Mound City Auctions

[greggy]

FU, Chris

[THE_BEYONDER]

FU, Chris

 

How many times do I have to tell you?

 

You're not my type

[arexcrooke]

FU, Chris

[arexcrooke]

FU, Chris

 

How many times do I have to tell you?

 

You're not my type

[THE_BEYONDER]

FU, Chris

 

How many times do I have to tell you?

 

You're not my type

 

He's relentless...

[arexcrooke]

Dogged determination

[VintageComics]

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.

 

So you were aware when you bid (because it sounds like you read the rules)...that the auctioneer's wife would be bidding against you?

 

I guess that's fine, unless the auctioneers wife had no intention of winning...and was just bidding to discover the real bidders ceiling.

 

I'm with the I'll stay away from them crowd...there are lots of things that are legal, but are also not ...how can I say this...Nice...

 

It's not always whether you win the game, but how you play.

 

I didn't read the rules. I actually don't know if it's covered in their auction agreement or not. I just assumed it would be because as evidenced by the video, they were transparent and forthcoming with the procedure.

 

When I personally bid on their auction I was bidding live and in person (I did so because the buyer premium is significantly cheaper for live bidders).

 

Had I been bidding remotely I may or may not have read their rules (I likely would have) but I wouldn't have gone as far as to read MO law and if it wasn't in their rules I'd probably not be aware of it.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I didn't personally agree with the way the reserve was handled and it might have caught me by surprise too but calling it shady, unethical and immoral (to me and based on my understanding of the words) when they are operating within the confines of the law are not proper uses of those terms. That really was the point of my post.

 

 

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.

 

Well thanks, I'm honoured.

 

I was thinking through what you said as I was typing. It's a conversation not a dictatorship, right?

 

 

I know this has been a long and detailed discussion and I seem to be taking a side against everyone else to some of you, but I'm really not.

 

Like I have stated several times, I personally wouldn't handle an auction this way, I don't agree with it but at the same time I think it's important to be careful how things are worded. Especially regarding an internet discussion about someone's reputation. Words matter when reputations are affected.

 

I don't think a business can be moral or immoral because it doesn't have a conscience.

 

A business has whatever conscience the people making the decisions have. Or not as the case may be.

Does your business not have a conscience, Roy?

 

Does my business have a conscience or do I have a conscience?

 

I personally do, and I operate my business honestly.

 

A business either operates within the rule of law or it doesn't. There is no conscience. Was the business operating legally? If so, do the words moral or immoral apply?

 

My understanding of the word moral is that it applies personally to the conscience of a person.

 

That is why I wrote what I did below:

 

I agree with you that it could be considered immoral [if - I forgot to add this word earlier] the auctioneer was deceptive in some way but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

So the word moral only applies if you can prove that the auctioneer acted deceptively.

 

Did they?

 

[mrmyst]

[joeypost]

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.

 

I would consider an auction house bidding on their own auctions unethical. I have read enough to realize they won't get any of my money despite any eventual profit I could make off of them.

[Mxwll Smrt]

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.

 

Regardless of your belief that "full disclosure" protects and provides you a defensible legal position, the behavior/ actions taken show a questionable behavior that more than a few find questionable and objectionable.

 

Secondly, sharing one's experience with someone is not necessarily slanderous or libelous - and you may wish to view the commentary as constructive criticism because the comments appear to be consequential of the experience.

[slym2none]

^ Nicely said!

 

 

 

-slym

[VintageComics]

I would consider an auction house bidding on their own auctions unethical.

 

I'm not an ethics major, and maybe someone that is can chime in as it's a very complex and divisive topic - mainly because there is no "right and wrong" answer - ethics really is a philosophical subject which evolves over time with no "correct answer", but my understanding of ethics (as it is taught and understood) is that it is directly related to what is socially acceptable and unacceptable at the time and place that the ethics are being discussed.

 

In our immediate circles it's considered unethical because it's unacceptable to bid on your own auctions among comic collectors.

 

It must be considered acceptable in some circles because many auction houses (not just one or two) use the practice.

 

I'm not advocating for the practice, but this is a discussion so my thoughts on why this practice would be legally allowed?

 

I guess the logic is that the auction house is operating on behalf of the seller not the buyer.

 

Based on the premise that the book is not going to sell for less than reserve, the auction house bidding on the behalf of the reserve is simply doing what amounts a "quick negotiation" with any potential bidders...so it goes something like this:

 

Bidder bids $100 on an item with $1000 reserve.

House bids back at $200 on behalf of seller to see if bidder is still interested.

Bidder bids $300 on an item with $1000 reserve.

House bids back at $300 on behalf of seller to see if bidder is still interested.

etc, etc.

 

He clearly discloses it in the video...so there was no intent to hide anything from what I can see.

 

 

I guess the question I have is, is a non live bidder, or someone not watching the video stream at a disadvantage?

 

If it's not OK, should the rules be changed?

 

I have read enough to realize they won't get any of my money despite any eventual profit I could make off of them.

 

That's a fair comment.

 

(thumbs u

 

Since the book was not going to sell for less than reserve, the book would go back to the seller - not the auction house. That is the key to me.

 

I have a question for Bob (bluechip): Did you know what the reserve was going into bidding?

 

 

[Jimmy Linguini]

Shill bidding or bidding on your own items is illegal in the US.

[joeypost]

I would consider an auction house bidding on their own auctions unethical.

 

I'm not an ethics major, and maybe someone that is can chime in as it's a very complex and divisive topic - mainly because there is no "right and wrong" answer - ethics really is a philosophical subject which evolves over time with no "correct answer", but my understanding of ethics (as it is taught and understood) is that it is directly related to what is socially acceptable and unacceptable at the time and place that the ethics are being discussed.

 

In our immediate circles it's considered unethical because it's unacceptable to bid on your own auctions among comic collectors.

 

It must be considered acceptable in some circles because many auction houses (not just one or two) use the practice.

 

I'm not advocating for the practice, but this is a discussion so my thoughts on why this practice would be legally allowed?

 

I guess the logic is that the auction house is operating on behalf of the seller not the buyer.

 

Based on the premise that the book is not going to sell for less than reserve, the auction house bidding on the behalf of the reserve is simply doing what amounts a "quick negotiation" with any potential bidders...so it goes something like this:

 

Bidder bids $100 on an item with $1000 reserve.

House bids back at $200 on behalf of seller to see if bidder is still interested.

Bidder bids $300 on an item with $1000 reserve.

House bids back at $300 on behalf of seller to see if bidder is still interested.

etc, etc.

 

He clearly discloses it in the video...so there was no intent to hide anything from what I can see.

 

 

I guess the question I have is, is a non live bidder, or someone not watching the video stream at a disadvantage?

 

If it's not OK, should the rules be changed?

 

I have read enough to realize they won't get any of my money despite any eventual profit I could make off of them.

 

That's a fair comment.

 

(thumbs u

 

Since the book was not going to sell for less than reserve, the book would go back to the seller - not the auction house. That is the key to me.

 

I have a question for Bob (bluechip): Did you know what the reserve was going into bidding?

 

 

I don't think this should become a war of semantics. Bidding up your own item, even with disclosure is a no-no in many ventures. If it was a simple matter of getting a book up to a reserve simply state what the reserve is.

 

It would be similar to me not pressing a book up to its full potential and then buying that exact book at auction knowing full well I could get the bump on it. Technically I did what I said I would do, I pressed it. At times things do go deeper than the letter of the law.

[VintageComics]

I don't think this should become a war of semantics. Bidding up your own item, even with disclosure is a no-no in many ventures.

 

I can understand the desire to simplify the discussion but from what I can see there are two separate discussions going on.

 

1) is it ethical, moral or illegal? in this case, it's not really a war of semantics. The words matter because the outcome is serious. I personally don't think it was.

 

2) do people like it? In this case, only opinions matter. I personally don't agree with it.

 

If it was a simple matter of getting a book up to a reserve simply state what the reserve is.

 

I agree. That's why I asked if the reserve was disclosed...but it is important to note that the book would not sell for less than reserve.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mxwll Smrt]

I would consider an auction house bidding on their own auctions unethical.

 

I'm not an ethics major, and maybe someone that is can chime in as it's a very complex and divisive topic - mainly because there is no "right and wrong" answer - ethics really is a philosophical subject which evolves over time with no "correct answer", but my understanding of ethics (as it is taught and understood) is that it is directly related to what is socially acceptable and unacceptable at the time and place that the ethics are being discussed.

 

In our immediate circles it's considered unethical because it's unacceptable to bid on your own auctions among comic collectors.

 

It must be considered acceptable in some circles because many auction houses (not just one or two) use the practice.

 

I'm not advocating for the practice, but this is a discussion so my thoughts on why this practice would be legally allowed?

 

I guess the logic is that the auction house is operating on behalf of the seller not the buyer.

 

Based on the premise that the book is not going to sell for less than reserve, the auction house bidding on the behalf of the reserve is simply doing what amounts a "quick negotiation" with any potential bidders...so it goes something like this:

 

Bidder bids $100 on an item with $1000 reserve.

House bids back at $200 on behalf of seller to see if bidder is still interested.

Bidder bids $300 on an item with $1000 reserve.

House bids back at $300 on behalf of seller to see if bidder is still interested.

etc, etc.

 

He clearly discloses it in the video...so there was no intent to hide anything from what I can see.

 

 

I guess the question I have is, is a non live bidder, or someone not watching the video stream at a disadvantage?

 

If it's not OK, should the rules be changed?

 

I have read enough to realize they won't get any of my money despite any eventual profit I could make off of them.

 

That's a fair comment.

 

(thumbs u

 

Since the book was not going to sell for less than reserve, the book would go back to the seller - not the auction house. That is the key to me.

 

I have a question for Bob (bluechip): Did you know what the reserve was going into bidding?

 

 

Interesting. So if a bunch of people guided by motive (profit) say its ok to do something that makes it ok? Maybe there's some confusion as to the meaning of ethics versus a discussion of morality - jmo.

 

I've always thought ethics define what is right and wrong behavior - that ethics are the set of principles that guide us all in determining what behaviors would harm or help us - am I wrong here?

 

My experience is that its far easier to rationalize, intellectualize and justify ones behavior(s) with various shades of truth/ gray/ spin than take a position of an "absolute".

 

There is a right or wrong - regardless of disclosure - and if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything. JMO.

 

 

[gregreece]

I was bidding online and didn't realize they were allowing the owner to bid AND to withdraw his bids, so after the owner bid me up numerous times and I finally stopped bidding, the owner was allowed to withdraw his bid. So, after thinking I was outbid, I got an email saying I'd won. I inquired what happened and then, when it was explained to me, I complained that I didn't have good reason to consider the owner's bids in good faith if he was allowed to bid me up without any fear he'd end up losing the sale, because they let him withdraw his bid. The guy from the auction house claimed I could have withdrawn my bid, as well, and that their online bidding selections made that easy. When I said there was no button on the screen allowing me to withdraw, he said I could have been on the phone. Each time I got an explanation that didn't mesh with the facts, the explanation changed to another one. And his tone was threatening and insulting (literally name calling in emails). Their web site listed some organization that supposedly oversees auctions and which, supposedly, gave Mound City their seal of approval, but all my inquiries to their contact info were unanswered. BTW: this is an opinion-free recounting; hard facts only.

 

This is a hobo way to handle an "auction" whether it's disclosed up front or not. They are effectively running a make an offer feature where you can be certain only your highest "bid" will be accepted, not true market pricing. I won't be buying or selling with them.

[VintageComics]

Interesting. So if a bunch of people guided by motive (profit) say its ok to do something that makes it ok? Maybe there's some confusion as to the meaning of ethics versus a discussion of morality - jmo.

 

I've always thought ethics define what is right and wrong behavior - that ethics are the set of principles that guide us all in determining what behaviors would harm or help us - am I wrong here?

 

My experience is that its far easier to rationalize, intellectualize and justify ones behavior(s) with various shades of truth/ gray/ spin than take a position of an "absolute".

 

There is a right or wrong - regardless of disclosure - and if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything. JMO.

 

 

Louise has taken several ethics courses in university and we often debate this stuff between us since we both love a great discussion. I don't have a personal stake in the matter other than to learn more about the situation. Consequently, we've been discussing this all weekend between us and in great detail. This is where most of my posts are coming from.

 

I agree with you for the most part but would qualify what you said about ethics being guiding principles because they are directly related to the time/place that they originate from.

 

Ethics evolve based on history and those that are present at the time. There is no absolute law that everyone agrees on as perfect.

 

It used to be considered socially acceptable to beat your wife and treat slaves like animals. Now it isn't.

 

Biblical laws are enforced in biblical societies.

 

Muslim laws are enforced in Muslim societies.

 

Which is "absolute"?

 

Ethics in a large part is directly related to perception of how it affects someone. Because perceptions change, obviously society's opinions on all of those subjects have changed.

 

 

I agree with you that everyone has their own internal moral code that they are accountable to. That is how we all make our own personal decisions and makes it right or wrong for ourselves but not necessarily for someone else. That's why I said I didn't personally agree with the practice.

 

(thumbs u

[DR.X]

I'd never buy squat from them either.

 

I could just see if I ran an auction on e-bay and linked it to the boards, and disclosing Mrs. X was going to be shill bidding from another username. I'd have pitchforks sticking out of my azz.

[VintageComics]

I was bidding online and didn't realize they were allowing the owner to bid AND to withdraw his bids, so after the owner bid me up numerous times and I finally stopped bidding, the owner was allowed to withdraw his bid. So, after thinking I was outbid, I got an email saying I'd won. I inquired what happened and then, when it was explained to me, I complained that I didn't have good reason to consider the owner's bids in good faith if he was allowed to bid me up without any fear he'd end up losing the sale, because they let him withdraw his bid. The guy from the auction house claimed I could have withdrawn my bid, as well, and that their online bidding selections made that easy. When I said there was no button on the screen allowing me to withdraw, he said I could have been on the phone. Each time I got an explanation that didn't mesh with the facts, the explanation changed to another one. And his tone was threatening and insulting (literally name calling in emails). Their web site listed some organization that supposedly oversees auctions and which, supposedly, gave Mound City their seal of approval, but all my inquiries to their contact info were unanswered. BTW: this is an opinion-free recounting; hard facts only.

 

This is a hobo way to handle an "auction" whether it's disclosed up front or not. They are effectively running a make an offer feature where you can be certain only your highest "bid" will be accepted, not true market pricing. I won't be buying or selling with them.

 

Greg, that's a good, informative post.

 

Question: was the reserve known before the end of the auction?

 

I'm asking because the only auction I bid on there was no reserves on any of the lots.