Mound City Auctions

[Sqeggs]

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.

 

Well, there's also this (quoting Dr. Love's earlier post):

 

As far as the legal obligation part on the part of the underbidder, that is the crux of the matter. Mike Bradley, who Mound City refers to as a source of information on the auction process, has an informative post that references this subject, "So Your Bid Is Irrevocable?":

 

http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/your-bid-is-irrevocable/

 

 

"Natalie correctly references state law in every state in the United States (Louisiana by practice, rather than expression) that the UCC 2-328 (3) says:

 

Such a sale is with reserve unless the goods are in explicit terms put up without reserve. In an auction with reserve the auctioneer may withdraw the goods at any time until he announces completion of the sale. In an auction without reserve, after the auctioneer calls for bids on an article or lot, that article or lot cannot be withdrawn unless no bid is made within a reasonable time. In either case a bidder may retract his bid until the auctioneer’s announcement of completion of the sale, but a bidder’s retraction does not revive any previous bid. "

 

Note the last sentence (my emphasis).

 

[sufunk]

The bid retraction is the problem with this auction. Like the OP has repeatedly said, allowing the seller to bid and then retract their last bid once the book has reached its absolute maximum is shady as hell. It may be legal but i dont care what anyone says or what was disclosed before, during or after the auction. That is SHADY as hell!

 

The seller has absolutely zero risk and can just bid and bid and bid until everyone else stops and then just retract the bid and drop the book in the lap of the previous bidder. That is so far from what i would call a honest fair auction i cant even put it into words. I cant believe that ANYONE would bid in an auction like that if it was clearly explained that was what was going to happen.

[VintageComics]

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.

 

That's exactly why I called it a cultural difference 2 days ago. Someone familiar with the process wouldn't call it shady. Someone only familiar with their usual comic auctions might.

 

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.

 

We are all saying the same thing 2 different ways. There is a cover out there looking for an interior. There is someone who has a cover out there looking for an interior. Figures of speech.

 

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)

 

I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

The bid retraction is the problem with this auction.

 

That's the conclusion I came to as well.

 

I still don't think shady is the right word because they did fully disclose the procedure. Shady (by nature of the word) means something was hidden or obscured - ie. in the shade or shadow. It wasn't. Full disclosure was made about the process, so nothing was hidden.

 

The bid retraction is the problem because it changes all of the original parameters of the auction. that's why I said last night that it made the process dysfunctional.

 

That's why I asked if the internet bidder was privy to the same information that the live bidder was.

[sufunk]

So they fully disclosed to the buyers before the auction that the owner(or wife on behalf of the books owners) could bid and then at any time retract their last bid and stick the book on the previous bidder even if its under reserve???

 

If they actually explained that, i cant believe there were still people willing to bid in the auction. It's hard to believe that was FULLY explained

[fantastic_four]

The bid retraction is the problem with this auction. Like the OP has repeatedly said, allowing the seller to bid and then retract their last bid once the book has reached its absolute maximum is shady as hell. It may be legal but i dont care what anyone says or what was disclosed before, during or after the auction. That is SHADY as hell!

 

What's the difference between the way Mrs. Mound City did it to bluechip and doing it without bidding but just selling it to the high bid under the reserve? I see no functional difference and suspect Mound City only did it that way because it was the only way their online auction software at the time allowed them to do it. I do see why in retrospect after the auction is over it would someone off to see all those bids and then the final retracted bid, but I have little problem with their method given that's there's no functional difference that I can think of.

[MatterEaterLad]

Would someone just shoot this dead horse.

 

 

 

[sufunk]

The bid retraction is the problem with this auction. Like the OP has repeatedly said, allowing the seller to bid and then retract their last bid once the book has reached its absolute maximum is shady as hell. It may be legal but i dont care what anyone says or what was disclosed before, during or after the auction. That is SHADY as hell!

 

What's the difference between the way Mrs. Mound City did it to bluechip and doing it without bidding but just selling it to the high bid under the reserve? I see no functional difference and suspect Mound City only did it that way because it was the only way their online auction software at the time allowed them to do it. I do see why in retrospect after the auction is over it would someone off to see all those bids and then the final retracted bid, but I have little problem with their method given that's there's no functional difference that I can think of.

 

Selling it to the high bid under reserve still has a semblance of fair play to it. Allowing the OWNER of the book to keep bidding though until its clear there are no more bids and then retract their bit is the shady part. Unlike just selling it to the high bid under reserve, this allows the seller to SHILL the bid up to its absolute maximum. Thats a BIG problem imo.

 

And yes, this was a SHILL bid since the owner of the book had no intention whatsoever of buying or risk of eating the book if it was stuck with the high bid. They bid it up with no intention of buying the book, just bidding to get it to its highest price before retracting their bid and dumping it on the OP.

[Sqeggs]

I still don't think shady is the right word because they did fully disclose the procedure. Shady (by nature of the word) means something was hidden or obscured - ie. in the shade or shadow. It wasn't. Full disclosure was made about the process, so nothing was hidden.

 

The Dr. Love quote seems to indicate the practice is contrary to the UCC but maybe I'm missing something.

[fantastic_four]

Selling it to the high bid under reserve still has a semblance of fair play to it. Allowing the OWNER of the book to keep bidding though until its clear there are no more bids and then retract their bit is the shady part. Unlike just selling it to the high bid under reserve, this allows the seller to SHILL the bid up to its absolute maximum. Thats a BIG problem imo.

 

And yes, this was a SHILL bid since the owner of the book had no intention whatsoever of buying or risk of eating the book if it was stuck with the high bid. They bid it up with no intention of buying the book, just bidding to get it to its highest price before retracting their bid and dumping it on the OP.

 

Except that the owner didn't bid on the book, but , seems like two-thirds of the people throwing their two cents in just keep assuming they did. I think that'll have to be repeated another few dozen more times before people notice it. For the umpteenth time--Mrs. Mound City who did not own the books but was selling them on behalf of the owners--was bidding to discover the high bid under the reserve, and once she passed it, she knew she had found it, so she then retracted that bid. There's just no difference between doing that and outright selling it to the high bidder under the reserve other than the appearance of shadiness for people who didn't know they were selling books to high bidders under the reserve. Nobody who bids in comics auctions will like them selling the book to the high bidder under the reserve because we've never seen it. I know I don't like it.

 

It's worth repeating again that Mound City had every opportunity to buy that Silver collection on the cheap, but it was their choice not to do that and instead to just auction it on behalf of the family instead of pillaging the collection for pennies on the dollar. That's the main reason people familiar with the auction are vouching for their honesty--it's doubtful that any more than a small fraction of comics sellers would have done that.

[sufunk]

Selling it to the high bid under reserve still has a semblance of fair play to it. Allowing the OWNER of the book to keep bidding though until its clear there are no more bids and then retract their bit is the shady part. Unlike just selling it to the high bid under reserve, this allows the seller to SHILL the bid up to its absolute maximum. Thats a BIG problem imo.

 

And yes, this was a SHILL bid since the owner of the book had no intention whatsoever of buying or risk of eating the book if it was stuck with the high bid. They bid it up with no intention of buying the book, just bidding to get it to its highest price before retracting their bid and dumping it on the OP.

 

Except that the owner didn't bid on the book, but , seems like two-thirds of the people throwing their two cents in just keep assuming they did. I think that'll have to be repeated another few dozen more times before people notice it. For the umpteenth time--Mrs. Mound City who did not own the books but was selling them on behalf of the owners--was bidding to discover the high bid under the reserve, and once she passed it, she knew she had found it, so she then retracted that bid. There's just no difference between doing that and outright selling it to the high bidder under the reserve other than the appearance of shadiness for people who didn't know they were selling books to high bidders under the reserve. Nobody who bids in comics auctions will like them selling the book to the high bidder under the reserve because we've never seen it. I know I don't like it.

 

It's worth repeating again that Mound City had every opportunity to buy that Silver collection on the cheap, but it was their choice not to do that and instead to just auction it on behalf of the family instead of pillaging the collection for pennies on the dollar. That's the main reason people familiar with the auction are vouching for their honesty--it's doubtful that any more than a small fraction of comics sellers would have done that.

 

I dont see a difference between the owner bidding or the wife of MCA doing it on their behalf. To me, theres a HUGE difference in what happened here and what would happen with HA. If you and I bid a book up but still under reserve, thats a FAIR auction and finding a books true maximum between two true bidders. The owners agent bidding me up with ZERO intention of buying the book(just bidding to find my maximum before retracting their last bid) is NOT a fair auction. Without the owner bidding, the OP would have gotten this book at least a few bids earlier based on his account. The "maximum" this book reached was completely false since the owner just bid until it reached its maximum and then retracted.

 

Oh, and any goodwill they might have earned by not raping the family and auctioning the books went down the drain with these auctions "tactics" in my book

[VintageComics]

I still don't think shady is the right word because they did fully disclose the procedure. Shady (by nature of the word) means something was hidden or obscured - ie. in the shade or shadow. It wasn't. Full disclosure was made about the process, so nothing was hidden.

 

The Dr. Love quote seems to indicate the practice is contrary to the UCC but maybe I'm missing something.

 

I suppose it's high time a lawyer who is versed in auction law chimed in rather than me.

 

Selling it to the high bid under reserve still has a semblance of fair play to it. Allowing the OWNER of the book to keep bidding though until its clear there are no more bids and then retract their bit is the shady part. Unlike just selling it to the high bid under reserve, this allows the seller to SHILL the bid up to its absolute maximum. Thats a BIG problem imo.

 

And yes, this was a SHILL bid since the owner of the book had no intention whatsoever of buying or risk of eating the book if it was stuck with the high bid. They bid it up with no intention of buying the book, just bidding to get it to its highest price before retracting their bid and dumping it on the OP.

 

Except that the owner didn't bid on the book, but , seems like two-thirds of the people throwing their two cents in just keep assuming they did. I think that'll have to be repeated another few dozen more times before people notice it. For the umpteenth time--Mrs. Mound City who did not own the books but was selling them on behalf of the owners--was bidding to discover the high bid under the reserve, and once she passed it, she knew she had found it, so she then retracted that bid. There's just no difference between doing that and outright selling it to the high bidder under the reserve other than the appearance of shadiness for people who didn't know they were selling books to high bidders under the reserve. Nobody who bids in comics auctions will like them selling the book to the high bidder under the reserve because we've never seen it. I know I don't like it.

 

It's worth repeating again that Mound City had every opportunity to buy that Silver collection on the cheap, but it was their choice not to do that and instead to just auction it on behalf of the family instead of pillaging the collection for pennies on the dollar. That's the main reason people familiar with the auction are vouching for their honesty--it's doubtful that any more than a small fraction of comics sellers would have done that.

 

That's how I see it too. Their job is to net as much as they can for the seller through legal and appropriate channels.

 

If they were dishonest they would have hired a shill to bid anonymously and then back out. Because full disclosure of the entire procedure was made, I can't describe it as dishonest.

 

It may have been different, dysfunctional or strange - but they weren't dishonest about it.

 

And yes, the owner of the $1MIL collection told MCA to give them $5000 and take the books away. They turned the offer down to net the most they could for the owner of the books. They knew what an AF #15 and and X-men #1 were when the actual owner offered them the books.

 

Even after the books were committed to auction, they also fielded several 6 figure offers from various dealers and turned them all down.

[sufunk]

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???

[fantastic_four]

I dont see a difference between the owner bidding or the wife of MCA doing it on their behalf. To me, theres a HUGE difference in what happened here and what would happen with HA.

 

If Heritage decided tomorrow to start selling books to high bidders under the reserve, there would be exactly no difference except one--Heritage owns and codes their own web site, so they'd be able to see what the high bid under the reserve is and wouldn't have to bid to find it. There's just no other difference in the end result at all other than people mistakenly thinking that there is one.

[sufunk]

I dont see a difference between the owner bidding or the wife of MCA doing it on their behalf. To me, theres a HUGE difference in what happened here and what would happen with HA.

 

If Heritage decided tomorrow to start selling books to high bidders under the reserve, there would be exactly no difference except one--Heritage owns and codes their own web site, so they'd be able to see what the high bid under the reserve is and wouldn't have to bid to find it. There's just no other functional difference at all other than people mistakenly thinking there is one.

 

It would only be the same if the owner(or their agents) were bidding the book up on HA against me instead of another "true" bidder.

 

Thats my problem here. If you and I are bidding a book on HA with a $5000 reserve and we bid it up from $2500 to $4500 and then they sell it to whichever of us was high bid under reserve, thats a true fair auction. If you dropped out of the bidding at $2500 though and the only other person bidding against me is the owner(or his agent) who bids me up from $2500 to $4500 with ZERO intention of buying the book, that is NOT a true fair auction. Thats the owner(or his agent) shilling me up knowing they can just retract their bid once they find my max.

 

Two COMPLETELY different scenarios imo. The 1st is what happens on HA, the 2nd is apparently what happened with MCA.

[VintageComics]

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.

 

 

[sufunk]

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?

[joeypost]

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.

[gaz973]

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

[Mxwll Smrt]

The bid retraction is the problem with this auction. Like the OP has repeatedly said, allowing the seller to bid and then retract their last bid once the book has reached its absolute maximum is shady as hell. It may be legal but i dont care what anyone says or what was disclosed before, during or after the auction. That is SHADY as hell!

 

The seller has absolutely zero risk and can just bid and bid and bid until everyone else stops and then just retract the bid and drop the book in the lap of the previous bidder. That is so far from what i would call a honest fair auction i cant even put it into words. I cant believe that ANYONE would bid in an auction like that if it was clearly explained that was what was going to happen.

 

I agree. Most people find the notion of "treasure Hunting" quite alluring, especially when collecting; I know at times I have. Online auctions, such as the one(s) managed by MCA, provide a forum for such. Unfortunately for most, its a difficult lesson to accept when reality sets in and one realizes they've been ensnared by someone who is very cunning - that the entire experience was more of an illusion than anything else (kind of like the one with that girl I've been feeding $20.00 bills in the strip club - she really likes me and thinks I'm brilliant and wants to ...).

 

As for me, I could care less what Vlassic or Mite state on this board. I find their argument thin. I'd like to know from some of the attorneys here what legally prevails in a case of possible conflict betwen MO. state law and that of other states because of the method(s) of auction - live and internet. I'd also like to know if the principle of Equitable Estopple play a part (Acquiescence).

 

I'd also like to thank MCA. Their actions and comments have pointed out that as collectors, dealers, etc., we need an organization that provides our stamp of approval on how they, members of the NAA, conduct their business - especially where comics are concerned. If they don't have the stamp then they can't be trusted. Legality and loopholes are one thing - but trust is the only thing - without it nothing good can be built there upon.

 

Lastly, I agree with you and countless others here on this board that what happened is shady. I'm not going to argue the intellectual details between ethics and morality - I'm driven by what I was taught by my Grandfather - "don't deceive people, it'll give you a bad name. One day you'll learn all you'll really ever have is your name".

 

They should have simply apologized and looked to amend their behavior - and the veiled threats were amusing.

 

 

 

[Comicopolis]

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'.