Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by t206fix

This reminds me of my son's football game last weekend. They played four quarters and at the end of the game, my son's team was up 34-32. Refs blew the whistle, and said that his team had won. It was very exciting because they were a cross town rival who had beaten us that past few years. We went home and he went to bed very excited. Unfortunately, when we woke up the next morning the newspaper ran the headlines claiming the other team won on field goal 35-32 to beat my son's team. We were shocked.

I guess the other team, after the game, kept playing and scored a last second field goal against themselves to win it. I guess the refs deemed the other team wanted it more because they kept playing. They claimed victory and pointed to something about fine print and we should have read all the details.

I don't under how this is possible. Can you post the link to the story?

[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.

[PhillyFan1883]

Going to give my two cents for what it is worth, because I don't feel it is fair what is going down on this thread generally..

Let me start with I have a tremendous amount of respect for all the legal eagles posting on this thread, and I am just going to state the obvious and leave it there.

I am in the real estate business, and disclosure is always a big issue when things go wrong. For example did the seller of the building disclose there was an obvious defect to his knowledge- just for example sake.. If they disclosed the issue- they are fine and not liable- if they did not disclose and they knew about an issue, they could be in for a shit storm.

Heritage at the bottom of every Boston Garter card disclosed the following--- """""""Please note that this auction will list each card as an individual lot along with another listing for the complete set. If the aggregate winning bids of the twelve individual lots exceeds the high bid on the complete set, the cards will be sold to each individual winner. If the price of the set exceeds the sum of the twelve individual cards, the victory will be awarded to the high bidder for the complete set."""""""""""

The wording is not deceptive, it is black and white. It's not open for interpretation. Heritage disclosed the cards could be sold as a set, or individually depending what gets more- PERIOD.. If someone had intentions of winning the set they had this information and should have bid accordingly, meaning- bid on the individual lots and also the set if there was any doubt. Also they could have reached out to the auction house if you had any questions prior to clarify how the sale would go down..

I have known Derek Grady who brought in the Garters on consignment over 25 years. First as a kid collecting with my Dad who used SGC as our preferred grader, and the last 10 years or so as a consignor and hobby resource for my auction needs... Derek is a class act, and he had nothing but the best intentions for the consignors by running the Garters individually and as a set. Clearly it was very close in price realized whether the set or individual lots would net the sellers the most money- so it was the correct decision to run the auction the way he did... Derek was spot on, and also talking with him at the national the sellers are not card people at all, running the auction with the option for the set to sell, or the cards individually, gave the consignors comfort they absolutely would net the most from a collectible they knew nothing about. By the way again it was in the best interest of his client which I always have found to be true when giving Derek business both ways as a seller and buyer...

I feel for Powel that he bid a tremendous amount of money and thought he won the set, but it clearly was stated on each lot it could go either way. Logistically yes are there some math challenges to know where you stand- yes. That said it was not a hard close, lots were able to be extended with the individual lot close method implemented.. 30 minutes is enough time to run the math.

Be well my friends. I hope this message gives another respectable perspective, and no ill will towards anyone posting. Fair is fair..

Connor Ciallella

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Its been 2 plus days since the auction closed. I think you have your answer.

[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.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by PhillyFan1883

If someone had intentions of winning the set they had this information and should have bid accordingly, meaning- bid on the individual lots and also the set if there was any doubt.

Connor, respectfully, this is crazy. The bidder who wanted the full set lot should have to bid against himself? Because Heritage screwed up the software/auction? They screwed up! Let them ensure that a real auction occurred, as it didn’t. Even if it means an uncomfortable conversation with the consigner. After all, the consigner may have lost money here (and probably did) due to Heritage’s screwup. No auction house is perfect. But it’s how they handle the glitches that matters.

I agree with you 100% about Derek. He’s the best part of Heritage and the only reason I’d consign with them. And the only reason many people would consign with them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The whole point of having a set lot option is so someone who wants the set doesn't have to win all 12 individual lots if he bids aggressively enough. I can't believe people are faulting Powell here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Its been 2 plus days since the auction closed. I think you have your answer.

Not sure I follow. So you're saying it's too soon for that to have happened?

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not sure I follow. So you're saying it's too soon for that to have happened?

No, I am saying too much time has passed for a redo. Heritage is moving forward with the sale of the individual cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

No, I am saying too much time has passed for a redo. Heritage is moving forward with the sale of the individual cards.

Ah got you. I suspect that's right. And all these suggestions of a redo are moot if any cards have gone out.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

No, I am saying too much time has passed for a redo. Heritage is moving forward with the sale of the individual cards.

They can easily fix it by not sending out the cards — which they surely haven’t done as of today. The question is whether Heritage wants to do the right thing for its bidding customers and also reveal to the non-hobby consigner that they a) screwed up and b) may have cost the consigner money. My guess is they will never have that conversation. This isn’t REA.

[GaryPassamonte]

Even if there was a redo, which almost certainly isn't going to happen, the rules would have to be amended or the same unfair result could happen again.
There would need to be thirteen lots, the twelve individual cards plus the complete set lot. All thirteen lots would have to remain open until no bids are received on any of the thirteen lots for 30 minutes. That way no bidder can be shut out.

[nolemmings]

The outcome is not going to change-- the individual card winners will get their cards.

I am not taking sides, and would emphasize that this all falls on Heritage for not clarifying the rules and/or adjusting its software to allow for the type of bidding that Powell believed was in effect. Still, I believe the ship has sailed, and it does not matter if the AH has not sent out the cards.

If I were a winner of one of the 12 I would be pissed if they changed it now. Had I known I was foreclosed from bidding a half hour or whatever earlier and that my efforts to win my lot were basically a nullity, I could have used that tens of thousands of dollars (or more) to go after other cards I wanted that were still active at the time. Instead I'll take nothing and like it?

IMO the rules as they played out were not unconscionable. Bidders are for the most part at the mercy of others to get to the finish line in an auction set up like this one. "Winners" of the individual lots have to hope that others bid up the remaining cards in order to actually exceed the set chaser, and the latter has to hope that there is competition for his lot so that he can keep bumping his bid. Not an ideal format and not necessarily fair, but I can see it as a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Just out of curiosity, suppose the Complete set lot never went to extended bidding-- that Powell put in the initial bid and that when initial bidding ended, it was greater than the aggregate 12 singles. Is it the view of this forum that he should have won then and there-- that none of the 12 individual lots would be subject to extended bidding? If so I understand your logic, but could only imagine the outcry that would have generated.

[notfast]

I wonder if the high bidder of the set wasn’t a well known collector, if everyone would be so up in arms.

I mean the set/cards were up for auction for a month or so and no one seemed to have any issues with the format…

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I prefer how PWCC handles it.

Color me surprised

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by notfast

I wonder if the high bidder of the set wasn’t a well known collector, if everyone would be so up in arms.

I mean the set/cards were up for auction for a month or so and no one seemed to have any issues with the format…

I don’t have a clue who Powell is. I’m just pissed at Heritage’s incompetence and failure to acknowledge its obvious mistake.

[Centauri]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I don’t have a clue who Powell is. I’m just pissed at Heritage’s incompetence and failure to acknowledge its obvious mistake.

But there was never a mistake. The auction proceeded exactly as described beforehand. And there was no part of the auction that went other than described beforehand.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Centauri

But there was never a mistake. The auction proceeded exactly as described beforehand. And there was no part of the auction that went other than described beforehand.

If you are going to argue, even when wrong, you still need your full name out here, per the rule near the top of every page. Thanks
.

[raulus]

Heritage absolutely should’ve done a much better job of managing the closing process, including linking the lots. Or if not that, then more clearly explaining precisely how the closing process would work.

At the same time, Powell is clearly a big time collector. He craps bigger than me. And bigger than almost all of us. Put together. And not just that, but he is obviously a great professional in his field. And this set obviously meant a great deal to him. It wasn’t some little lot that he was hoping to maybe pick up a good deal if nobody else bid, but didn’t really care if he lost. He wanted this, and wanted it badly. Enough to pay the better part of a cool million to get it. So the stakes are high.

Additionally, auctions are pretty final. When the hammer falls, barring shenanigans and nonsense and software outages, when it’s over, it’s over. Finished. No going back. You only get one bite at the apple. So the stakes are that much higher to make sure that you don’t get caught off guard by stupid nonsense like the closing process.

In this case, the format was obviously not normal. Given the stakes, how do you not do some digging into the rules? How do you not think through the closing mechanics and figure out how you might get screwed?

Before Powell walks into a courtroom, I’ve got to think that he prepares religiously. He knows what’s going to happen before it happens. He’s researched similar cases. Practiced his arguments. Refined his wording. Anticipated everything that the other side will do, and he’s ready to counter. Nothing is left to chance.

Given all of this, if it was me, I would have made darn sure that I knew how the closing process worked. I would’ve been obsessing about it for weeks before the close. I would’ve lost sleep having nightmares about how someone was going to outwit me and I would lose. I would’ve called up Heritage and asked them about anything that wasn’t clear. If the morons I talked to on the phone didn’t answer my questions to my satisfaction, I would’ve moved up the chain of command until someone got me the real answers. Assuming that I know how it was going to work seems like you’re living dangerously. You’re hoping that it will work the way you think it will work. I don’t understand how you don’t nail it all down so that you don’t get screwed by the closing format working against you.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20. And I’m not trying to blame Powell. I just don’t understand the lack of serious investigation into and preparation for the closing mechanics, given how badly he wanted it. Maybe he was busy at work on a case. Maybe other auctions were just as important and took up his attention. Whatever the reason, I just don’t understand this element. But maybe I’m just a paranoid obsessive who doesn’t like to lose auctions for stuff I really want due to nonsense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

IMO absent some very specific disclosure to the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the world's leading auction house running a set against the individual cards is not going to freeze out the set bidders while the individual lots are still live.

[calvindog]

If anyone actually thinks this auction went according to plan, went down appropriately, I can’t help you as you’re beyond help. I can assure you this theory doesn’t hold up under two minutes of questioning. That I’m even typing this gives me less faith in the hobby as it should be that obvious.

And Powell isn’t at fault here. Could he have done more? Yes. Should he have had to do more? No.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by leon

if you are going to argue, even when wrong, you still need your full name out here, per the rule near the top of every page. Thanks
.

lol

[HercDriver]

I don't see any good solution to this, but if I were me, I'd make a public apology to all involved, saying I screwed up. Then I would run it again, but I would give half the buyer's premium to the winner's charity of choice, something like that. As it is now, there will be no "closure" as to what would have been. Just run it again, and let the process play itself out correctly. Just my two cents...

[mordecaibrown]

Why would Powell bid on every lot??? The entire point of having the cards offered as a set is so a bidder, who wanted the entire set of cards, didn’t have to do that exact thing!!!! Otherwise, the cards would’ve never been offered as a set! Furthermore, it was designed to maximize the consignor profit.

How this unfolded was not the design or intention of the auction. The manner this was conducted made the set bidding pointless because Powell could not make competing bids and did not maximize profit for the consignor.

Also, just my opinion, I think the cards sold for about the max they would have, give or take. Powell may have been willing to go much higher, I have no idea, but considering he had no other competition in the set auction and, at the time the set lot closed it was slightly ahead of the aggregate and then only a few more bids were placed to push the individual lots over the set lot, it doesn’t seem like there was a lot of runway left in this situation. And, if you assume an auction house’s number one priority is the consignor (and it’s own bottom line) then if an auction house thought there was a lot of room for increased profit on restarting an auction - it would! Risk/reward….

Lastly, I always see, stuff trumps all. Which, often is the case for many people situations - to each their own. However, I’ll say this, if you don’t like how any auction house treats people or situations, don’t consign material to them. Without selling YOUR stuff, an auction house has nothing to sell. And there are many different auction houses at different levels specializing in different material - options are plentiful.

Andr.ew Ken.edy

[Centauri]

Can anyone point to some part, any part of the auction that did *not* go according to the rules established before the auction began?

Seems like a lot of people disagree with the auction format, but the rules were known and followed perfectly.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by mordecaibrown

Why would Powell bid on every lot???

Because given the auction format, as stated in the listings, bidding on every lot was the only way one could ensure a victory. Had I been in his shoes, those cards would be getting shipped to me, instead of getting shipped to someone else. It would have cost more, but I wouldn't have lost.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Centauri

Can anyone point to some part, any part of the auction that did *not* go according to the rules established before the auction began?

Seems like a lot of people disagree with the auction format, but the rules were known and followed perfectly.

No, of course not.

[LOUCARDFAN]

Originally Posted by Centauri

Can anyone point to some part, any part of the auction that did *not* go according to the rules established before the auction began?

Seems like a lot of people disagree with the auction format, but the rules were known and followed perfectly.

When the person bidding on the set is locked out because the 30 minute timer elapsed AND is informed that he was the winner of the lot all the while the individual lots were still open to be bid on is NOT part of the auction format. Their terms plainly says that the higher dollar amount of the individual cards vs the set price is the winner BUT when one group can bid while the other is locked out and unable to bid it changes the whole auction dynamic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeremyW]

Seems to me that the consignor suffered the most. Probably $10-50K. more in bids, at least.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Meanwhile, no update from Powell, so presumably Heritage has not budged.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Because given the auction format, as stated in the listings, bidding on every lot was the only way one could ensure a victory. Had I been in his shoes, those cards would be getting shipped to me, instead of getting shipped to someone else. It would have cost more, but I wouldn't have lost.

Having to bid on every individual lot defeats the purpose of having the full set listed as well. With only 12 cards it's doable but shouldn't be necessary. Apparently other AHs have had the same type of auction format with a T206 set and a 1952 Topps set. I don't think the expectation would have been the need to bid on every individual card if your goal was to win the whole set.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Having to bid on every individual lot defeats the purpose of having the full set listed as well. With only 12 cards it's doable but shouldn't be necessary. Apparently other AHs have had the same type of auction format with a T206 set and a 1952 Topps set. I don't think the expectation would have been the need to bid on every individual card if your goal was to win the whole set.

It's worse than that, you'd be bidding against yourself. Every bid you make on an individual lot drives up the aggregate price, requiring a higher set price to beat it. It makes zero sense.

[JeremyW]

The consignor is probably thrilled, but might have missed out on the true bidding war.

[MVSNYC]

FWIW, this is how it's been successfully executed in the past by auction houses like Mastros, Mile High, REA, Memorylane, etc. There's clear communication at the top of each lot (note the sentence at the very top of each lot page), and the lots are all linked and work together in unison. So bidders have real-time (official) visibility as to which is wining, and then can pivot and change bidding strategy if need be. (Images courtesy of a gentleman from New Jersey).

[JeremyW]

The consignor didn't know what they had, right? If Powell had been able to place another bid, it would have been another $5K for the consignor, right?

[Powell]

I’m moving on. It was a bad scene. I’m not suing anybody. I hope Aaron enjoys his card. It wasn’t his fault. I never thought I should get special treatment because I spend a lot of money. I should have had a fair chance to compete. The set lot was doomed and there is the unfairness. Anyway, I hope this experience reduces the risk it ever happens again. I appreciate the support from many of you. There are passionate collectors and many great people on this board whom I’ve learned a lot from. Thank you!

Powell

[Centauri]

The auctions rules stated the 2 auctions would be run independently. If the aggregate of the individual winners was higher than the winner of the set auction, then the individual would get the cards. So yes, each side would have an auction winner declared, then the higher aggregate would take delivery. The set winner was supposed to be given notice that they “won” their leg. As to when an individual auction ends, that was also established before the auction began - after entering the final bidding, any lot that goes 30 minutes without a bid will be closed. So that rule was also followed correctly.

Again, there never was an error in the administration of the auction. The rules were set beforehand, and there were no deviations. Most, maybe all agree this is not the best way to maximize value. But the auction house should not be held to blame here.

Originally Posted by LOUCARDFAN

When the person bidding on the set is locked out because the 30 minute timer elapsed AND is informed that he was the winner of the lot all the while the individual lots were still open to be bid on is NOT part of the auction format. Their terms plainly says that the higher dollar amount of the individual cards vs the set price is the winner BUT when one group can bid while the other is locked out and unable to bid it changes the whole auction dynamic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Powell

I’m moving on. It was a bad scene. I’m not suing anybody. I hope Aaron enjoys his card. It wasn’t his fault. I never thought I should get special treatment because I spend a lot of money. I should have had a fair chance to compete. The set lot was doomed and there is the unfairness. Anyway, I hope this experience reduces the risk it ever happens again. I appreciate the support from many of you. There are passionate collectors and many great people on this board whom I’ve learned a lot from. Thank you!

Powell

Well handled.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Powell

I’m moving on. It was a bad scene. I’m not suing anybody. I hope Aaron enjoys his card. It wasn’t his fault. I never thought I should get special treatment because I spend a lot of money. I should have had a fair chance to compete. The set lot was doomed and there is the unfairness. Anyway, I hope this experience reduces the risk it ever happens again. I appreciate the support from many of you. There are passionate collectors and many great people on this board whom I’ve learned a lot from. Thank you!

Powell

I am sorry it worked out this way for you. As a lawyer i am glad you shared it because it certainly made for a fascinating discussion.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Centauri

The auctions rules stated the 2 auctions would be run independently. If the aggregate of the individual winners was higher than the winner of the set auction, then the individual would get the cards. So yes, each side would have an auction winner declared, then the higher aggregate would take delivery. The set winner was supposed to be given notice that they “won” their leg. As to when an individual auction ends, that was also established before the auction began - after entering the final bidding, any lot that goes 30 minutes without a bid will be closed. So that rule was also followed correctly.

Again, there never was an error in the administration of the auction. The rules were set beforehand, and there were no deviations. Most, maybe all agree this is not the best way to maximize value. But the auction house should not be held to blame here.

The auction house can 100% be accountable, this is the most irresponsible way to run an individual/aggregate auction, especially with such a significant set.

Look at the example kindly provided above to see the standard for running auctions like this, it's pretty simple and keeps everybody informed, maximizes seller return, and fair to all parties bidding.

No, Heritage stepped in a bucket of manure for not vetting their own process, furthermore the way they treated Powell post shitshow was weak and unprofessional. Not to mention the awkward position people like Aaron were subjected to. At the very least they owe the parties involved a personal apology.

When an AH treats longtime million dollar clients like that how do you think they view normal folks like us?

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

How could the full set be bid any higher if Powell was the only bidder at the end ? Can you bid against yourself ? I think bids only increase against another bidder.

He should have been advised about the running total of the individual lots and then given the option to bid higher on the set or pursue some individual cards .

Apologies if this has already been addressed, I'm late to this party :

The aggregate total of the single lots should have been treated as another bidder in the full set auction, with the time on the full set auction not ending until no bids had been placed for 30 minutes on any of the individual or full auctions.

I believe that the winner of the full set lot should be given the opportunity to bid one more time for a single bid increment above the aggregate total.

Doug "the whole thing was a bad idea from the start" Goodman

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Doug "the whole thing was a bad idea from the start" Goodman

Thanks for making me laugh Doug, reminds me of several of my adventures. See also; "Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Thanks for making me laugh Doug, reminds me of several of my adventures. See also; "Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

You're welcome Phil.

Doug "happy to be the court jester" Goodman

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's worse than that, you'd be bidding against yourself. Every bid you make on an individual lot drives up the aggregate price, requiring a higher set price to beat it. It makes zero sense.

While it may seem like you'd be bidding against yourself by bidding on both sides, the math doesn't actually work out that way. The game theory optimal strategy here would be to focus on the individual lots first, and to ensure participation in the set lot as a backup plan, since the individual lots should be the favorite to win out. You're not effectively bidding against yourself because you only bid on one side of the auction unless two or more bidders overtake you on the other side, in which case *they* are the ones who bid you up, not yourself, as they have rendered your losing bids on the other side irrelevant. You never bid up both sides at the same time. You only switch sides if forced to. You will still have to overtake all bidders on both sides regardless if you intend to win. A single competitive bidder on one side cannot overtake you if you control the other side unless the two sides are in a dead heat already, in which case you'd still have to overtake him regardless of which side he is on, and you'd be bidding against him, not yourself. And if a single competitive bidder bids against you on both sides, then it doesn't matter which side he chooses as the decision is arbitrary and you have to overtake him either way.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sorry it worked out this way for you. As a lawyer i am glad you shared it because it certainly made for a fascinating discussion.

Hi Pete! Just another wringing observation (hi Jeff) how could damaged be claimed in such an event? Someone staying up all night and being heart broken? I just don't see the case here. It sucks and Heritage wouldn't even respond to consignor my signed 1952 topps set, but I can even begin to see what damages are here

[tbob]

Originally Posted by Powell

I’m moving on. It was a bad scene. I’m not suing anybody. I hope Aaron enjoys his card. It wasn’t his fault. I never thought I should get special treatment because I spend a lot of money. I should have had a fair chance to compete. The set lot was doomed and there is the unfairness. Anyway, I hope this experience reduces the risk it ever happens again. I appreciate the support from many of you. There are passionate collectors and many great people on this board whom I’ve learned a lot from. Thank you!

Powell

You have certainly shown an admirable attitude toward this difficult situation. As a set collector who regretably anticipates that day arriving when I’ll have to make decisions on how my pre-war vintage collection is ultimately sold, it has certainly been a learning experience for me, and I suspect, others in the hobby.

B@b Marq@ette

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

FWIW, this is how it's been successfully executed in the past by auction houses like Mastros, Mile High, REA, Memorylane, etc. There's clear communication at the top of each lot (note the sentence at the very top of each lot page), and the lots are all linked and work together in unison. So bidders have real-time (official) visibility as to which is wining, and then can pivot and change bidding strategy if need be. (Images courtesy of a gentleman from New Jersey).

I thought I recall those and the technology/software is there so why did HA which is a big auction house with deep pockets not have this in place.

Hopefully they put this in place prior to the next time they sell set vs Individual auction

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Hi Pete! Just another wringing observation (hi Jeff) how could damaged be claimed in such an event? Someone staying up all night and being heart broken? I just don't see the case here. It sucks and Heritage wouldn't even respond to consignor my signed 1952 topps set, but I can even begin to see what damages are here

Ted as I posted a couple of times I don't see any claim for damages. In theory, if Heritage still had the cards, there could have been a claim for specific performance but one would have needed injunctive relief to keep the cards in place.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

While it may seem like you'd be bidding against yourself by bidding on both sides, the math doesn't actually work out that way. The game theory optimal strategy here would be to focus on the individual lots first, and to ensure participation in the set lot as a backup plan, since the individual lots should be the favorite to win out. You're not effectively bidding against yourself because you only bid on one side of the auction unless two or more bidders overtake you on the other side, in which case *they* are the ones who bid you up, not yourself, as they have rendered your losing bids on the other side irrelevant. You never bid up both sides at the same time. You only switch sides if forced to. You will still have to overtake all bidders on both sides regardless if you intend to win. A single competitive bidder on one side cannot overtake you if you control the other side unless the two sides are in a dead heat already, in which case you'd still have to overtake him regardless of which side he is on, and you'd be bidding against him, not yourself. And if a single competitive bidder bids against you on both sides, then it doesn't matter which side he chooses as the decision is arbitrary and you have to overtake him either way.

Suppose lete in the bidding there's just one or two lots where it's obvious another bidder really wants them and would go to the moon to get them. You really want the set so abandon the plan to win all individual lots and chase the set. Suppose too nobody else would have bid higher on the other individual lots on which you are now high. At that point aren't all your other bids built into the set price you now have to beat? Wouldn't you have done better just to chase the set from the get go?