Robert Edwards Auctions STILL going strong at 8:15 AM Est!!!!

Peter_Spaeth · #1 04-27-2022, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Read posts #170 and #214. Both seem to indicate that the extra day did foster additional bidding in some cases, and that is just from among the forum members that actively post on here. However, I would think the preponderance of REA bidders are not all active posters on here, and so the chance that even more instances of additional bidding on some other REA lots resulted from that added day are likely, I'm guessing, pretty darn high.

So, those two posts I referenced do seem to indicate that it is an indisputable fact that the one-day extension in this specific REA auction did lead to some additional bids. Now does that mean that such a bidding extension also resulted in additional bids in every other auction that has ever occurred where the bidding got extended for at least one additional day for whatever reason, no. But there is also no reasonable way to ever be able to prove or disprove that in every single instance.

And there is also no exact, agreed upon definition as to what constitutes a "significant" difference in an ending auction price. So, to make any such a statement that something is an indisputable fact, or not, when one of the determining parameters is such a subjective, and not objective, measure, is totally inappropriate. You can't indisputably prove or disprove anything that is a subjective measure.

That there were additional bids proves nothing. The same bids might have come in had there been no glitches and the auction stayed open until its natural close the previous night. To get technical, you need to compare the outcome with the "but for" world, not the actual world.

BobC · #2 04-27-2022, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That there were additional bids proves nothing. The same bids might have come in had there been no glitches and the auction stayed open until its natural close the previous night. To get technical, you need to compare the outcome with the "but for" world, not the actual world.

Peter,

Robert's post #170 specifically says that if not for the additional day of bidding he wouldn't have had the chance to raise extra funds to bid more. I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was merely pointing out to another poster that the extended bidding did in fact result in additional bids, in this particular REA auction, that would not have occurred otherwise. I never stated, or even insinuated, that such additional bids resulted in higher ending auction prices, or that similar bids could not have come in had the original REA auction close proceeded with no glitches.

I then went even further to note and point out how the other poster's talk of "indisputable facts" was inappropriate because he was using a subjective measure ("significantly" different ending prices), which can never be definitively (and indisputably) proven or disproven. However, it was to also show support for that other poster's position that it absolutely is not an "indisputable fact" that an extended bidding period resulting from a tech glitch will automatically result in additional bids causing higher ending prices. Again, I merely noted that you can't claim something as an indisputable fact if it has any subjective component in it, which for the most part is what Jay was saying. I was responding to Steve's earlier post through Jay's response to that same earlier post, and addressing the way both of them were saying/presenting certain things.

So, "to get technical", what exactly did I say or do wrong? If you are incorrectly assuming or insinuating I stated or implied something that I did not, and just went to all the trouble to explain even more why and how I didn't, then so be it. I've already had the occasion on this forum before to go through the trouble of explaining my position and meaning on something, only to have someone come back and actively argue that I didn't mean what I had just said I meant. How the f@ck can that be, that my opinion and what I said I meant is not what I said and meant by it? Talk about trying to put words in someone else's mouth. But I digress as I'm sure that is not the case in this instance.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 04-27-2022, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Peter,

Robert's post #170 specifically says that if not for the additional day of bidding he wouldn't have had the chance to raise extra funds to bid more. I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was merely pointing out to another poster that the extended bidding did in fact result in additional bids, in this particular REA auction, that would not have occurred otherwise. I never stated, or even insinuated, that such additional bids resulted in higher ending auction prices, or that similar bids could not have come in had the original REA auction close proceeded with no glitches.

I then went even further to note and point out how the other poster's talk of "indisputable facts" was inappropriate because he was using a subjective measure ("significantly" different ending prices), which can never be definitively (and indisputably) proven or disproven. However, it was to also show support for that other poster's position that it absolutely is not an "indisputable fact" that an extended bidding period resulting from a tech glitch will automatically result in additional bids causing higher ending prices. Again, I merely noted that you can't claim something as an indisputable fact if it has any subjective component in it, which for the most part is what Jay was saying. I was responding to Steve's earlier post through Jay's response to that same earlier post, and addressing the way both of them were saying/presenting certain things.

So, "to get technical", what exactly did I say or do wrong? If you are incorrectly assuming or insinuating I stated or implied something that I did not, and just went to all the trouble to explain even more why and how I didn't, then so be it. I've already had the occasion on this forum before to go through the trouble of explaining my position and meaning on something, only to have someone come back and actively argue that I didn't mean what I had just said I meant. How the f@ck can that be, that my opinion and what I said I meant is not what I said and meant by it? Talk about trying to put words in someone else's mouth. But I digress as I'm sure that is not the case in this instance.

I wasn't attacking or disagreeing with you. I was just following up with an observation that the fact that there were additional bids on Monday -- which you had referenced -- does not, in and of itself, establish anything. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

iwantitiwinit · #4 04-27-2022, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That there were additional bids proves nothing. The same bids might have come in had there been no glitches and the auction stayed open until its natural close the previous night. To get technical, you need to compare the outcome with the "but for" world, not the actual world.

Untrue in my case. Had the auction ended Sunday night I would not have bid higher, I had already been outbid and gone to sleep. Decided to bid higher on Monday and only had to bid one increment higher to win so there were no other bidders at that level or higher on Sunday.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 04-27-2022, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Untrue in my case. Had the auction ended Sunday night I would not have bid higher, I had already been outbid and gone to sleep. Decided to bid higher on Monday and only had to bid one increment higher to win so there were no other bidders at that level or higher on Sunday.

Understood, although there likely are people in the opposite camp.

Pat R · #6 04-27-2022, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a meaningless bet because there's no way to know what would have happened had the site not had issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That there were additional bids proves nothing. The same bids might have come in had there been no glitches and the auction stayed open until its natural close the previous night. To get technical, you need to compare the outcome with the "but for" world, not the actual world.

Most people in this thread are only looking at it from one side depending on what they believe.

As you pointed out it's impossible to know what the difference is or would have been if there was no glitch.

Probably the closest comparison you can get is to compare the overtime bidding in recent REA auctions.

Here is a comparison of the overtime bids in this auction to the recent fall auction and last springs auction for the first 20 lots in each auction.

These are the bids in each auction in overtime when you can only bid on items that you had previously bid on. In two cases a lot didn't meet the reserve so I used the numbers from lot 21.

This auction 170 bids in overtime 71 of them on Monday
2021 fall auction 65 bids in overtime
2021 spring auction 160 bids in overtime

So there was 10 more bids in this auction than there were last springs auction on the first 20 lots. Lot number 7 the signed t202 Cobb in this auction received 42 bids in overtime 33 of them were on Monday.

Snapolit1 · #7 04-27-2022, 12:47 PM

I'll stick with my original premise: if an AH took a financial hit from one of these outages/delays . . . IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat R

Most people in this thread are only looking at it from one side depending on what they believe.

As you pointed out it's impossible to know what the difference is or would have been if there was no glitch.

Probably the closest comparison you can get is to compare the overtime bidding in recent REA auctions.

Here is a comparison of the overtime bids in this auction to the recent fall auction and last springs auction for the first 20 lots in each auction.

These are the bids in each auction in overtime when you can only bid on items that you had previously bid on. In two cases a lot didn't meet the reserve so I used the numbers from lot 21.

This auction 170 bids in overtime 71 of them on Monday
2021 fall auction 65 bids in overtime
2021 spring auction 160 bids in overtime

So there was 10 more bids in this auction than there were last springs auction on the first 20 lots. Lot number 7 the signed t202 Cobb in this auction received 42 bids in overtime 33 of them were on Monday.

Peter_Spaeth · #8 04-27-2022, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'll stick with my original premise: if an AH took a financial hit from one of these outages/delays . . . IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

Based on what? Outages happen even to major companies all the time, you seem to think an AH is capable of making itself outage and glitch proof, not so.

https://www.newsweek.com/major-websi...0-2021-1640031

Pat R · #9 04-27-2022, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat R

Most people in this thread are only looking at it from one side depending on what they believe.

As you pointed out it's impossible to know what the difference is or would have been if there was no glitch.

Probably the closest comparison you can get is to compare the overtime bidding in recent REA auctions.

Here is a comparison of the overtime bids in this auction to the recent fall auction and last springs auction for the first 20 lots in each auction.

These are the bids in each auction in overtime when you can only bid on items that you had previously bid on. In two cases a lot didn't meet the reserve so I used the numbers from lot 21.

This auction 170 bids in overtime 71 of them on Monday
2021 fall auction 65 bids in overtime
2021 spring auction 160 bids in overtime

So there was 10 more bids in this auction than there were last springs auction on the first 20 lots. Lot number 7 the signed t202 Cobb in this auction received 42 bids in overtime 33 of them were on Monday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'll stick with my original premise: if an AH took a financial hit from one of these outages/delays . . . IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

And I'll stick with what I said here.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Shanus v. R.L. Americana, Lifson, Robert Edwards Auctions, et al.	jackwesq	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	20	08-31-2019 07:41 PM
Robert Edwards Auctions, first major auction	timkb	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	29	05-09-2018 05:04 PM
Huge shotout to Robert Edwards Auctions...	Mountaineer	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	21	07-16-2014 06:22 PM
Robert Edwards Auctions	theseeker	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	3	11-06-2012 10:23 PM
Robert Lifson/Robert Edwards/James Spence and Autograph Alert!	sports-rings	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	1	12-21-2010 03:11 PM