Mound City Auctions

[Comicopolis]

Call it what you want, it is a bad business practice.

 

The general nature of an auction is to allow the market to decide the final value of the item being auctioned. Any attempt (disclosed or not) to tamper with the process is not cool. I don't know if I would call it criminal, but it is not for me. And from the amount of responses, not cool for many board members who spend large sums of money on books.

 

If a book has a reserve simply state the reserve instead of allowing an employee or close associate to keep bumping the bids until the reserve is reached. In a true auction a reserve is reached or it isn't. It is a rather simple concept.

Summed up perfectly. (thumbs u

 

[slym2none]

Replace "shady" with "sketchy" and everything works. IDC if what Mound City Auctions did is a legal practice, it is SKETCHY as hell.

 

 

 

-slym

[VintageComics]

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.

 

Well I'm sure that was just a misunderstanding as they are 'good people'.

 

So we've gone from "not criminal" to poor communication with a bad temper. There are plenty of bad tempered people on this very forum with poor communication skills that are generally "good people" but you just can't stop with the pokes, can you?

 

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you free reign to be an arse about it. If you want to disagree with me, use reason and not emotion. Is that how you treat your students in class? By taking what people say out of context and badgering them with it?

 

You might be a "good person" to those that know you but you're an arse on this forum when you mock me like that.

 

Call it what you want, it is a bad business practice.

 

The general nature of an auction is to allow the market to decide the final value of the item being auctioned. Any attempt (disclosed or not) to tamper with the process is not cool. I don't know if I would call it criminal, but it is not for me. And from the amount of responses, not cool for many board members who spend large sums of money on books.

 

If a book has a reserve simply state the reserve instead of allowing an employee or close associate to keep bumping the bids until the reserve is reached. In a true auction a reserve is reached or it isn't. It is a rather simple concept.

 

Can't disagree with any of that.

 

The only thing I would add is that I am curious how the entire "bid the reserve" process came to be. It's apparently legal, so how did the practice start?

 

 

Replace "shady" with "sketchy" and everything works. IDC if what Mound City Auctions did is a legal practice, it is SKETCHY as hell.

 

 

 

-slym

 

Sketchy: Adjective

 

1. Not thorough or detailed.

2. (of a picture) Resembling a sketch; consisting of outline without much detail.

 

Sketchy works better than shady.

 

[fantastic_four]

It just occurred to me why it looks sketchy to us but not to them--Mound City probably isn't used to proxy bidding since it's only even possible in online auctions. Everyone here mostly participates in online auctions so we're all greatly used to it. I'm not sure whether or not the law covers proxy bidding either. Proxy bidding is made possible by computer systems, and we generally expect our high proxy bid to be private. I'm not sure I've ever seen a web site that implements proxy bidding ever use a user's high bid against them, and that might be why Mound City felt forced to bid themselves to discover that high bid.

 

I bet they haven't pondered the ethical considerations around the privacy of proxy bids since they've said the majority of their past experience has been in live auctions and there isn't any privacy related to how much someone bid on an item. I haven't really pondered it either until now, which is part of why I'm finding this thread interesting.

[VintageComics]

It just occurred to me why it looks sketchy to us but not to them--Mound City probably isn't used to proxy bidding since it's only even possible in online auctions. Everyone here mostly participates in online auctions so we're all greatly used to it. I'm not sure whether or not the law covers proxy bidding either. Proxy bidding is made possible by computer systems, and we generally expect our high proxy bid to be private. I'm not sure I've ever seen a web site that implements proxy bidding ever use a user's high bid against them, and that might be why Mound City felt forced to bid themselves to discover that high bid.

 

I bet they haven't pondered the ethical considerations around the privacy of proxy bids since they've said the majority of their past experience has been in live auctions and there isn't any privacy related to how much someone bid on an item. I haven't really pondered it either until now, which is part of why I'm finding this thread interesting.

 

They're a relatively small auction house (compared to a large auction house that specializes in collectibles) with mostly live auction experience and we're used to a refined internet only process, having discussed the ins and outs for over a decade on here.

 

That's why I used terms like cultural differences, dysfunction and poor communication.

 

I'm on the same page as you.

 

(thumbs u

[slym2none]

While #1 isn't bad, I am going with the more "street" (or to put it into internetspeak, "Urban Dictionary") definition:

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sketchy

 

 

 

-slym

[bluechip]

The video wont load for me here for some reason but you keep saying they made "full disclosure". They FULLY explained that the wife would be bidding for the owner of the books and that she could at any time retract her bid and the previous bidder would then be obligated to buy the book even if it was under reserve.

 

THAT was fully disclosed and people still bid???

 

The video starts at the auction we are discussing.

 

He explains there is a reserve about 6 times.

 

He clearly says that his wife will bid the reserve.

 

He goes into detail explaining more than once that there is a reserve and if people see his wife bidding, she is bidding the reserve.

 

He explains that if the reserve is hit, they will let you know.

 

He then goes on to explain that if the reserve is not hit, that the owner of the book is in the room and they will ask him if he is willing to lower the reserve to the high bid.

 

Again, that is why I asked [multiple times] if internet bidders were privy to the same information that the live bidders were.

 

 

Does he ever explain that the wife(on behalf of the owner) can retract any of her bids and the previous bidder, under reserve still, will be OBLIGATED to buy the book?

 

Roy, the answer is two-fold: 1) I did not hear that, and 2) I would not necessarily have interpreted it to mean that "taking the high bid" meant seller could PLACE place the high bid, and then withdraw that bid, and that all lower bids would be enforced.

 

The reason being that in my other auction experience, that same disclaimer has been used to describe a scenario in which the high bid is a genuine bid below the reserve. Then the buyer (who has NOT placed a bid) is asked if he'll take the high bid. In this case, the high bid was his own bid.

 

I cared only that somebody bid and withdrew his final bid. And I didn't realize it til later. Once I'd seen I was outbid I considered it over, at least for me.

 

Now, had I been in the room, and heard that, might I have asked for clarification? Probably. Had I been given an opportunity to withdraw my bid, would I have done so? Having seen the last bid withdrawn, yes.

 

Which goes to the other question.

 

Did I read the fine print? Only after the fact. And as I said before, what I read did not indicate that a seller could place a bid and then withdraw it.

 

I didn't have audio and didn't know the bidder was the seller. But, I've had to repeat many times, only to see people come back to that same question, as if it's the point, it's not the point. I wouldn't have cared. And as mentioned above, if I'd heard that the seller could lower his reserve to take the "last bid," I would not necessarily have thought the term "last bid" excluded any bids (or, just the last bid) made by a seller's agent.

 

In my experience, a bid is a bid, whether made by the seller or the buyer. That's been my understanding over decades of experience with auction houses. If it ever occurred differently, I'd never seen it, until this time.

 

In the best case scenario (and I do not think this house enjoys that assessment), this is a practice that is legal but very unusual and injurious to buyers, and my mentioning it here should have brought a response from the house saying something like "Yes, what he described can and does happen, so be be forewarned, etc." or even "we see now this has unintended consequences, so we're changing the policy," etc.

 

But we got instead the same thing I got the first time around, a virtually immediate threat, implying they could take legal action against me because what I posted here was "wrong" (in saying the seller bid, when in fact it was the auctioneer's wife bidding on behalf of the seller). As if that hair-splitting difference constituted some actionable offense. And we saw threats against anybody else on this board who might say they don't think that's a good way to do business. x

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

Just pointing out that in business dealings you need to be reasonable with everybody. And the larger the business, the more you need to be reasonable. And if you've got hair triggers that cause you to rage and threaten and name-call people who pose reasonable complaints, it may not be the best excuse that you don't do it all the time.

 

 

Well said.

[bb8]

Fascinating thread. Just killed a chunk of work time perusing it. So win for me.

 

But I don't think I've seen MCA respond ONCE to their name-calling and bullying bluechip after the gavel fell, and I think that's telling. Defending their legal application of auction law is well and good, but being a total d-bag to a customer is not. Sounds like they were totally out of bounds in dealing with this incident, and they have not refuted this or apologized. Just jumped in feet first with accusations of libel and slander. Not a company I'd like to have to work with, especially in a difficult matter.

[blazingbob]

Roy, I've been reading this thread and frankly having dinner with someone doesn't exactly equate to them doing the "right thing". Sometimes the biggest con artists are the nicest people out there. Now while you eventually come out in later threads that you agree with what people are saying you again come off as a defender of how this company chooses to do business.

 

And legal or not bidding on your auctions is not the "right thing" to do.

 

I've said this of Heritage and I will say the same thing about Mound City.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Roy, I've been reading this thread and frankly having dinner with someone doesn't exactly equate to them doing the "right thing". Sometimes the biggest con artists are the nicest people out there. Now while you eventually come out in later threads that you agree with what people are saying you again come off as a defender of how this company chooses to do business.

 

And legal or not bidding on your auctions is not the "right thing" to do.

 

I've said this of Heritage and I will say the same thing about Mound City.

 

 

Bob, I have no idea why you're chiming in at this point.

 

I haven't defended shill bidding in this thread. I have repeatedly stated that I wouldn't run an auction that way. I was interested in knowing the details about how and what happened rather than just make assumptions like is often done. It obviously wasn't an "open and shut" case. Most people just lack the patience to see it through to the end.

 

The discussion was productive because it brought out important details about the auction, the auction house and the legal system that are interesting to know...which is what I was interested in.

 

You yourself will defend people you know personally even though there is a slew of people who have negative things to say about them...if only to find out whether or not those things are true.

 

Finally if bad tempers are a measure of someone's business acumen then I'll steer clear of Bad Bob.

 

[sufunk]

I've asked like 3 times and you never answered Roy. When you say everything was "fully disclosed" before the auction, was it ever said the wife(on behalf of the owner) not only would bid but she could withdraw her bid at any point and stick the under bidder with the book even if it was under reserve.

 

The KEY part obviously being that she could withdraw her bid at any point.

[VintageComics]

I've asked like 3 times and you never answered Roy. When you say everything was "fully disclosed" before the auction, was it ever said the wife(on behalf of the owner) not only would bid but she could withdraw her bid at any point and stick the under bidder with the book even if it was under reserve.

 

The KEY part obviously being that she could withdraw her bid at any point.

 

Sorry, I must have missed it.

 

I'm only getting my info from the video they posted. I didn't bid in that auction.

 

They didn't specifically state that from what I saw. It would been assumed and it would have been clearly apparent what they were doing if you were there live watching and bidding, though.

 

 

[sufunk]

It was clearly apparent she could withdraw her bid at any time and stick you with the book???

 

Also, how would that have been assumed? I would never assume that in an auction.

 

 

[arexcrooke]

The only thing I would assume is that everybody is playing by the same set of rules.

And it appears obvious they werent.

[skypinkblu]

Roy, I've been reading this thread and frankly having dinner with someone doesn't exactly equate to them doing the "right thing". Sometimes the biggest con artists are the nicest people out there. Now while you eventually come out in later threads that you agree with what people are saying you again come off as a defender of how this company chooses to do business.

 

And legal or not bidding on your auctions is not the "right thing" to do.

 

I've said this of Heritage and I will say the same thing about Mound City.

 

 

Bob, I have no idea why you're chiming in at this point.

 

I haven't defended shill bidding in this thread. I have repeatedly stated that I wouldn't run an auction that way. I was interested in knowing the details about how and what happened rather than just make assumptions like is often done. It obviously wasn't an "open and shut" case. Most people just lack the patience to see it through to the end.

 

The discussion was productive because it brought out important details about the auction, the auction house and the legal system that are interesting to know...which is what I was interested in.

 

You yourself will defend people you know personally even though there is a slew of people who have negative things to say about them...if only to find out whether or not those things are true.

 

Finally if bad tempers are a measure of someone's business acumen then I'll steer clear of Bad Bob.

 

 

Actually, Roy...I was thinking the same thing, you say you agree with the other posters, but each time you add something that appears to negate your statement. It also appears that you are defending the "unusual" bidding by the owners of the auction house. You know that the accusations of withdrawing the bids are true, because the owners of the auction house admitted them.

 

I've asked like 3 times and you never answered Roy. When you say everything was "fully disclosed" before the auction, was it ever said the wife(on behalf of the owner) not only would bid but she could withdraw her bid at any point and stick the under bidder with the book even if it was under reserve.

 

The KEY part obviously being that she could withdraw her bid at any point.

 

Sorry, I must have missed it.

 

I'm only getting my info from the video they posted. I didn't bid in that auction.

 

They didn't specifically state that from what I saw. It would been assumed and it would have been clearly apparent what they were doing if you were there live watching and bidding, though.

 

 

Assuming is a dangerous game...I consider myself reasonably well educated and of average intelligence. If it was clear, I sure didn't understand that those bids could be withdrawn and the bidder would be stuck with their high bid until I read this thread and SAW the auctioneer back off the bids...I had no idea whose bid it was until the auctioneer explained it here.

 

You can add me to the bad group, I don't get the constant spinning in the company's favor.

 

P.S, I don't think ANYONE has ever accused ME of having a bad temper, .

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

Roy, I've been reading this thread and frankly having dinner with someone doesn't exactly equate to them doing the "right thing". Sometimes the biggest con artists are the nicest people out there. Now while you eventually come out in later threads that you agree with what people are saying you again come off as a defender of how this company chooses to do business.

 

And legal or not bidding on your auctions is not the "right thing" to do.

 

I've said this of Heritage and I will say the same thing about Mound City.

 

 

Bob, I have no idea why you're chiming in at this point.

 

I haven't defended shill bidding in this thread. I have repeatedly stated that I wouldn't run an auction that way. I was interested in knowing the details about how and what happened rather than just make assumptions like is often done. It obviously wasn't an "open and shut" case. Most people just lack the patience to see it through to the end.

 

The discussion was productive because it brought out important details about the auction, the auction house and the legal system that are interesting to know...which is what I was interested in.

 

You yourself will defend people you know personally even though there is a slew of people who have negative things to say about them...if only to find out whether or not those things are true.

 

Finally if bad tempers are a measure of someone's business acumen then I'll steer clear of Bad Bob.

 

 

You have to spin, to win !

 

[MediumLover]

Never shoot free throws at a carnival.

 

[sufunk]

Never shoot free throws at a carnival.

 

 

That's actually the one beatable game. Just don't try to swish it, you have to front rim it with just the right amount of spin

[slym2none]

Never shoot free throws at a carnival.

 

 

That's actually the one beatable game. Just don't try to swish it, you have to front rim it with just the right amount of spin

heheheheheheheh...

 

 

 

 

-slym