Mound City Auctions

[Flaming_Telepath]

Lets be fair about this. Most misunderstandings come from 3rd parties picking apart conversations that they didn't have a part in.

 

Or as in this case, we could simply read the posts Mound City have made in this thread regarding this matter.

 

More than enough to turn me away from any potential future transactions.

[joecgcmaniac]

Lets be fair about this. Most misunderstandings come from 3rd parties picking apart conversations that they didn't have a part in.

 

Or as in this case, we could simply read the posts Mound City have made in this thread regarding this matter.

 

More than enough to turn me away from any potential future transactions.

 

You mean we're supposed to do our own reading and make our own decisions?

 

I thought we were just supposed to take everybody at their word, hold hands, and sing kumbaya around the campfire.

[VintageComics]

Lets be fair about this. Most misunderstandings come from 3rd parties picking apart conversations that they didn't have a part in.

 

Or as in this case, we could simply read the posts Mound City have made in this thread regarding this matter.

 

More than enough to turn me away from any potential future transactions.

 

Which posts in particular?

 

 

Do you consider them shady or is this a matter where MO law allows something that you personally disagree with?

 

I added Transplant's post because it helped explain what was going in.

 

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.

 

Not that I know of.

 

Is it a crime to post a popcorn greamlin?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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 best 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.

[VintageComics]

Lets be fair about this. Most misunderstandings come from 3rd parties picking apart conversations that they didn't have a part in.

 

Or as in this case, we could simply read the posts Mound City have made in this thread regarding this matter.

 

More than enough to turn me away from any potential future transactions.

 

You mean we're supposed to do our own reading and make our own decisions?

 

I thought we were just supposed to take everybody at their word, hold hands, and sing kumbaya around the campfire.

 

You're doing what you often do when you get sarcastic about my posts, and that is that you blur the distinction between what we are actually talking about and what you disagree with.

 

Everyone is free to make their own decisions. Nobody is denying anyone that option.

 

I was just questioning whether calling them shady has any basis. Based on what I've read, it didn't.

[brendanb438]

If you are going to do a reserve auction then do a reserve auction.

 

Don't go about bidding up someone who is actively bidding, then once they put in their final max bid you do it AGAIN to become the high bidder, then go back and back the bid down to below what you now know is their max bid. If as described by bluechip doesn't sound outright like BS for an auction site to do this then what would it take for you to consider them to be shady?

 

I mean hell bluechip could have quit bidding at an amount of 10%, 25% hell maybe 50% less than what his final bid was and won the book because of this practice.

 

There is a right way of having a reserve and a very wrong way of "bump" bidding someone to their max bid.

 

 

SHADY is the right word.

[VintageComics]

If you are going to do a reserve auction then do a reserve auction.

 

Don't go about bidding up someone who is actively bidding, then once they put in their final max bid you do it AGAIN to become the high bidder, then go back and back the bid down to below what you now know is their max bid. If as described by bluechip doesn't sound outright like BS for an auction site to do this then what would it take for you to consider them to be shady?

 

There is a right way of having a reserve and a very wrong way of "bump" bidding someone to their max bid.

 

 

SHADY is the right word.

 

Shady implies there was an intent to deceive or doing something unethical.

 

It's probably the way all estate auction houses work in states where it is allowed legally. Most people who regularly bid in estate auctions in MO probably know that, the way people on this forum might know the little nuances in a Heritage or a Clink auction.

 

Accusing one auction house of being shady for working within MO state law is probably like accusing a Comic auction house for being shady for not understanding how their auction house works.

 

It's more of a cultural misunderstanding than an intent to deceive or do something unethical on the part of the auction house, IMO. They are operating within the confines of the law.

 

Is the law unethical? That's really what is at the heart of the discussion.

[Boozad]

Is the law unethical? That's really what is at the heart of the discussion.

 

No it isn't. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's morally right. It's nothing to do with the law, it's to do with how the most pennies are squeezed out of someone else's pocket knowingly with an unfair advantage, then giving that person grief when they question it.

 

Morals. Not law.

[slym2none]

"Illegal" and "wrong" are two different things.

 

And now that I know most auction houses are allowed to do such things, I will never give any of them my business, buying or selling. Not that I ever did anyway, so no real loss to them.

 

 

 

-slym

[DougC]

 

It's probably the way all estate auction houses work in states where it is allowed legally. Most people who regularly bid in estate auctions in MO probably know that,

 

This is not exactly true, while I have no problems with Mound City Auctions they use a less than explicate reserve system than most Missouri auction houses. The main problem is the "appearance" of valid interested bidders against a reserve. Mound City does make any reserve very clear although they use an in crowd employee to reserve bid in order to help items reach said reserve artificially. This is not illegal but it does strain the validity and trustworthiness of the company as for all purposes it looks exactly like shill bidding.

 

Most auction houses in Missouri that use reserves do not use the above method. They state that an item carries a reserve then let the bidders action unfold. If the item meets the reserve it will sell, if the item does not meet the reserve the hammer falls with a no sale, but there are a number of after auction options. First if the last bid is close they will offer the item to the buyer at the reserve, if the buyer does not want the item they will ask the seller if he wishes to lower his reserve. If the seller wishes to lower his reserve they will "ask" the last bidder if he wishes to purchase the item at the last bid. Either yes or no is given, regardless the situation is over.

[JollyComics]

I won Our Army at War #81 and #83 from the associated comics (total of 12 books) for $225. After keeping #81 & #83, I sold them for like $85 included 2nd appearance of M. Mille. Got them graded: #81 CGC 3.0 and #83 CGC 2.5. Sold #81 for $265 and #83 for $708.

 

Also, I won Our Army at War #112 CGC 6.5 and sold it on ebay for $561. I paid it for only $175. I won several books from him at few times. I don't think they bid on us unless they wanted to own it. Some of his employees wanted to bid too. I was told that few employees of mycomicshop were allowed to bid for themselves.

 

Yes, they are legit with the licenses.

 

So your validation for this auction house is that you made some money off of them ?

 

Yes. I made three nice profits on three different books after winning them from their second comic book auction after Mound City Collection.

 

I think they were not happy with Proxibid Internet Auction because of their losses instead of making profits on the second auction. They severed their relationship with Proxibid and started with AuctionZip. I think they can control the auction right now.

[JollyComics]

 

It's probably the way all estate auction houses work in states where it is allowed legally. Most people who regularly bid in estate auctions in MO probably know that,

 

This is not exactly true, while I have no problems with Mound City Auctions they use a less than explicate reserve system than most Missouri auction houses. The main problem is the "appearance" of valid interested bidders against a reserve. Mound City does make any reserve very clear although they use an in crowd employee to reserve bid in order to help items reach said reserve artificially. This is not illegal but it does strain the validity and trustworthiness of the company as for all purposes it looks exactly like shill bidding.

 

Most auction houses in Missouri that use reserves do not use the above method. They state that an item carries a reserve then let the bidders action unfold. If the item meets the reserve it will sell, if the item does not meet the reserve the hammer falls with a no sale, but there are a number of after auction options. First if the last bid is close they will offer the item to the buyer at the reserve, if the buyer does not want the item they will ask the seller if he wishes to lower his reserve. If the seller wishes to lower his reserve they will "ask" the last bidder if he wishes to purchase the item at the last bid. Either yes or no is given, regardless the situation is over.

 

I met them at Chicago Wizard World two years ago and chatted with them included his wife over the phone few times. They are professionals and nice decent people. They are pretty quick learners about the comic book stuffs. Also they recently exhibited at St. Louis Wizard World.

[VintageComics]

Is the law unethical? That's really what is at the heart of the discussion.

 

No it isn't. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's morally right. It's nothing to do with the law, it's to do with how the most pennies are squeezed out of someone else's pocket knowingly with an unfair advantage, then giving that person grief when they question it.

 

Morals. Not law.

 

I'm not sure that using morals is appropriate in his discussion but I'm willing to consider it.

 

Morals are based on conscience - a person has to make a decision against their own in order to be immoral...and in order to prove that, you'd need to prove intent to deceive.

 

I don't think a business can be moral or immoral because it doesn't have a conscience. It's either legal or illegal.

 

Are they operating legally or illegally?

 

Laws of any society are a product of social norms (what society deems to be acceptable - or ethical) at the time and place that the law is instituted.

 

For example, there are laws that used to be considered ethical (slavery or beating your wife) at the time that are now no longer considered appropriate.

 

My understanding is that you can't bid in most auctions unless you agree to the terms of the auction house.

 

Is it a question of morals if a potential bidder had to enter a binding agreement before bidding and accept the terms of the agreement?

 

Laws are generally related to what is socially acceptable (or legal) at the time and place that it occurs.

 

Where you get disagreements is when you get people from different times and places taking exception to what is the law of the land in a particular place.

 

I agree with you that it could be considered immoral the auctioneer was deceptive in some way but that doesn't seem to be the case here. They seemed to be transparent with the rules.

 

That's why I consider it a misunderstanding or a cultural difference more than anything else.

[mrmyst]

"Illegal" and "wrong" are two different things.

 

And now that I know most auction houses are allowed to do such things, I will never give any of them my business, buying or selling. Not that I ever did anyway, so no real loss to them.

 

 

 

-slym

Not all do.

[VintageComics]

 

It's probably the way all estate auction houses work in states where it is allowed legally. Most people who regularly bid in estate auctions in MO probably know that,

 

This is not exactly true, while I have no problems with Mound City Auctions they use a less than explicate reserve system than most Missouri auction houses. The main problem is the "appearance" of valid interested bidders against a reserve. Mound City does make any reserve very clear although they use an in crowd employee to reserve bid in order to help items reach said reserve artificially. This is not illegal but it does strain the validity and trustworthiness of the company as for all purposes it looks exactly like shill bidding.

 

Most auction houses in Missouri that use reserves do not use the above method. They state that an item carries a reserve then let the bidders action unfold. If the item meets the reserve it will sell, if the item does not meet the reserve the hammer falls with a no sale, but there are a number of after auction options. First if the last bid is close they will offer the item to the buyer at the reserve, if the buyer does not want the item they will ask the seller if he wishes to lower his reserve. If the seller wishes to lower his reserve they will "ask" the last bidder if he wishes to purchase the item at the last bid. Either yes or no is given, regardless the situation is over.

 

Fair enough, but it does make a very interesting discussion (for me anyway) into what constitutes morality vs. legality vs. ethics.

 

(thumbs u

[Flaming_Telepath]

That's why I consider it a misunderstanding or a cultural difference more than anything else.

 

So, lack of transparency and running up auction sale prices can now be put down to 'cultural differences'?

 

Oh, dear.

[LetThereBeComics-migration]

That's why I consider it a misunderstanding or a cultural difference more than anything else.

 

So, lack of transparency and running up auction sale prices can now be put down to 'cultural differences'?

 

Oh, dear.

 

Imagine the "cultural differences" if a Brit bid on a Mound City auction!

[VintageComics]

That's why I consider it a misunderstanding or a cultural difference more than anything else.

 

So, lack of transparency and running up auction sale prices can now be put down to 'cultural differences'?

 

Oh, dear.

 

Please don't shift the discussion at me. I used cultural difference because I didn't know what other phrase to use.

 

I was not speaking about my own personal morality of whether I would consider it OK or not. That's not what is being discussed.

 

Personally, I don't agree with the law but that's not up to me, is it?

 

As long as the business was running within the parameters of the law (and from what I read in this thread and the video I saw, they seemed to be) there seems to be nothing more than a difference in understanding.

 

 

[slym2none]

"Illegal" and "wrong" are two different things.

 

And now that I know most auction houses are allowed to do such things, I will never give any of them my business, buying or selling. Not that I ever did anyway, so no real loss to them.

 

-slym

Not all do.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[mrmyst]

"Illegal" and "wrong" are two different things.

 

And now that I know most auction houses are allowed to do such things, I will never give any of them my business, buying or selling. Not that I ever did anyway, so no real loss to them.

 

-slym

Not all do.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Transplant]

It's not so much a question of what's legal as it is what's generally accepted in the comics community. Most state laws won't prohibt trimming or undisclosed resto, doesn't make it an accepted practice. I realize its not quite the same but let's not get stuck on what's legal or not.

 

I think Richard's point is the most salient one in this thread.