviewing anywhere in the "fine print" when signing-up for live bidding where it explained the bidding process in the manner it was explained in the video?

 

Excellent, objective analysis and great questions. (thumbs u

[skypinkblu]

 

. I didn't hear anything about the owner bidding...so unless he said it later, "absentee" bids, means something entirely different than someone bidding on the owner's behalf...or if it didn't, it certainly was not clear.

 

.

 

Sharon, did you watch the video that links directly to the book bluechip was buying?

 

I had expected this explanation to be at the beginning (which was why I wanted to watch the beginning.)

 

Was this the ONLY book where the wife was bidding?

 

I went back and viewed the specific spot. I don't see how an internet bidder would have knowledge of what the auctioneer said unless it was streaming live on all the internet bidding services, did I miss that? Was it streaming on all services and were people making the early proxy bids that the auctioneer suggested, advised?

 

I did see where he backed off the bid, and of course you could not see from the video, who was bidding. You just saw the auctioneer, so without all the explanations I read here and even with, it definitely was confusing. You would have no idea that you were bidding against the owner unless you were sitting there in person.

 

Interesting that he knew someone needed the cover-less book for a cover.

 

[Mark 1]

I wouldn't bid on an auction where the owner or his wife are bidding against me.

 

If I also listened to the auction and heard the his wife would be bidding the reserve...I wouldn't know what that means unless explained to me.

 

Sounds shady and not something I would want to take part in.

 

So you've boycotted Heritage for that same practice then? The main differences I see between Mrs. Mound City bumping up the Mound City reserve and N. P. Gresham bumping up the Heritage reserve is that Gresham does it automatically well before the end of the auction (we call it the "Heritage bump" around here), Gresham bids to win when it suits Heritage, Gresham doesn't ever sell the item to the high bidder under the reserve like Mound City does, and Gresham does all of it silently without telling you like Mound City does. But Gresham of Heritage does everything you're describing above that makes Mound City sound shady to you and more.

 

For those that don't know, N. P. Gresham is a name Heritage has used in the past to bid on their own items. Don't know if they still use that name or not--I'd guess not since the fact that it's them became so public and so controversial.

 

It's not necessarily the fact they have an owner bidding against me...it's that they can back out and then leave me as the high bidder.

 

I've never had that happen at Heritage. If I'm outbid and it's against an owner...ok they won the book.

 

What I don't like about MC is it sounds like those who could get caught in a bidding war and lose...can suddenly become the winner which could really hurt some folks.

 

Not my kind of auction.

[VintageComics]

 

. I didn't hear anything about the owner bidding...so unless he said it later, "absentee" bids, means something entirely different than someone bidding on the owner's behalf...or if it didn't, it certainly was not clear.

 

.

 

Sharon, did you watch the video that links directly to the book bluechip was buying?

 

I went back and viewed the specific spot. I don't see how an internet bidder would have knowledge of what the auctioneer said unless it was streaming live on all the internet bidding services, did I miss that? Was it streaming on all services and were people making the early proxy bids that the auctioneer suggested, advised?

 

I did see where he backed off the bid, and of course you could not see from the video, who was bidding. You just saw the auctioneer, so without all the explanations I read here and even with, it definitely was confusing. You would have no idea that you were bidding against the owner unless you were sitting there in person.

 

Interesting that he knew someone needed the cover-less book for a cover.

 

 

I've been asking the same thing from the beginning: Was the internet bidder privy to the same information as the live bidder?

 

Rob, I believe that the confusion came from bidders who were not present live and that did not have the same information/explanation as the live bidders.

 

MCA probably knew there was another cover out there because CGC told them there was. I know of the other cover as well.

[fantastic_four]

It's not necessarily the fact they have an owner bidding against me...it's that they can back out and then leave me as the high bidder.

 

I've never had that happen at Heritage. If I'm outbid and it's against an owner...ok they won the book.

 

What I don't like about MC is it sounds like those who could get caught in a bidding war and lose...can suddenly become the winner which could really hurt some folks.

 

Not my kind of auction.

 

But not shady, which is what you called them. They have fervently and repeatedly claimed that they've been open that they choose to sell auctions to high bidders under the reserve. Nobody's established that to be false.

 

I agree with you though, I'm not a fan of them selling to the high bidder under a reserve.

[Mark 1]

It's not necessarily the fact they have an owner bidding against me...it's that they can back out and then leave me as the high bidder.

 

I've never had that happen at Heritage. If I'm outbid and it's against an owner...ok they won the book.

 

What I don't like about MC is it sounds like those who could get caught in a bidding war and lose...can suddenly become the winner which could really hurt some folks.

 

Not my kind of auction.

 

But not shady, which is what you called them. They have fervently and repeatedly claimed that they've been open that they choose to sell auctions to high bidders under the reserve. Nobody's established that to be false.

 

I agree with you though, I'm not a fan of them selling to the high bidder under a reserve.

 

Ok maybe shady is a bit harsh. My reason for using that word is because most comic collectors probably don't know the lingo from an auction.

 

Such as if I heard "the wife will be bidding the reserve"...I honestly wouldn't know what that means unless someone explained that she would be bidding on her own to increase the price to beyond the reserve and could potentially back out.

 

That seems to be a very odd way of doing an auction but I guess to those who know the lingo wouldn't think it's shady.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Don't know how common it is in the auction world as a whole, but no comics auctions for the last decade or so have ever done it that I'm aware of. Certainly not Heritage, ComicLink, Pedigree, ComicConnect, Manning, eBay, Hake's, MastroNet, QualityComix, nor any others I've heard of. Mound City has always done non-comic auctions before they happened across that Silver find, so it's entirely possible it's common in the estate sale auction business.

[skypinkblu]

 

. I didn't hear anything about the owner bidding...so unless he said it later, "absentee" bids, means something entirely different than someone bidding on the owner's behalf...or if it didn't, it certainly was not clear.

 

.

 

Sharon, did you watch the video that links directly to the book bluechip was buying?

 

I went back and viewed the specific spot. I don't see how an internet bidder would have knowledge of what the auctioneer said unless it was streaming live on all the internet bidding services, did I miss that? Was it streaming on all services and were people making the early proxy bids that the auctioneer suggested, advised?

 

I did see where he backed off the bid, and of course you could not see from the video, who was bidding. You just saw the auctioneer, so without all the explanations I read here and even with, it definitely was confusing. You would have no idea that you were bidding against the owner unless you were sitting there in person.

 

Interesting that he knew someone needed the cover-less book for a cover.

 

 

I've been asking the same thing from the beginning: Was the internet bidder privy to the same information as the live bidder?

 

Rob, I believe that the confusion came from bidders who were not present live and that did not have the same information/explanation as the live bidders.

 

MCA probably knew there was another cover out there because CGC told them there was. I know of the other cover as well.

 

No, not a cover, he specifically said he knew someone needed a cover-less copy for a cover.He said he hoped there were two people.

 

Most live antique auctions I attend (and I have been going for years) Start an item off at a price the owner will accept, if there is no interest, they pass the item, OR they will lower the starting price a few times to see if they can gain interest.

 

For example, a silverware set will start at $500, if there is no interest, they will pass...or say "$400" or maybe go down to $300, if no interest, they pass.

 

Always seemed like an OK way to do it to me. In many cases the item goes over the original starting price (the one that got no bids in the beginning)

 

Of course most of the ones I have attended were in NY, or PA, so I guess the rules are stricter.