Although this practice seems psychologically "wrong" to us in the age
of internet auctions, it is actually quite common and accepted in the old
traditional world of "live auctions"... think back to all those scenes of heated
auction bidding you've seen in movies... remember there's always one point in
the scene where character #1 gets frustrated that every bid he
makes is being trumped by character #2... and the price has gone steadily up to
say, $5,000, and the suddenly character #1 jumps up and shouts out "I'll
bid$10,000 dollars!!!"... and everyone gasps... and the auctioneer looks stunned
for a second and then says... "ladies and gentlemen, the bid now stands at
$10,000... do I hear $10,100?"
I'm guessing that's basically what happened here. The fax bid was not
considered a "hidden maximum bid" for some reason, instead it was treated
as if someone live in person on the floor had actually shouted out "I'll bid
$2,500!!!" when the previous bid was only $500. Perhaps the sender of
the fax didn't intend for it to be treated that way, but it obviously was. This
probably explains why it only happens sometimes -- at other times the amount is
specified to be a "hidden maximum" and so is bid in increments as one would
normally expect.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
1:04
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Bonham's - Absentee
Bidders Treated Unfairly?
I've seen that sort of thing happen a lot
before...
Sometimes it looks shady (and maybe it is). But, other
times it just means
that there were 2 (or more) absentee bidders. For
instance, one absentee
bidder bid $2,400, the other bid $3,000 - so the
auctioneer immediately
jumps to $2,500, then starts taking floor bids (that
get immediately outbid
by the second absentee
bidder)...
Cheers,
Bob
----- Original Message
-----
From: "David Kusumoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
<[email protected]>
Sent:
Monday, December 05, 2005 9:59 PM
Subject: [MOPO] Bonham's - Absentee
Bidders Treated Unfairly?
> Hello all --
>
> Just
one thing bothered me. If you were there, maybe you can
explain.
>
> ** For some posters, bidding JUMPED immediately (w/no
declared bidding
> increments in between) -- to the HIGHEST level
established by an absentee
> bidder. Not all the time, but it
happened.
>
> ** For example, I was a phone bidder for the "Brief
Encounter" British
> one-sheet. Bidding opened at $500. Then
out-of-the-blue -- I heard a
> Bonham's employee declare, "we have an
absentee bid of $2500!" The
> bidding
> then JUMPED from
$500 immediately to $2500 -- with NO bidding increments
> accepted "in
between" -- from either the floor or from the phones.
>
> ** The
poster hammered for $3,000 (or about $3,800 if you include the
>
17.5%
> buyer's premium -- and another 8.25% sales tax for in-state
buyers -- a
> whopping 25.75% gouge).
>
> ** I don't
understand the criteria for what seems an unfair practice --
>
NOT
> to me as a phone bidder -- but to the absentee bidder! If
bidding OPENS
> at
> YOUR "faxed-in-advance" bid -- haven't you
just lost your shot to get a
> poster for "possibly" less? I
planned to "drop out" at $1500. I didn't
> get
> the chance,
nor did the absentee bidder get the opportunity, to see
>
bidding
> advance in increments well past $1500 until it finally ended
at $3,000.
>
> ** If I had faxed in a $6,000 absentee bid -- and a
Bonham's employee
> declared, "we have an absentee bid of $6,000!" -- I
would've been pi**ed
> to
> learn my shot to get "Brief Encounter"
for $3,000 or $4,000 or even
> $5,000 -
> went out the
window. The auctioneer, in some cases, established opening
> bids
well ABOVE $500, accepting the absentee bidder's high bid, DECLINING
>
lower bids from the floor and the phones.
>
> ** Until I learn the
"criteria" for this practice -- I'll NEVER submit
> absentee bids by fax
to Bonham's (or to any auction house) in the future.
> If I want
something and can't be present, I'll phone bid like I did today.
>
Again, perhaps there's a simple answer. It didn't happen to all
lots.
> "Suez" opened at $500 before Sue Heim got it for $5500 (hooray
Sue!). But
> before it hammered, she and others were bidding
against an absentee
> bidder.
>
> ** There was ONE consignor
for this sale. (Louis Leithold's estate.) All
> the more
reason I don't understand the "opening bid" inconsistency from
>
lot-to-lot. On the surface, this has "anti-consumer" written all over
it.
> And if takes more than 5-min. to explain, I probably still
wouldn't get
> it.
>
> ** Look, if I'm a consignor, it's in
my best interest to promote this
> practice, but you know, consignors
are buyers too. And I demand
> consistency
> from licensed
auctioneers.
>
>
-koose.
>
> Visit
the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
>
___________________________________________________________________
>
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing
List
>
> Send a message
addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF
MOPO-L
>
> The author of this message is solely
responsible for its
content.
>
>
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing
List
Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The
author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
|
