Mound City Auctions

[comicwiz]

I completely disagree that bids against the reserve are not "real bids."

 

I don't want to belabour this point, but he did say his wife was "bidding the reserve" which is why I don't consider them real bids, and can understand why her highest bid before meeting reserve was withdrawn when the owner agreed to accept the second highest bid (yours).

 

If it's Heritage saying their own people are bidding on their items to win, then I can see that being a better example of "real bids."

[fantastic_four]

I completely disagree that bids against the reserve are not "real bids."

 

I don't want to belabour this point, but he did say his wife was "bidding the reserve" which is why I don't consider them real bids, and can understand why her highest bid before meeting reserve was withdrawn when the owner agreed to accept the second highest bid (yours).

 

It doesn't seem likely that she bid up to the reserve since she bid a bunch of times. They knew what the reserves were, so there'd be no point in repeated bidding to get to them. It seems most likely that they were bidding solely to uncover the highest proxy bids under the reserve.

[blazingbob]

I agree with you on this. Jim Halpern would be up at the podium "supposedly" bidding on items he wanted to purchase. Which to me still isn't right but supposedly he was "bidding to win it". The "Wife" bid is more a way to push a consignor closer to the reserve. And I'm sorry if I missed this but are those "wife bids" noted while I'm bidding. Normally I equate a outbid notice as another "real" bidder, not a "get me closer to the reserve bump"

[bluechip]

I completely disagree that bids against the reserve are not "real bids."

 

I don't want to belabour this point, but he did say his wife was "bidding the reserve" which is why I don't consider them real bids, and can understand why her highest bid before meeting reserve was withdrawn when the owner agreed to accept the second highest bid (yours).

 

If it's Heritage saying their own people are bidding on their items to win, then I can see that being a better example of "real bids."

 

That logic doesn't hold up. It's not just about whether they are bidding to "win" but also about bidding to supersede your bid, to reject your bid. To OUTBID your bid.

 

If they wanted to be clear, they would say "these are not 'real' bids, even though we're calling it a bid, and we can retract them, while you cannot retract yours (or you can retract yours but only if you are on the phone with the auction house)"

 

There is nothing within the term "bidding the reserve" that implies, let alone makes clear, that those bids are not "bids" or that they can be made and withdrawn to stretch other bidders (the "real" ones) to their maximum.

 

 

 

 

 

[Silver Surfer]

Wife bidding up the auction house inventory and retracting bids, now I have heard of everything. This hobby is so full of sellers/dealers/auction houses rigging the system to screw buyers at every possible angle that its a joke.

[Dale Roberts]

Wife bidding up the auction house inventory and retracting bids, now I have heard of everything. This hobby is so full of sellers/dealers/auction houses rigging the system to screw buyers at every possible angle that its a joke.

 

The best way to stop this kind of thing is to simply not participate in any auction in which that practice occurs. The problem is that some people will try to bid on anything that they think they can make a buck on, or get a super deal on.

[Mark 1]

Wife bidding up the auction house inventory and retracting bids, now I have heard of everything. This hobby is so full of sellers/dealers/auction houses rigging the system to screw buyers at every possible angle that its a joke.

 

The best way to stop this kind of thing is to simply not participate in any auction in which that practice occurs. The problem is that some people will try to bid on anything that they think they can make a buck on, or get a super deal on.

 

or find their crack

 

Some just have to have THAT book and forget who might be selling it.

[sufunk]

Wife bidding up the auction house inventory and retracting bids, now I have heard of everything. This hobby is so full of sellers/dealers/auction houses rigging the system to screw buyers at every possible angle that its a joke.

 

The best way to stop this kind of thing is to simply not participate in any auction in which that practice occurs. The problem is that some people will try to bid on anything that they think they can make a buck on, or get a super deal on.

 

I dont think they knew. No matter how many times i hear it was clear and obvious what was going on, the OP certainly didnt know what was going on. I cant imagine ANYONE bothering to bid if they knew the wife was going to bid on behalf of the owner, she could retract her bid at any time, AND if she does this, you are OBLIGATED to buy the book at your previous bid even if under reserve.

 

I cannot believe someone KNEW all 3 of those things and still bid. The OP clearly didnt but id be shocked if anyone else did who bid

[VintageComics]

That's why I say that the best thing that came out of this entire thread is the awareness (in detail) that the practice is out there. More knowledge is better and knowledge only comes out through discussion.

[sufunk]

That's why I say that the best thing that came out of this entire thread is the awareness (in detail) that the practice is out there. More knowledge is better and knowledge only comes out through discussion.

 

Did you bid in this auction Roy?

[VintageComics]

That's why I say that the best thing that came out of this entire thread is the awareness (in detail) that the practice is out there. More knowledge is better and knowledge only comes out through discussion.

 

Did you bid in this auction Roy?

 

Nope. I shared earlier in this thread that I only bid in their big 2009 auction when the original Mound City collection was found. Haven't bid in one since. I rarely bid in auctions - I often don't have the time to scroll through the numerous auctions out there.

 

 

[sufunk]

Did any other boardie in this thread bid either phone or in person in this auction?

 

I'm VERY curious if any of the other bidders knew all 3 of these things:

 

1) the owners wife was bidding on behalf of the seller

 

2) She could withraw her bid at any time(and apparently so could you)

 

3) when she withdrew her bid, you were OBLIGATED to buy the book at your previous bid even if it was under reserve if the seller decided to

 

Was anyone else there that can answer if they knew these 3 things prior to or during bidding?

[Mark 1]

[Sqeggs]

Here is the whole (I think) section from the Uniform Commercial Code governing auctions:

 

"§ 2-328. Sale by Auction.

 

(1) In a sale by auction if goods are put up in lots each lot is the subject of a separate sale.

 

(2) A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer so announces by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner. Where a bid is made while the hammer is falling in acceptance of a prior bid the auctioneer may in his discretion reopen the bidding or declare the goods sold under the bid on which the hammer was falling.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) If the auctioneer knowingly receives a bid on the seller's behalf or the seller makes or procures such a bid, and notice has not been given that liberty for such bidding is reserved, the buyer may at his option avoid the sale or take the goods at the price of the last good faith bid prior to the completion of the sale. This subsection shall not apply to any bid at a forced sale."

 

Doesn't the last sentence in section (3) appear to invalidate the procedure used in this auction? I'm not a lawyer and I'm not certain that MCA's procedure is contrary to the UCC -- nor do I even know whether the UCC is binding in this respect, anyway -- but I sure would be interested in someone with legal training offering an opinion.

[MusterMark]

Here is the whole (I think) section from the Uniform Commercial Code governing auctions:

 

"§ 2-328. Sale by Auction.

 

(1) In a sale by auction if goods are put up in lots each lot is the subject of a separate sale.

 

(2) A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer so announces by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner. Where a bid is made while the hammer is falling in acceptance of a prior bid the auctioneer may in his discretion reopen the bidding or declare the goods sold under the bid on which the hammer was falling.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) If the auctioneer knowingly receives a bid on the seller's behalf or the seller makes or procures such a bid, and notice has not been given that liberty for such bidding is reserved, the buyer may at his option avoid the sale or take the goods at the price of the last good faith bid prior to the completion of the sale. This subsection shall not apply to any bid at a forced sale."

 

Doesn't the last sentence in section (3) appear to invalidate the procedure used in this auction? I'm not a lawyer and I'm not certain that MCA's procedure is contrary to the UCC -- nor do I even know whether the UCC is binding in this respect, anyway -- but I sure would be interested in someone with legal training offering an opinion.

 

I guess that would depend on what

revive any previous bid

means.

By ANY, do they mean that it does not revive any of that bidder's own previous bids, or any other bidder's previous bids, or both?

And what exactly does REVIVE mean in this context?

 

[Dr. Love]

What is unclear in my mind at this point is whether that section of Code governs this auction and, if so, whether (in theory let's say so we bypass for now what the OP agreed to or didn't) an agreement by the OP to a practice that is directly contrary to this Code (lets call it: a bidder's retraction leaves the previous bid standing if the previous bid is not withdrawn prior to seller's acceptance) trumps the law.

 

More on this revive a bid concept, which is crucial to this conversation, from The Antique Trader, Wayne Jordan, 11/18/2011: "Absolute versus reserve auctions: Is it ever legal to retract a bid?". Apparently, upon retraction, not only is the last bid not a live bid anymore, no prior bids are, and the bidding GOES BACK TO ZERO.

 

"OK, auction buffs, its pop quiz time!

 

Here’s the scenario: You’re at an auction, and the lot being offered is a Conoco sign. There are four primary bidders. Bidder A drops out at $200; Bidder B drops out at $300, and Bidders C and D drive the bidding up to $600. Bidder C then bids $650, but gets a sharp elbow in the ribs from his wife. Bidder C then frantically waves his arms saying “I’m out, I withdraw my bid.” The auctioneer should:

 

A. Refuse to release Bidder C from his bid because a bid is legally binding.

 

B. Release Bidder C from his bid and pick up the bidding with the next higher bid, Bidder D’s bid for $600.

 

C. Start the bidding over from zero.

 

The correct answer is C: Start the bidding over from zero. The reason for this is found in the Uniform Commercial Code.

 

Although state auction rules vary slightly, all states (except Louisiana) base their auction law on the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC. According to the UCC, (section 2-238 paragraph 3): “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.”

 

I’ve heard auctioneers argue vehemently in favor of each of the three alternatives listed above. If some auctioneers aren’t clear on the law, it’s no wonder that the auction-going public is a little confused.

When the high bidder drops out, does the bidding start again at the second highest bid?

 

I’ve seen this tactic used occasionally by auctioneers, and it’s illegal, as well. In the scenario offered above, the auctioneer would be wrong to say, “The last bid was $600; will you bid $625?” The price went up to $600 based on the competition between bidders C and D. Remove either of them from the competition and the price may never have gone that high. The auctioneer, therefore, is required to drop the price back to zero (or whatever the starting offer was) and then re-open the bidding. As the UCC says, “a bidder’s retraction does not revive any previous bid.”

 

OK, you say, that's just one guy on the internet. How about another from Storage Auctions.com, "A Rare Surprise" by Tom Litton, 12/17/2011:

 

"I conducted my last auction of the year and was reminded of a little known area of law, bid retraction. Not many buyers know this but the Uniform Commercial Code allows a bidder to retract their bid as long as it is completed before the customary fall of the hammer.

 

During the auction, I had two bidders fighting aggressively for a 10x30 unit. I had my high bidder at $1,300 when I saw her husband whisper to her. She suddenly yelled "Wait, I don't want to bid now!" One of my more vocal/loyal buyers said "Hey, lady, you can't do that!" Soon many others weighed in and began opining about her "rookie" behavior. I stopped everyone and stated that she could in fact retract her bid and that we would have to start the bidding all over. We restarted the bidding and the unit sold for $1,050 instead.

 

After the auction, a group gathered around me and were confused about what happened. I explained the following: Although state auction rules vary slightly, all states (except Louisiana) base their auction law on the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC. According to the UCC, (section 2-238 paragraph 3): “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.” The entire group was surprised to hear that this was even possible.

 

I have only had this happen three times in 29 years. In all three instances, the restart of the bidding yielded a lower price on the unit/item being sold."

 

 

Rob Lite, Rob Classic, this is the point at which a reference to direct legal text, as compared to threats of legal action, would be most helpful.

 

[MusterMark]

What is unclear in my mind at this point is whether that section of Code governs this auction and, if so, whether (in theory let's say so we bypass for now what the OP agreed to or didn't) an agreement by the OP to a practice that is directly contrary to this Code (lets call it: a bidder's retraction leaves the previous bid standing if the previous bid is not withdrawn prior to seller's acceptance) trumps the law.

 

More on this revive a bid concept, which is crucial to this conversation, from The Antique Trader, Wayne Jordan, 11/18/2011: "Absolute versus reserve auctions: Is it ever legal to retract a bid?". Apparently, upon retraction, not only is the last bid not a live bid anymore, no prior bids are, and the bidding GOES BACK TO ZERO.

 

"OK, auction buffs, its pop quiz time!

 

Here’s the scenario: You’re at an auction, and the lot being offered is a Conoco sign. There are four primary bidders. Bidder A drops out at $200; Bidder B drops out at $300, and Bidders C and D drive the bidding up to $600. Bidder C then bids $650, but gets a sharp elbow in the ribs from his wife. Bidder C then frantically waves his arms saying “I’m out, I withdraw my bid.” The auctioneer should:

 

A. Refuse to release Bidder C from his bid because a bid is legally binding.

 

B. Release Bidder C from his bid and pick up the bidding with the next higher bid, Bidder D’s bid for $600.

 

C. Start the bidding over from zero.

 

The correct answer is C: Start the bidding over from zero. The reason for this is found in the Uniform Commercial Code.

 

Although state auction rules vary slightly, all states (except Louisiana) base their auction law on the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC. According to the UCC, (section 2-238 paragraph 3): “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.”

 

I’ve heard auctioneers argue vehemently in favor of each of the three alternatives listed above. If some auctioneers aren’t clear on the law, it’s no wonder that the auction-going public is a little confused.

When the high bidder drops out, does the bidding start again at the second highest bid?

 

I’ve seen this tactic used occasionally by auctioneers, and it’s illegal, as well. In the scenario offered above, the auctioneer would be wrong to say, “The last bid was $600; will you bid $625?” The price went up to $600 based on the competition between bidders C and D. Remove either of them from the competition and the price may never have gone that high. The auctioneer, therefore, is required to drop the price back to zero (or whatever the starting offer was) and then re-open the bidding. As the UCC says, “a bidder’s retraction does not revive any previous bid.”

 

OK, you say, that's just one guy on the internet. How about another from Storage Auctions.com, "A Rare Surprise" by Tom Litton, 12/17/2011:

 

"I conducted my last auction of the year and was reminded of a little known area of law, bid retraction. Not many buyers know this but the Uniform Commercial Code allows a bidder to retract their bid as long as it is completed before the customary fall of the hammer.

 

During the auction, I had two bidders fighting aggressively for a 10x30 unit. I had my high bidder at $1,300 when I saw her husband whisper to her. She suddenly yelled "Wait, I don't want to bid now!" One of my more vocal/loyal buyers said "Hey, lady, you can't do that!" Soon many others weighed in and began opining about her "rookie" behavior. I stopped everyone and stated that she could in fact retract her bid and that we would have to start the bidding all over. We restarted the bidding and the unit sold for $1,050 instead.

 

After the auction, a group gathered around me and were confused about what happened. I explained the following: Although state auction rules vary slightly, all states (except Louisiana) base their auction law on the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC. According to the UCC, (section 2-238 paragraph 3): “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.” The entire group was surprised to hear that this was even possible.

 

I have only had this happen three times in 29 years. In all three instances, the restart of the bidding yielded a lower price on the unit/item being sold."

 

 

Rob Lite, Rob Classic, this is the point at which a reference to direct legal text, as compared to threats of legal action, would be most helpful.

 

Your post/argument is interesting. Thanks.

I guess then another (next) question would be as follows:

 

The UCC Code speaks of "bidding" and "bidders".

The question is: Would that terminology include the auctioneer's wife/staff, as they were "bidding" on behalf of the owner/reserve. Is that BIDDING? Or is that the auctioneer staff acting on behalf of the seller/reserve? That is, would that qualify as "bidding" in the sense that the UCC Code speaks of??

 

 

[bluechip]

Here is the whole (I think) section from the Uniform Commercial Code governing auctions:

 

"§ 2-328. Sale by Auction.

 

(1) In a sale by auction if goods are put up in lots each lot is the subject of a separate sale.

 

(2) A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer so announces by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner. Where a bid is made while the hammer is falling in acceptance of a prior bid the auctioneer may in his discretion reopen the bidding or declare the goods sold under the bid on which the hammer was falling.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) If the auctioneer knowingly receives a bid on the seller's behalf or the seller makes or procures such a bid, and notice has not been given that liberty for such bidding is reserved, the buyer may at his option avoid the sale or take the goods at the price of the last good faith bid prior to the completion of the sale. This subsection shall not apply to any bid at a forced sale."

 

Doesn't the last sentence in section (3) appear to invalidate the procedure used in this auction? I'm not a lawyer and I'm not certain that MCA's procedure is contrary to the UCC -- nor do I even know whether the UCC is binding in this respect, anyway -- but I sure would be interested in someone with legal training offering an opinion.

 

I guess that would depend on what

revive any previous bid

means.

By ANY, do they mean that it does not revive any of that bidder's own previous bids, or any other bidder's previous bids, or both?

And what exactly does REVIVE mean in this context?

 

It's not as if there are multiple, divergent meanings for any of the words in the sentence "revive any previous bids."

 

Revive means bring something back. in this case a bid. As mentioned before, once a bid has been "outbid" the previous bid is no longer valid. It's dead. Deceased, It has shuffled off its mortal coil. It is an ex-bid.

 

"any" is perhaps the most pertinent word in this because it's not ambiguous. In this case, without a qualifier, it means all. If it did not mean "all" you would have to add a qualifier, such as "any bid's, except sellers," or "any non-seller bids" or, as somebody sorta suggested, "any real bids" If you intend to remove some things that are called bids, then you must add a qualifier; otherwise it's no longer correct to use the word "any" because it no longer applies.

 

"previous" means bids that were made before the last one.

 

"bid" means "bid" -- an offer to buy at a stated price.

 

 

At least, that is the meaning of the words as understood by us knuckle-draggers.

 

 

[Dr. Love]

Your post/argument is interesting. Thanks.

I guess then another (next) question would be as follows:

 

The UCC Code speaks of "bidding" and "bidders".

The question is: Would that terminology include the auctioneer's wife/staff, as they were "bidding" on behalf of the owner/reserve. Is that BIDDING? Or is that the auctioneer staff acting on behalf of the seller/reserve? That is, would that qualify as "bidding" in the sense that the UCC Code speaks of??

 

Now that's good reasoning. A little out there but still relevant I think. Worthy of follow-up if one wanted to nail this sucker flat flat flat - which I would like to at this point. I'm really curious - you wouldn't think MCA would have such feisty pushback if they were way out there on this one. Or maybe that's the time when you go all in. I'll see what I can find out through the interweb.

[MusterMark]

Your post/argument is interesting. Thanks.

I guess then another (next) question would be as follows:

 

The UCC Code speaks of "bidding" and "bidders".

The question is: Would that terminology include the auctioneer's wife/staff, as they were "bidding" on behalf of the owner/reserve. Is that BIDDING? Or is that the auctioneer staff acting on behalf of the seller/reserve? That is, would that qualify as "bidding" in the sense that the UCC Code speaks of??

 

Now that's good reasoning. A little out there but still relevant I think. Worthy of follow-up if one wanted to nail this sucker flat flat flat - which I would like to at this point. I'm really curious - you wouldn't think MCA would have such feisty pushback if they were way out there on this one. Or maybe that's the time when you go all in. I'll see what I can find out through the interweb.

 

Actually, I believe I may have found the answer to my own question.

It lies in Item (4) of the UCC Code quoted above.

Item (4) speaks about "... a bid received on the seller's behalf ...".

Thus, it seems that the word "bid" as used by the UCC Code does include a seller's bid or on the seller's behalf.

So, if the seller (or agent acting on behalf of seller) withdrew their high bid, it would appear that the bidding would have had to go back to zero (or whatever the bidding had originally been started at).

Unless, of course, if the UCC Code does not even apply for whatever reason ...

(I am not a lawyer myself, nor wish to represent myself as knowing much about any of this. Just curious.).

 

Oh, which, BTW, then means that bluechip should NOT have been held to his bid and asked to pay for the item, whether he knew he could withdraw his own bid OR NOT!

(That is, IF the UCC Code applies ...)