What is the point of the "Buyer's Premium"?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So to be clear, some of you guys are accusing Board members like Scott B, Scott R, Al C and Lee B of trying to deceive buyers into overpaying?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So to be clear, some of you guys are accusing Board members like Scott B, Scott R, Al C and Lee B of trying to deceive buyers into overpaying?

I think the accusation is that AHs are savvy business operators.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

I think the accusation is that AHs are savvy business operators.

It was referred to as a trick.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So to be clear, some of you guys are accusing Board members like Scott B, Scott R, Al C and Lee B of trying to deceive buyers into overpaying?

No, the accusation is that many people are clods who cannot do math and as a result there are some who do not factor in the BP when bidding. The information is right there, they are just incapable of using it. Which is why many sites show the BP number alongside the bid number. Heritage has long done this. You click on a bid there and you see the precise total cost of the bid plus BP. More to the point, the question is why engage in a cumbersome method when a single price WYSIWYG would be cleaner and easier? The answer can only be that it grants the AH some sort of small edge to do it that way, like a casino adding another 0 space to a roulette wheel.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So to be clear, some of you guys are accusing Board members like Scott B, Scott R, Al C and Lee B of trying to deceive buyers into overpaying?

I am accusing people who run auction houses of, generally, figuring out the obvious. That a lightly hidden fee tends to produce more money from people who are lazy or dumb or forget they have to tack on an extra 15, 17.5, 20% or whatever. It is a psychological tactic to make it look like less, and if someone forgets about the fee, I doubt there’s a single auctioneer who will turn down the profit. It clearly produces more revenue that telling bidders their bid is their bid, and they can raise their bids 15-20% because there is no buyers fee. If this offends people, they may be offended.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am accusing people who run auction houses of, generally, figuring out the obvious. That a lightly hidden fee tends to produce more money from people who are lazy or dumb or forget they have to tack on an extra 15, 17.5, 20% or whatever. It is a psychological tactic to make it look like less, and if someone forgets about the fee, I doubt there’s a single auctioneer who will turn down the profit. It clearly produces more revenue that telling bidders their bid is their bid, and they can raise their bids 15-20% because there is no buyers fee. If this offends people, they may be offended.

So it doesn't fool you, but you're sure it fools others?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So it doesn't fool you, but you're sure it fools others?

Does it seem likely to you that nobody ever forgets about it? Does it seem rational to you that this complication would be added (a system is easier when there are fewer variables) if it did not produce a better result for the house?

Would you be happier if I posited instead that auctioneers are too stupid to figure out why their business model is what it is?

This isn't much to get offended over in the idea that people running businesses tend to structure them to their benefit when possible. A Buyers Premium structure, with a separate fee to tack onto the bid, is not designed to the benefit of the buyer. This seems like common sense. If you would like to take this as a personal slight on your aforementioned list for some reason, go ahead.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Does it seem likely to you that nobody ever forgets about it? Does it seem rational to you that this complication would be added (a system is easier when there are fewer variables) if it did not produce a better result for the house?

Would you be happier if I posited instead that auctioneers are too stupid to figure out why their business model is what it is?

This isn't much to get offended over in the idea that people running businesses tend to structure them to their benefit when possible. A Buyers Premium structure, with a separate fee to tack onto the bid, is not designed to the benefit of the buyer. This seems like common sense. If you would like to take this as a personal slight on your aforementioned list for some reason, go ahead.

I'm not presuming I'm smarter or more careful than other people. My guess is if it happens it's very very infrequent after 20 years of this model.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not presuming I'm smarter or more careful than other people. My guess is if it happens it's very very infrequent after 20 years of this model.

I never said anything about myself; that was a line you went down and I ignored. I rarely participate in auction house bidding for reasons other than the BP structure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I never said anything about myself; that was a line you went down and I ignored. I rarely participate in auction house bidding for reasons other than the BP structure.

I am certain you would not be fooled.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So it doesn't fool you, but you're sure it fools others?

1 in 6 people have an IQ below 85. That is a significant handicap when it comes to processing even simple information such as this. I don't think the AH's are intentionally on a mission to "target" those less capable, but they are certainly targeting those less capable. It is a deceptive tactic that results in hidden fees and hammer prices that were higher than expected for some, whether intentional or not. However, it allows them to operate above board (and to justify it to themselves) because they can just point to their fee structure as it is plainly spelled out for everyone to see. For most buyers, it's not much of an issue.

I think one could make an argument that it's not actually a deceptive tactic if they indeed charged 20% of the hammer price for sold items. But that's not actually the case. Nobody charges 20%. It's usually between 10 to 15% and the consignor gets some portion of the BP back. It's pretty difficult to argue that it is not intended to deceive with that being the case.

[Exhibitman]

Peter, I have little doubt that a small but significant minority of bidders forget about the BP, taxes, and gouge-level shipping (excepting from the latter the AHS who have adopted flat-rate shipping), especially when making that last bid in the dead of night. I made a late bid in REA the other night and won the card, and I knew but did not really appreciate that my $160 bid became a $202 bill. Had the bid shown as $192 instead of $160 it might have given me pause.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Peter, I have little doubt that a small but significant minority of bidders forget about the BP, taxes, and gouge-level shipping (excepting from the latter the AHS who have adopted flat-rate shipping), especially when making that last bid in the dead of night. I made a late bid in REA the other night and won the card, and I knew but did not really appreciate that my $160 bid became a $202 bill. Had the bid shown as $192 instead of $160 it might have given me pause.

If we were all perfect decision makers the world would look a lot different. No car accidents . . . no malpractice claims. . . . nobody would spend more money that they have . . . . nobody would marry a creepy loser . . . . the federal reserve wouldn't need to raise by another .75 basis points . . .

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If we were all perfect decision makers the world would look a lot different. ...nobody would marry a creepy loser

But, then how are card collectors supposed to have families?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by exhibitman

peter, i have little doubt that a small but significant minority of bidders forget about the bp, taxes, and gouge-level shipping (excepting from the latter the ahs who have adopted flat-rate shipping), especially when making that last bid in the dead of night. I made a late bid in rea the other night and won the card, and i knew but did not really appreciate that my $160 bid became a $202 bill. Had the bid shown as $192 instead of $160 it might have given me pause.

guilty!

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Snowman

1 in 6 people have an IQ below 85. That is a significant handicap when it comes to processing even simple information such as this. I don't think the AH's are intentionally on a mission to "target" those less capable, but they are certainly targeting those less capable. It is a deceptive tactic that results in hidden fees and hammer prices that were higher than expected for some, whether intentional or not. However, it allows them to operate above board (and to justify it to themselves) because they can just point to their fee structure as it is plainly spelled out for everyone to see. For most buyers, it's not much of an issue.

I think one could make an argument that it's not actually a deceptive tactic if they indeed charged 20% of the hammer price for sold items. But that's not actually the case. Nobody charges 20%. It's usually between 10 to 15% and the consignor gets some portion of the BP back. It's pretty difficult to argue that it is not intended to deceive with that being the case.

I can't recount for you how many people I have spoken to at shows who were considering selling their cards and ended up consigning them because the auction house employee(s) explained that "the seller isn't paying anything" to have the auction house sell their card - "all the fees are paid by the bidders - they (the seller) will receive 100% of the hammer price". What isn't said is that Hammer price DOES NOT equal fair market value (most of the time - see many comments above about bidders backing out the BP in their bidding calculations and the bidders who are "fooled" by the BP). The irony and frustration for me is for the right higher-end cards, I will pay 80% of fair market value on the spot!
I have said it many times before, it makes no sense to me why so many cards with easily and readily established market values are given to auction houses. The cards that make the most sense to me for auction are cards where demand is super strong and supply is not (think super high end (or low pop) cards of guys like Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Mays, Robinson, Gehrig, Wagner, etc.)

In fact there is a very real risk involved in selling cards with easily established market values. A recent case in point - I was communicating with a guy looking to sell a 1952 Topps PSA 3.5 Mantle. I offered to take it on private consignment, estimating a selling price of $110K and asking for a 7.5% commission upon the sale of the card. He explained he had that much into it, thought it was worth a lot more and touted what he believed was a certainty that he would at least recoup his investment going to a very well respected, well known auction house. The card happened to sell at auction for $87K less than 3 weeks after we spoke. He negotiated a piece of the BP back, but will still see less than $80K from the sale. I believe his card sold under market. Why? There happened to be another Mantle a grade apart in the same auction? Maybe a few guys missed the auction who would have been potential buyers? Maybe the market is softening just a bit? A bunch of other maybe's? What isn't advertised alongside the all too familiar "get record prices auction ads" is that MOST cards that are auctioned do not sell for record prices!

I have said it ad nauseum - An auction house is more times than not - NOT the best place to sell a card.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I can't recount for you how many people I have spoken to at shows who were considering selling their cards and ended up consigning them because the auction house employee(s) explained that "the seller isn't paying anything" to have the auction house sell their card - "all the fees are paid by the bidders - they (the seller) will receive 100% of the hammer price". What isn't said is that Hammer price DOES NOT equal fair market value (most of the time - see many comments above about bidders backing out the BP in their bidding calculations and the bidders who are "fooled" by the BP). The irony and frustration for me is for the right higher-end cards, I will pay 80% of fair market value on the spot!
I have said it many times before, it makes no sense to me why so many cards with easily and readily established market values are given to auction houses. The cards that make the most sense to me for auction are cards where demand is super strong and supply is not (think super high end (or low pop) cards of guys like Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Mays, Robinson, Gehrig, Wagner, etc.)

In fact there is a very real risk involved in selling cards with easily established market values. A recent case in point - I was communicating with a guy looking to sell a 1952 Topps PSA 3.5 Mantle. I offered to take it on private consignment, estimating a selling price of $110K and asking for a 7.5% commission upon the sale of the card. He explained he had that much into it, thought it was worth a lot more and touted what he believed was a certainty that he would at least recoup his investment going to a very well respected, well known auction house. The card happened to sell at auction for $87K less than 3 weeks after we spoke. He negotiated a piece of the BP back, but will still see less than $80K from the sale. I believe his card sold under market. Why? There happened to be another Mantle a grade apart in the same auction? Maybe a few guys missed the auction who would have been potential buyers? Maybe the market is softening just a bit? A bunch of other maybe's? What isn't advertised alongside the all too familiar "get record prices auction ads" is that MOST cards that are auctioned do not sell for record prices!

I have said it ad nauseum - An auction house is more times than not - NOT the best place to sell a card.

Would seem to beg the question why didn't you pick said Mantle up at auction? If we're giving away cards at rates you can profit on, take advantage of us!

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Would seem to beg the question why didn't you pick said Mantle up at auction? If we're giving away cards at rates you can profit on, take advantage of us!

1) I did not see the card in hand and was sent some less appealing angles by the owner. In this case I would have wanted to see the card in hand prior to purchase (another advantage to hand to hand transactions) - good quality auction scans notwithstanding.

2) There is a negative psychology in play as well which didn't occur to me till giving thought to your question - why ISN'T the card being bid higher!? Did I miss something that others have seen? This would be a mute point if I had the card in hand.

3) As mentioned I will buy "the right" cards at 80% of FMV. Had the guy offered me the Mantle at 87,500 in a private transaction there is a good chance I would have pulled the trigger. The next bid would have put me over 80%. I need a margin to earn a living as well.

4) That all said, as you well know, as your auction is one of them - I place hundreds of bids in a year in various auctions and have done quite well with the things I have purchased. Once things get past my 80% threshold (INCLUDING buyers premium) I have no further incentive to bid.

I want to be clear in case it came off otherwise - I believe auctions are a valuable part of the hobby and there are some guys (yourself included) that run above board top notch houses. I simply don't believe an auction format is the best place for interested sellers to sell most cards. I also understand perfectly an auctions need to "get paid" and earn a living somewhere (buyers or sellers side). It does feel a bit deceptive to me (and as mentioned I have heard it too many times directly from the sellers) when a house tells an "unsuspecting" seller that it "doesn't cost them anything because that is simply not true - the fact that they don't charge them anything doesn't equate to zero cost!

Thanks for the question.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Would seem to beg the question why didn't you pick said Mantle up at auction? If we're giving away cards at rates you can profit on, take advantage of us!

Howard provided some very thoughtful answers for his thinking here. I'll maybe add a few more.

Maybe as a quick preamble, I think we can all acknowledge that there's a difference between buying an item for our own collection and buying it to make a profit. When we're buying for our own collection, we're typically planning to keep it for a long time, possibly decades, or even until the end, and so our willingness to pay outlandish sums is often very strong for something that we plan to treasure so greatly. On the other hand, when we're specifically buying to make a profit, there's a whole different psychology and analysis around when it makes sense mathematically. And Howard identified in pretty solid detail for him how he analyzes that case.

I think I would posit a couple of other elements that come into play with this specific situation, to wit:

1) $90k is a lot to have tied up in a single item. At least for us mere mortals it is. While you're working to re-sell it, having this much tied up means that you have to pass on other opportunities, including opportunities to add to your personal collection. And this might represent a significant percentage of your liquid working capital, so having it tied up in a single item means that this could be your only play for a while until you can get it re-sold. And we haven't even gotten into factoring in the time value of money and the possibility of investing your cash in a productive asset that gives you a return while you're waiting.

2) Add to that the fact that you're risking so much on a single item. While 311 Mantles are arguably unique in that they only seem to go up, those are history's famous last words. If for some reason the demand for this specific piece drops, then you've risked an awful lot on just one bet. I would more specifically posit that in this case, the bottom of the market has been bid up a lot recently for low to mid grade items, such that there is added risk at this grade for this item that this price level might not be sustainable.

3) More generally, at this juncture in history, buying an item in the six figure range represents particular risks. We've seen prices in our little slice of the world over the last ~2 years rise, in many cases by 500% or more. While there has been a modest pullback from those highs recently for postwar items, it's anyone's guess how long the current elevated prices will last. They could last for another week, they could last for another decade. But if you invest this much into this one item with a plan to resell it, and the market drops off a cliff tomorrow, then your plan to make a profit has just evaporated, and you've probably lost a lot more than you ever really stood to gain. While this risk always exists to some extent, to my mind, it's heightened during periods where we've experienced such a dramatic, even breathtaking acceleration in prices.

4) There are very real and nonzero costs to sell. There are only so many people in this world who have $100k to spend on a single baseball card. While at times they seem like they're everywhere these days, competing against me to buy everything that I desperately need, quite honestly, I don't have that many of them on speed dial. I could certainly post it in Net54 free of charge, and maybe get some interest. Maybe! At the same time, most of the ballers on this board will take 10 seconds to identify my cost, and then not be real willing to go a lot higher. But if I have to turn around and take it to auction myself, then that means that I'll need someone who is willing to pay significantly more than I paid so as to cover my auction costs (whether it's 5%, 10%, 20%, or more, once we factor in everything). And if I want to not just break even, but actually make some money, then I'll need someone to pay a whole lot more to cover my original cost plus my selling costs plus a respectable profit. (Not to mention my taxes on my gain, which is probably taxable at ordinary rates if I haven't held for a full year.) (!!!) Maybe I'm just a nervous nellie, but that seems like a big risk to be taking.

Anyway, your question got me to thinking, which led me here. It was a good question to ask, because I think to some extent, there's a little bit of vulture in all of us, such that we're all always on the lookout for good bargains and opportunities to take advantage of market anomalies, particularly if it means that we can plow those profits back into buying for our own collection.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by hcv123

In fact there is a very real risk involved in selling cards with easily established market values. A recent case in point - I was communicating with a guy looking to sell a 1952 Topps PSA 3.5 Mantle. I offered to take it on private consignment, estimating a selling price of $110K and asking for a 7.5% commission upon the sale of the card. He explained he had that much into it, thought it was worth a lot more and touted what he believed was a certainty that he would at least recoup his investment going to a very well respected, well known auction house. The card happened to sell at auction for $87K less than 3 weeks after we spoke. He negotiated a piece of the BP back, but will still see less than $80K from the sale.

I have said it ad nauseum - An auction house is more times than not - NOT the best place to sell a card.

Anyone else want to see this included as a testimonial for an auction house!!??

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think one could make an argument that it's not actually a deceptive tactic if they indeed charged 20% of the hammer price for sold items. But that's not actually the case. Nobody charges 20%. It's usually between 10 to 15% and the consignor gets some portion of the BP back. It's pretty difficult to argue that it is not intended to deceive with that being the case.

Not true. I have never received any BP kickback when I consigned and I believe many here could say the same. Unless your total consignment is for very large $$ or you have headliner material that will make the AH's front page you are not getting any of the 20% tossed back, much less up to half.

Again, I remain puzzled by any grousing over the BP as being deceptive. It's there in the rules for all to see, and if you get fooled once, don't go back. In fact, since so many here are intent on calling out what they see as shady or deceptive practices and avow they will not participate with such sellers, do so now. I would love nothing more than to see dozens or more competitors drop off the bidding list in nearly all major and minor auctions in solidarity against these "scammers".

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not true. I have never received any BP kickback when I consigned and I believe many here could say the same. Unless your total consignment is for very large $$ or you have headliner material that will make the AH's front page you are not getting any of the 20% tossed back.

Again, I remain puzzled by any grousing over the BP as being deceptive. It's there in the rules for all to see, and if you get fooled once, don't go back. In fact, since so many here are intent on calling out what they see as shady or deceptive practices and avow they will not participate with such sellers, do so now. I would love nothing more than to see dozens or more competitors drop off the bidding list in nearly all major and minor auctions in solidarity against these "scammers".

For some reason this conversation always goes down an unintended rabbit hole. The OP never mentioned it being deceptive.

I'd love to see the conversation stay on point for once and explain why Hunt can survive on 17.5,% while Heritage needs 20% (I guess they haven't figured out how to capitalize on economies of scale?) and Huggins 23%? Maybe if it didn't feel so arbitrary, people wouldn't bring this up so much.

[Fballguy]

And it would be refreshing for once (and a real differentiator for that AH), if an auction house made an effort to cut down on shipping costs. There's absolutely no incentive to because they just pass on 100% of the cost to the buyer so what do they care (and who knows...likely more than 100% of the cost).

I don't think I've ever won an auction that I couldn't have shipped for about 50% of what AHs charge me.

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

For some reason this conversation always goes down an unintended rabbit hole. The OP never mentioned it being deceptive.

I'd love to see the conversation stay on point for once and explain why Hunt can survive on 17.5,% while Heritage needs 20% (I guess they haven't figured out how to capitalize on economies of scale?) and Huggins 23%? Maybe if it didn't feel so arbitrary, people wouldn't bring this up so much.

Same reason Audi is a different price than Toyota or Milwaukee is a different price than Dewalt, or Hershey's is a different price than Ghirardelli. Different products, different costs, different management, different businesses. Seems quite simple to me.

[x2drich2000]

Duplicate post

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

I'd love to see the conversation stay on point for once and explain why Hunt can survive on 17.5,% while Heritage needs 20% (I guess they haven't figured out how to capitalize on economies of scale?) and Huggins 23%?.

Just an FYI that for 90+% of our bidders that H&S charges a 20% BP. The extra 3% are for those very few bidders who insist on using Credit Cards.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

So I get it, you have to think about the Buyer's Premium and take it into account and bid accordingly. But what is the actual point? The only possible motive I can come up with is that's a psychological tactic by the auction house to make you feel like you're paying less than you actually are, or even worse, hoping for ignorance on the part of the buyer.

Sorry if this has been discussed.

Originally Posted by Fballguy

For some reason this conversation always goes down an unintended rabbit hole. The OP never mentioned it being deceptive.

I'd love to see the conversation stay on point for once and explain why Hunt can survive on 17.5,% while Heritage needs 20% (I guess they haven't figured out how to capitalize on economies of scale?) and Huggins 23%? Maybe if it didn't feel so arbitrary, people wouldn't bring this up so much.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like that's what he was insinuating in his post.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

I'd love to see the conversation stay on point for once and explain why Hunt can survive on 17.5,% while Heritage needs 20% (I guess they haven't figured out how to capitalize on economies of scale?) and Huggins 23%? Maybe if it didn't feel so arbitrary, people wouldn't bring this up so much.

I assume the reasons Hunt Auctions can survive on a 17.5% BP are (1) because Hunt hasn't invested in state-of-the-are auction software, and (2) because Hunt seldon shows sufficient pics of its auction lots, often showing only a pic of the front of a card. You couldn't pay me to consign to Hunt Auctions!

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by G1911

That a lightly hidden fee tends to produce more money from people who are lazy or dumb or forget they have to tack on an extra 15, 17.5, 20% or whatever.

These people should not be making bids in an AH format.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

These people should not be making bids in an AH format.

I think it's less about being bad at math, and more about the psychological effect. For whatever reason, my suspicion is that bidders feel better about bidding $100 (plus 20%) than bidding $120, even though they're exactly the same thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

I think it's less about being bad at math, and more about the psychological effect. For whatever reason, my suspicion is that bidders feel better about bidding $100 (plus 20%) than bidding $120, even though they're exactly the same thing.

Why are you all presuming what other people think?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why are you all presuming what other people think?

It's a suspicion, not a presumption.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

It's a suspicion, not a presumption.

Fine, what's your basis for suspecting what other people think, if you yourself don't think that way?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So to be clear, some of you guys are accusing Board members like Scott B, Scott R, Al C and Lee B of trying to deceive buyers into overpaying?

Sorry I didn't respond earlier Peter, but I see our new CPA here on the forum, Nicolo/raulus, has been having a pretty good go at you.

But as for this comment of yours, c'mon, you seriously want to accuse people of accusing some of our auction house owning/operating brethren here on the forum of trying to deceive people to somehow cheat them out of more money? OMG, you're so much better than this. And in another post of yours you responded about making this quoted post above because someone used the word "trick" in describing what was possibly happening. Well, the OP used the term "psychological tactic" in the very first post in this thread. It was I that used the term "psychological selling trick" back in post #6 of this thread, so quite obviously you are accusing me of saying Scott, Scott, Lee, and Al are basically trying to cheat people out of money?!?!?!

Maybe you should go back and read my post #6 again, because quite frankly, after that post of mine, no one really needed to say anything else to the OP, he already had the answer. And the last line I had in that post #6 is the biggest, most important, and most applicable of all in regard to this whole thing.

First off, AHs need to make money to stay in business, so of course they're going to charge someone a commission, and that isn't deceiving or cheating anyone. And when looking for consignors, AHs know that to consignors, it always looks better when they aren't supposedly going to pay for the entire commission out of their pocket. Go ask Scott, Scott, Lee, and Al how many consignments they'd possibly lose if instead of say charging a consignor a 15% sellers commission, and then charging the purchaser a 20% buyer's premium, one of them decided to simply charge the consignor a 29% seller's commission and there is no buyer's premium at all. (I'll explain later why the AH would only have to charge the consignor a 29% seller's commission.) Meanwhile, all their AH competitors continue to offer the split seller's commission/buyer's premium concept, and only ask for a 15 % seller's commission. So a potential consignor comes to all four AH owner's with the same item and hears three will charge him a 15% seller's commission. while one will charge him a 29% seller's commission. Who do you honestly think is most likely going to get turned down first to auction the item?

Think about it, the consignor upon hearing one auction house wants to charge him almost double what everyone else is going to charge, is likely going to immediately tune out everything else that AH owner is then going to say and try explaining to them about how they'll potentially still end up with same amount of money if they consigned the item with them at the much higher SC.

See, in your perfect world, say you as the potential bidder/buyer value this consignor's item at $120. So, if it gets consigned to one of the other AHs still doing the split seller's/buyer's fees of 15% and 20%, respectively, you immediately know you'll have a 20% buyer's premium to pay in that AH's auction, so you determine up front your max bid will only be $100, because then adding the 20% buyer's premium of $20 ($100 X 20%) to your max bid gets you to the $120 amount you feel the item is worth. And let's say you do end up winning the auction for your $100 max bid. You pay the $20 buyer's premium, the consignor ends up paying a $15 seller's commission ($100 X 15%), and the AH ends up making $35 ($20 BP + $15 SC). Meanwhile you, the winner bidder, paid $120 for the item ($100 hammer price + $20 BP), ignoring S&H and sales tax charges for simplicity's sake. And the consignor gets $85 ($100 hammer price - $15 SC).

Now what if the consignor instead went with the AH charging him a 29% SC, and there was no BP? You, in your perfect world once again, still value the item at $120. But since this AH isn't charging a BP, you put in a max bid for the full value of $120, and end up winning. In this case the AH makes approximately the same $35 as in the other scenario ($120 hammer price X 29% SC = $34.80). That's where the revised SC of 29% comes from. Meanwhile, you as the buyer pay the same $120 as in the other scenario, just now all of it as the auction hammer price. And the consignor ends up getting approximately the same net cash of $85 as in the other scenario ($120 hammer price - $34.80 SC = $85.20).

But all that only works out in a perfect world that you apparently live in. Consignors most likely aren't going to want to consign with an AH charging a higher SC, even it shouldn't make a difference in what they end up netting on their item sold (ask the brethren). Not all bidders think and act like you apparently do, and can be prone to getting caught up in the heat/excitement of an auction and forgetting about the BP. Seeing or not seeing that bid commitment amount, including the BP, on your auction bid list can, and does, influence many people, whether you think so or not. Our mind's play tricks on us, and often if we don't actually see something, we can just keep ignoring it. What's the old adage, "Out of sight, out of mind!". And there's a reason old adages are old adages, because they are very often fundamentally true!

Scott, Scott, Lee, and Al aren't trying to deceive and cheat anyone. They are trying to be competitive, and still pay the bills, and offer their services and fees in at least a somewhat consistent manner with their competition. They all fully disclose the costs and fees they charge buyers in their auctions. At the same time, they are all actually working for their consignors, who are their true clients, in trying to get them the highest final sales prices possible for their items. They do not work for the bidders and buyers in trying to get them to pay the least amount possible for things that they want. So if you actually think them using techniques like not including the BP in with current bids on auction bid pages is somehow deceptive and cheating, think again. Post #6, last line.

And isn't it you who often likes to make/use the "slippery slope" reference? Well, if all the auction houses did start including those BPs with the current bid amounts on their auction pages, you know damn well someone will then come along and start bitching about how they deceptively didn't include the sales tax, the S&H, or some other fees and charges, along with the auction bids amounts as well. And God forbid, if some AH did try to include all those other costs in updating the final total costs of items being bid on, in real time during an auction, when it turns out just one time after an auction ends that a winning bidder's final actual amount due doesn't agree with the in-auction totals because of some glitch, error, or whatever, the AH will just get bitched at some more.

And if you somehow still think AHs using or following psychological practices or tricks to get better prices for their consignors are being deceptive and thus trying to cheat people, then you better go ahead and similarly accuse most every business in the world that does any kind of marketing and advertising as being a deceptive cheat as well. Everything advertised and marketed is done so as to increase sales and profits, and ultimately get the most money possible out of every buyer. What do girls with big boobs, or NFL quarterbacks, really have to do with selling cars or home/auto insurance? As I noted in post #6, why do stores sell so many items for odd prices like $1.99, $4.95, or $9.99, why not just round off things to even dollar amounts then? Or what about how stores having sales very often list not just the sales price, but the total amount you'll save. Or even how stores will put shelves with certain items or the most expensive items always at the eye level of the average female shopper. And don't forget about impulse items at checkouts, and on and on. Marketing and advertising is all about visual and other psychological tricks and influences to get people to buy this and not that, and to pay more than less for things. And those visual influences can include showing certain things right out front, or not always showing them right out front, like BPs in auctions.

And speaking of old adages and fundamental truths, there's one that maybe kind of goes along with all this. Had something to do with when certain people's lips are moving I think.

Again, post #6, last line.