• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mound City Auctions

Started by TheMightyJohn,

449 posts in this topic

fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
I don't know man, what you bid is at the end of the auction the amount you are willing to pay for the item.

 

Yea, but if the owner is allowed to bid, and worse RETRACT, bids, it isn't an auction at all--it's a sham where they're hoping some people willing to take a risk of overpaying don't realize that it wasn't a risk at all, it was a certainty. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoundCityAuctions

MoundCityAuctions

Posted
Posted

I said it had a reserve not once, not twice, not three, or four times or five but six times. Perhaps that was not clear enough. I said the owner was in the room and if we did not hit his reserve I would ask if he would sell at the last bid, again very very clear.

 

I simply do not know how I could have been clearer.

 

Anyone bidding online has a computer, they could have watched or listened to the video or audio feed.

 

 

It was a written reserve, notice that my son crossed in front of the camera after the seller lowered his written reserve and picked up the piece of paper while he said something to the effect of get the owner to sign up on that lowered reserve".

 

A written reserve is not shilling. An announced reserve is not shilling. Shilling is a crime. You have accused me of a crime. Perhaps you might want to re-think that for a bit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lizards2

lizards2

Posted
Posted
Is it a crime to post a popcorn greamlin?

 

 

:popcorn:

 

:o Ima humpin' the mod notify button :sumo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transplant

Transplant

Posted
Posted

You know when the killer is hiding in the closet and you just know the heroine is going to bite it? That's what this is like. I know what's going to be said next, but I can't turn away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoundCityAuctions

MoundCityAuctions

Posted
Posted
I don't think the owner of the book should have been allowed to retract the bid. Lowering the reserve after the auction is over, is the same thing.

 

The auction isn't over until the auctioneer drops the hammer or says sold. The owner did not lower the reserve after the fact. Watch the video.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoundCityAuctions

MoundCityAuctions

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AGGIEZ

AGGIEZ

Posted
Posted
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.

 

:facepalm:

 

Pretty sure this response just cost your ALOT more future bids than if you had just let this thread die...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Columbia Comics

Columbia Comics

Posted
Posted
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.

 

:facepalm:

 

Pretty sure this response just cost your ALOT more future bids than if you had just let this thread die...

 

 

 

+1

Something just doesn't seem right. Will avoid like the plague!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrmyst

mrmyst

Posted
Posted
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.

 

:facepalm:

 

Pretty sure this response just cost your ALOT more future bids than if you had just let this thread die...

 

 

 

+1

Something just doesn't seem right. Will avoid like the plague!

hm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
joecgcmaniac

joecgcmaniac

Posted
Posted
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.

 

:facepalm:

 

Pretty sure this response just cost your ALOT more future bids than if you had just let this thread die...

 

 

 

+1

Something just doesn't seem right. Will avoid like the plague!

 

+2

Sorry, you are costing yourself bids. Your response just might put a lot of people off from bidding in any future auctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted
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.

 

No material facts are stated incorrectly. I was told the owner was in the room and that it was the owner who retracted the bid. Whether he was a few feet away or whether he instructed someone to retract the bid is immaterial.

 

The fact is that he (or he/she) was allowed to bid multiple times and then to withdraw his final bid after he realized the other bidder was not going to keep bidding anymore. Under those circumstances the seller bids without any risk of being stuck with the book or getting less than the absolute maximum price, because he can bid until all other bids are made, and then simply withdraw his final bid. Those are the simple unadorned facts. The threats and the name-calling in subsequent emails are also facts And they are consistent with what I am seeing here, at least (so far) in terms of the threats.

 

No accusation of criminal behavior has been made; I am not even sure what the law says about what occurred. But, whatever it says or whatever it's called, people bidding on an item for any reason is more problematic if they are allowed to overbid someone else and then withdraw that bid. Because, as stated, it completely removes the risk that should be present in any bid. Even "chandelier bids" carry the risk of losing a sale. But in this situation all risk is removed to the seller.

 

Assuming all the same procedures are in place as described to me, this could have been treated as an opportunity to say "hey if it was a misunderstanding, that's regrettable" or whatever. And, again presuming all the same procedures are in place, to notify potential bidders that they, too, can withdraw their bids, and (if it still isn't really feasible or possible to do so via internet bidding) that they should be on the phone. That would have been a better approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tsimanga

Tsimanga

Posted
Posted
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.

 

doh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transplant

Transplant

Posted
Posted
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.

 

No material facts are stated incorrectly. I was told the owner was in the room and that it was the owner who retracted the bid. Whether he was a few feet away or whether he instructed someone to retract the bid is immaterial.

 

The fact is that he (or he/she) was allowed to bid multiple times and then to withdraw his final bid after he realized the other bidder was not going to keep bidding anymore. Under those circumstances the seller bids without any risk of being stuck with the book or getting less than the absolute maximum price, because he can bid until all other bids are made, and then simply withdraw his final bid. Those are the simple unadorned facts. The threats and the name-calling in subsequent emails are also facts And they are consistent with what I am seeing here. Assuming all the same procedures are in place as described to me, this could have been treated as an opportunity to say "hey if it was a misunderstanding, that's regrettable" or whatever -- and to notify potential bidders that they, too, can withdraw their bids, and (presuming it still isn't possible to do so via internet bidding) that they should be on the phone.

 

I'm not saying what was done was great, but y'all are talking past each other. Their employee bid for the reserve. It seemed to you like the owner was bidding. He wasn't. That was the owner's reserve being bid up. Once they realized that the reserve would not be met, the owner was given a chance to pull the reserve and take the last bid. That was yours an that appears to be what happened. I'm not agreeing that's the bet way to handle a reserve or not. Most comic auction houses simply let buyer bidders bid. If the hit the reserve it sells. If it doesn't, they don't. I doubt it's illegal in MO. But it's unusual in comic auctions we're used to.

 

Now you can talk to one another if there's something left to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted
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.

 

No material facts are stated incorrectly. I was told the owner was in the room and that it was the owner who retracted the bid. Whether he was a few feet away or whether he instructed someone to retract the bid is immaterial.

 

The fact is that he (or he/she) was allowed to bid multiple times and then to withdraw his final bid after he realized the other bidder was not going to keep bidding anymore. Under those circumstances the seller bids without any risk of being stuck with the book or getting less than the absolute maximum price, because he can bid until all other bids are made, and then simply withdraw his final bid. Those are the simple unadorned facts. The threats and the name-calling in subsequent emails are also facts And they are consistent with what I am seeing here. Assuming all the same procedures are in place as described to me, this could have been treated as an opportunity to say "hey if it was a misunderstanding, that's regrettable" or whatever -- and to notify potential bidders that they, too, can withdraw their bids, and (presuming it still isn't possible to do so via internet bidding) that they should be on the phone.

 

I'm not saying what was done was great, but y'all are talking past each other. Their employee bid for the reserve. It seemed to you like the owner was bidding. He wasn't. That was the owner's reserve being bid up. Once they realized that the reserve would not be met, the owner was given a chance to pull the reserve and take the last bid. That was yours an that appears to be what happened. I'm not agreeing that's the bet way to handle a reserve or not. Most comic auction houses simply let buyer bidders bid. If the hit the reserve it sells. If it doesn't, they don't. I doubt it's illegal in MO. But it's unusual in comic auctions we're used to.

 

Now you can talk to one another if there's something left to say.

 

I have seen auctions where bids didn't meet reserve and the seller formally offered to sell at the last bid and the last bidder then had to accept or reject that proactively. Again, that is proper (meaning: advisable and better) because it puts a risk on the seller. He is not able to reject a bid in hopes of getting more and then say I'll take if after all.

 

In this case, I was notified online that I was "outbid" and then much later informed that the seller had withdrawn his last bid only. I was also informed in heated, insulting language that I could have done the same: First I was told I could have done so online. That assertion was then retracted and I was told I could have withdrawn my bid if I had been present or on the phone.

 

I found that strange, but still might have reacted differently had the conversations been like anything I am used to in dealing with other auction houses, Instead I was subjected to threats and the sort of name-calling that reminded me of being on a playground.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted

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.

 

Your wife collects comics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing