Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[Vintagedeputy]

I’ll just let the photo speak for itself….incredible.

[darwinbulldog]

Holy

[paul]

Incredible cards. The Joe Jackson is estimated to have a value of 250K. What I find amazing and shocking is that the 68 Topps Mantle (PSA 10) is estimated to have a value of 300K. If I had a PSA 10 Mantle, I'd trade it in a heartbeat for the Jackson.

[conor912]

Holy crap. That is just, well, magnificent. Hard to believe there’s another complete set out there.

[Schlesinj]

Interesting note, the cards will be auctioned off individually and as a set. Whichever produces more & is the way the cards will sell.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

Interesting note, the cards will be auctioned off individually and as a set. Whichever produces more & is the way the cards will sell.

Interesting way to do it and obviously it is the best way for their seller.

All the cards are amazing of course the Joe Jackson and the Cobb are the show stoppers to me.

The condition of them all is amazing and the colors truly POP

[fisherboy7]

The only thing that would amaze me more is a complete set of 1912 Boston Garters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeoPoto]

The consignor might prefer the current situation better. No guarantee "the same bidders" generate the same bids. Underbidders may lose interest.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[LOUCARDFAN]

What an absolute cluster that they could have and should have prevented from happening prior to the start of the auction. The ONLY fair approach for ALL parties is to open the auction back up from where it left off and let only those bidders who had placed existing bids allowed to proceed. To take it one step further, Heritage should waive all buyer fees for this set/items since both the consignor and bidders were negatively effected by their lack of awareness of how this could take place. It gives each bidder a fighting chance to spend more money with no buyers fees and puts more money in the consignors pocket since Heritage ultimately caused the consignor money with how this ended and took place. They shouldn’t be rewarded with the commission from this fiasco that they caused. If you really think about it, this fiasco caused more consignors money because the bids that the “Winners” of the set and individual lots probably would have bid on other auction items but didn’t because each had thought they were the winners of their lots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atx840]

HA discussed this live during the extended bidding, individual lots were less than 4k from the full set price with less than 30 minute to go.

Seems inevitable it would exceed the high bid on the full set

https://youtu.be/_tkRi0UHgZg?t=7351

[sb1]

which begs the question, if the singles were they bid up to over the current $525k and became the higher of the two, HOW was the high bidder of the group bid supposed to be able to top it? In a nutshell he could not have, even if he hit the bid button repeatedly, it would only raise his max bid and not his current high bid. He was handcuffed by the system.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by sb1

which begs the question, if the singles were they bid up to over the current $525k and became the higher of the two, HOW was the high bidder of the group bid supposed to be able to top it? In a nutshell he could not have, even if he hit the bid button repeatedly, it would only raise his max bid and not his current high bid. He was handcuffed by the system.

He could have called--that's why people are in the office during the auction

[Powell]

Why would I call? My account said I won. And the set lot was blocked so there was nothing I could do anyway. It was a fiasco

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by LOUCARDFAN

What an absolute cluster that they could have and should have prevented from happening prior to the start of the auction. The ONLY fair approach for ALL parties is to open the auction back up from where it left off and let only those bidders who had placed existing bids allowed to proceed. To take it one step further, Heritage should waive all buyer fees for this set/items since both the consignor and bidders were negatively effected by their lack of awareness of how this could take place. It gives each bidder a fighting chance to spend more money with no buyers fees and puts more money in the consignors pocket since Heritage ultimately caused the consignor money with how this ended and took place. They shouldn’t be rewarded with the commission from this fiasco that they caused. If you really think about it, this fiasco caused more consignors money because the bids that the “Winners” of the set and individual lots probably would have bid on other auction items but didn’t because each had thought they were the winners of their lots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of Powell, the individual lot winners and the consigner, who is Heritage most concerned about from its fiasco (in order)?

1. Heritage
2. Heritage
3. Heritage
4. Heritage.

[GeoPoto]

sb1: He could have bid on the Individual Lots. He assumed it wasn't necessary under rules that weren't in place.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

sb1: He could have bid on the Individual Lots. He assumed it wasn't necessary under rules that weren't in place.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

He had no reason to think he needed to outbid himself.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He had no reason to think he needed to outbid himself.

Not to mention, if he was going to bid on the individual lots, he would've had to win all 12 of them to accomplish what he was trying to do by bidding on the set.

I don't understand the argument that he should've been bidding on the individual lots. As Peter says, it would've been bidding against himself and accomplishing nothing.

[gabrinus]

If Heritage could have gotten a little more Covid money I think all of this could have been avoided...Jerry

[chalupacollects]

This sounds more like a recent election rather than an actual auction… go to sleep thinking you won and then you wake up and…

Feel bad for Powell who I don’t know but it sucks…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

This sounds more like a recent election rather than an actual auction… go to sleep thinking you won and then you wake up and…

Feel bad for Powell who I don’t know but it sucks…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's not forget the consignor, let's assume Powell was willing to go 750k on the set, The Heritage set up never allowed him to go all in. Bad set up all around and really poor management after the fact by Heritage.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Let's not forget the consignor, let's assume Powell was willing to go 750k on the set, The Heritage set up never allowed him to go all in. Bad set up all around and really poor management after the fact by Heritage.

But the next time they have a card someone wants, that someone will bid anyway. Bad behavior never gets punished in this hobby.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But the next time they have a card someone wants, that someone will bid anyway. Bad behavior never gets punished in this hobby.

After this shitshow I would assume REA just secured a new consignor.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

After this shitshow I would assume REA just secured a new consignor.

No disrespect at all to Powell, but Heritage Auctions is not going to miss one consignor.

https://www.ha.com/heritage-auctions...chedule-111815

[calvindog]

If the consigner was well-versed in the auction process he would have complained to Heritage during the month the lots were up about the software not providing a comparison of the full set lot price vs. the individual lots total at each bid. Anyone actually think the consigner, unless he reads this board, actually was told what fully went down by Heritage? How much money was left on the table due to Heritage’s incompetence?

[theshowandme]

For those few arguing that the terms/conditions were clear in the listing, I disagree. On the surface it covers the bare minimum.

The absence of information on how one lot could end while the others continued is a huge miss by Heritage.

It should have explained in detail how this auction was set up. It should have also explained the absence of synchronized coding between the complete set and individual lots. It should have explained that the individual lots did not have a running tally and that users had to calculate the cumulative number themselves.

When you see all the conditions that played out that no one was made aware of from the beginning, the result is a disappointment in Heritage.

That small paragraph really should be around 12-16 sentences long with all the real rules/conditions that were in play.

[calvindog]

As typical of Net 54, there has to be hand-wringing over every possible legal avenue and people who just need to be contrarians. It’s very simple: the auction was screwed up by Heritage by shutting down the full set lot while continuing to allow the single lots to run. This was a failure which defeated the very concept of an auction. It is Heritage’s fault, period. No one else’s. As I wrote to a friend in a text at 11:26 pm that night, during extended bidding: “The poor guy who had the high for the set is screwed if we push it over.” Referring to bidding on the individual lots while the full set lot was closed.

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

I paid my invoice for the Baker yesterday via wire transfer. I now have a receipt showing “paid in full” and my account balance has been zeroed out with Heritage.

[Powell]

I relied on reading the lot, my account confirming I won and experience in bidding on thousands and thousands of items over 20 years. Did I sit down and read the “terms and conditions”? Of course not! Nor will I ever accept that I should have. That’s like the insurance company relying on the fine print to deny a just claim.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Powell

I relied on reading the lot, my account confirming I won and experience in bidding on thousands and thousands of items over 20 years. Did I sit down and read the “terms and conditions”? Of course not! Nor will I ever accept that I should have. That’s like the insurance company relying on the fine print to deny a just claim.

The whole “my account said I won” argument isn’t great.

I mean…PWCC just had an issue and had thousands of “you’ve won!” emails go out. Does that mean everyone should be awarded those items? Obviously not.

Obviously heritage should have ran this auction differently/better but the wording posted above in the set listing is very cut and dry.

Plus we all know as soon as we bid on something, we are agreeing to their rules, terms, conditions etc…even if they suck.

[Powell]

And here the fine print doesn’t say you must manually and constantly add up the individual lots and can’t rely on the web site or that you are declared the winner in your account or that closing the set doesn’t mean you didn’t win or that you must bid on every lot and against yourself on the set and do so before extended bidding or your shut out.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

I paid my invoice for the Baker yesterday via wire transfer. I now have a receipt showing “paid in full” and my account balance has been zeroed out with Heritage.

Hi Aaron
While I am glad you won the card, how would you feel if you were Powell?
.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

Originally Posted by Leon

Hi Aaron
While I am glad you won the card, how would you feel if you were Powell?
.

Hi Leon, I hope you are well. I have been trying to keep my feelings and opinions out of it, for that’s when I get in trouble (especially on a public forum). I originally posted on this thread out of joy and excitement because I “won” the Baker. I did not expect nor anticipate this thread would go “KABOOM!”

I empathize with Powell. I do. I hope any pain or anguish this has caused him will fade over time. I share his passion (and yours Leon) for collecting and I wish you all only the best.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

I've come around to this do-over approach. Those insisting that the individual lots won in accordance with the terms set forth in the description are missing the point entirely. In a race like this, a key implied term is that the listings close at the same time. It's the only way it can work without forcing bidders to use shills to bid against themselves and extend the auction.

Every participant understands that if the total bid for individual lots exceeds the bid for the whole set, the individual lots win. No participant in his/her right mind would have placed bids with the assumption that the complete set would be closed early due to lack of direct competition, while bidders on the individual lots could keep going. As Powell mentioned upthread, that would make the process of bidding on the entire set illusory in a scenario where a deep-pocketed bidder has no opponent but himself, and it's illogical to assume that Heritage, the consignor, or the bidder set the auction terms intending to create an illusory process that prevents competition and depresses the final price.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As typical of Net 54, there has to be hand-wringing over every possible legal avenue and people who just need to be contrarians. It’s very simple: the auction was screwed up by Heritage by shutting down the full set lot while continuing to allow the single lots to run. This was a failure which defeated the very concept of an auction. It is Heritage’s fault, period. No one else’s. As I wrote to a friend in a text at 11:26 pm that night, during extended bidding: “The poor guy who had the high for the set is screwed if we push it over.” Referring to bidding on the individual lots while the full set lot was closed.

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

I agree for the most part, although as even you noted at 11:26pm that night, this was outcome was predictable. I do think Heritage should extend the auction though. No need to restart from ground zero however. I prefer how PWCC handles it. They just extend the bidding from where things left off. All prior bids are still in place, and all eligible bidders are able to bid again. This is the solution I would offer.

But to just say Powell won is not an option. He did not win per the clearly stated rules. Regardless of how unfair it was.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I agree for the most part, although as even you noted at 11:26pm that night, this was outcome was predictable. I do think Heritage should extend the auction though. No need to restart from ground zero however. I prefer how PWCC handles it. They just extend the bidding from where things left off. All prior bids are still in place, and all eligible bidders are able to bid again. This is the solution I would offer.

But to just say Powell won is not an option. He did not win per the clearly stated rules. Regardless of how unfair it was.

I would normally agree with this, but I am sure invoices and payments have been sent out/paid by now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I would normally agree with this, but I am sure invoices and payments have been sent out/paid by now.

They could undo that. Just refund the money. To me the question is have they shipped any cards.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I agree for the most part, although as even you noted at 11:26pm that night, this was outcome was predictable. I do think Heritage should extend the auction though. No need to restart from ground zero however. I prefer how PWCC handles it. They just extend the bidding from where things left off. All prior bids are still in place, and all eligible bidders are able to bid again. This is the solution I would offer.

But to just say Powell won is not an option. He did not win per the clearly stated rules. Regardless of how unfair it was.

I don’t disagree at all. Powell didn’t win unless all lots, the individual and aggregate, were kept open. And they weren’t. It’s an easy fix here. Re-auction the cards correctly, give everyone a fair chance, and make up any potential shortfall to the consigner so he agrees to this resolution. This is an easy fix — let’s see if Heritage can understand this.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I prefer how PWCC handles it.

Color me surprised

[felada]

Presumably the way this should have worked was the aggregate of the individual lots should have been a ‘bidder’ in the software. That way the high bid for the lot would have always been displayed and the lot would have remained open every time a bid was placed on an individual lots since it would have increased the bid of the set lot.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by felada

Presumably the way this should have worked was the aggregate of the individual lots should have been a ‘bidder’ in the software. That way the high bid for the lot would have always been displayed and the lot would have remained open every time a bid was placed on an individual lots since it would have increased the bid of the set lot.

Hi David! What you are proposing solves only half of the problem, and the easier half at that. What happens when the aggregate bidder exceeds the individual bidders? At some point all of them will be closed out with no way to bid with the aggregate lot now ahead. How do you allocate this differential back to the individual lots if more than one bidder wants to continue? The system is flawed on an individual lot closing basis. I think the only way to handle this type of bidding is under a format where the full auction closes at once and where bidders can raise their own bids. You need a Memory Lane/ REA type auction for this to work. On a HA individual lot closing format I don't think it works. I also don't think it works on the LOTG format unless all the lots involved go into extended bidding.

[Mattymc727]

I’m no lawyer, so I’ll refrain from fancy terms, but I side with Powell. This is BS. An auction house should have more competence than this for items this large. I think it’s worth a lawsuit if HA doesn’t redo the auction.

What if HA doesn’t even correct this behavior/error after this debacle? Make them.

[oldjudge]

I agree with Jeff that given the flawed auction process the only fair solution is to redo the auction of these cards. The question now becomes who is eligible to bid on the aggregate lot? Is it only those bidders who bid on the aggregate previously (that would represent a larger universe than just Powell) or can any prior individual lot bidders also bid on the aggregate? These questions would have to be resolved before any redo could take place.

[mrreality68]

From my reading (unless I misread) based on the email Powell said he got it looks like HA already made up their mind and giving the winnings to the individual lots and as a result not compensating or re-doing the auction on those items as still discussed.
Further I have not heard or read anywhere about a statement from HA or anything by googling it (Except this forum pops up)
Apparently they are treating it as business as usually and sticking to their terms and conditions and disclaimers and moving forward.
It is a sad situation with the way it all played out can only hope moving forward they improve their software to better handle/link the lots etc or they do not do this type of auction individual vs set.

[molenick]

While I agree that a redo would be fair, I don't see how this can happen.

Not everyone who won a lot is on Net54. As far as they are concerned, they got an invoice and paid for their card, and expect to get that card. They may have no idea about the controversy and don't care that the process was unfair to one of the bidders.

Heritage can withhold the cards but I have no idea what that would mean legally. If Powell believes he has a legal claim to the set because at one point he was told he won on the screen (which later said he lost), the other bidders have a stronger claim because not only were they told they won, it never switched to telling them they lost, and they were invoiced when the auction ended.

And, no, I did not win any of the lots.

Also, I think it is a little unfair to make Aaron feel bad because he won a lot in an auction.

[felada]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hi David! What you are proposing solves only half of the problem, and the easier half at that. What happens when the aggregate bidder exceeds the individual bidders? At some point all of them will be closed out with no way to bid with the aggregate lot now ahead. How do you allocate this differential back to the individual lots if more than one bidder wants to continue? The system is flawed on an individual lot closing basis. I think the only way to handle this type of bidding is under a format where the full auction closes at once and where bidders can raise their own bids. You need a Memory Lane/ REA type auction for this to work. On a HA individual lot closing format I don't think it works. I also don't think it works on the LOTG format unless all the lots involved go into extended bidding.

Jay I think the way it would work is the aggregate lot remains open until all the individual lots are closed.the individual bidders really bid independent of the aggregate lot but there is at least a link that shows if the bidder is high bidder in the lot and if the individual lots are outbidding the aggregate. Then it is clear to everyone what they really are or are not winning. This way the aggregate bidder always a chance to top the bid and then presumably a remaining bidder on an individual lot go go back and up their bid if desired. Then it becomes the back and forth that makes auctions last until 4am

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by felada

Jay I think the way it would work is the aggregate lot remains open until all the individual lots are closed.the individual bidders really bid independent of the aggregate lot but there is at least a link that shows if the bidder is high bidder in the lot and if the individual lots are outbidding the aggregate. Then it is clear to everyone what they really are or are not winning. This way the aggregate bidder always a chance to top the bid and then presumably a remaining bidder on an individual lot go go back and up their bid if desired. Then it becomes the back and forth that makes auctions last until 4am

You said the aggregate lot should stay open until all the individual lots close and then the aggregate bidder could have a chance to top the bid, but then you say a remaining bidder could go back and increase an individual lot if desired. However, you already said that the individual lots were closed.

The only way for it to work is for all lots related to these cards (set and individual) to close at the same time after some period of time when none of them had any bids. Also, bidders need to be able to increase their own bid if it is already the highest one for a lot so they can change whether the complete set or the individual lots are winning depending on what they are trying to win.