Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[oldjudge]

As Jeff alluded to, the problem is that the auction software can’t handle this type of bidding. The individual lot totals have to be linked to the aggregate lot so when their total exceeds the aggregate the aggregate needs to be shown as open with the next bid topping the sum of the individual bids. That is the easy part. The hard part is what to do with individual bids when the aggregate exceeds the sum of the individual bids. For example, let’s say that at a point in the auction the aggregate is at $600k and the sum of the individual lots was at $500k. If I only wanted to win one individual lot would the auction software have to keep bumping my bids till I increased the bid on that individual lot by over $100k?
I think my conclusion is that conceptually this type of auction sounds nice, but practically there is no easy way to handle the bidding.
I think this is an unfortunate situation for all involved and that the only fair solution is to reauction the group. Also, if there is a right answer to how to handle this situation that answer must be independent of how much or how little business any of the involved parties has done with HA.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As Jeff alluded to, the problem is that the auction software can’t handle this type of bidding. The individual lot totals have to be linked to the aggregate lot so when their total exceeds the aggregate the aggregate needs to be shown as open with the next bid topping the sum of the individual bids. That is the easy part. The hard part is what to do with individual bids when the aggregate exceeds the sum of the individual bids. For example, let’s say that at a point in the auction the aggregate is at $600k and the sum of the individual lots was at $500k. If I only wanted to win one individual lot would the auction software have to keep bumping my bids till I increased the bid on that individual lot by over $100k?
I think my conclusion is that conceptually this type of auction sounds nice, but practically there is no easy way to handle the bidding.
I think this is an unfortunate situation for all involved and that the only fair solution is to reauction the group. Also, if there is a right answer to how to handle this situation that answer must be independent of how much or how little business any of the involved parties has done with HA.

That's what I was thinking. If the aggregate got outbid by the set bidder, and then several aggregate bidders bumped up their respective Max bids to beat the set bid, how would that be calculated?

Let's say the aggregate bid is $500k and the set bid is $520k. Several bidders of individual cards bump their Max bids by $10k, $17k, $14k, 19K, $12k... Does Heritage just bump all those bids to their max, or does there need to be a pro-rated calculation so that the new aggregate beats the set bid only by the required amount? Meaning, those individual bids don't go all the way to their max.

The simplest to do this, especially considering the logic in Heritage's programming, is this: Make it a 2-day close. The first day, all the individual lots close, with the caveat that a Set bid the following day may negate the results. This would encourage bidders to place hard bids higher than just what would be needed to be the top bidder on their lot. The second day, the minimum bid would be the aggregate plus whatever percentage it would need to be beaten by.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Mark17

That's what I was thinking. If the aggregate got outbid by the set bidder, and then several aggregate bidders bumped up their respective Max bids to beat the set bid, how would that be calculated?

Let's say the aggregate bid is $500k and the set bid is $520k. Several bidders of individual cards bump their Max bids by $10k, $17k, $14k, 19K, $12k... Does Heritage just bump all those bids to their max, or does there need to be a pro-rated calculation so that the new aggregate beats the set bid only by the required amount? Meaning, those individual bids don't go all the way to their max.

The simplest to do this, especially considering the logic in Heritage's programming, is this: Make it a 2-day close. The first day, all the individual lots close, with the caveat that a Set bid the following day may negate the results. This would encourage bidders to place hard bids higher than just what would be needed to be the top bidder on their lot. The second day, the minimum bid would be the aggregate plus whatever percentage it would need to be beaten by.

Apparently Mile High has run auctions like this. Does anyone know how they manage to avoid problems like this?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Apparently Mile High has run auctions like this. Does anyone know how they manage to avoid problems like this?

I believe they don't have individual lot closings or didn't years ago when I bid on an auction of this type. Years ago I bid on some m101-5 cards that were being auctioned in this manner by Mile High. Late in the game the complete set lot was higher, and there was zero I could do about it because I couldn't raise my own high bids on the dozen or so cards I wanted. I had to hope that other cards were being bid that would jump the total or that someone would outbid me so I could increase my bids. That's why I asked in this thread how clearly the rules were spelled out. I wasn't as resourceful as Jay, who said he called the Auction House to basically force an increase in his bids.

[ncinin]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Apparently Mile High has run auctions like this. Does anyone know how they manage to avoid problems like this?

I may have overlooked an answer to this question so forgive me if it is redundant.

Mile High and other auction houses that utilizes the set bid or bids of cards comprising the set format, as the Boston Garters, uses Simple Auction site or Create Auction software.

It appears Heritage uses software they or another company beside Simple and Create developed which is why Mile High and other auction companies have not encountered this problem.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As Jeff alluded to, the problem is that the auction software can’t handle this type of bidding. The individual lot totals have to be linked to the aggregate lot so when their total exceeds the aggregate the aggregate needs to be shown as open with the next bid topping the sum of the individual bids. That is the easy part. The hard part is what to do with individual bids when the aggregate exceeds the sum of the individual bids. For example, let’s say that at a point in the auction the aggregate is at $600k and the sum of the individual lots was at $500k. If I only wanted to win one individual lot would the auction software have to keep bumping my bids till I increased the bid on that individual lot by over $100k?
I think my conclusion is that conceptually this type of auction sounds nice, but practically there is no easy way to handle the bidding.
I think this is an unfortunate situation for all involved and that the only fair solution is to reauction the group. Also, if there is a right answer to how to handle this situation that answer must be independent of how much or how little business any of the involved parties has done with HA.

I disagree and it's been said elsewhere. The right way to handle this is that all individuals and the aggregate stay open until NO card (or set) has a bid for the bid period. It's actually not hard. One bid keeps all lots in question open, like a lot of auction companies used to do for their whole auctions.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I disagree and it's been said elsewhere. The right way to handle this is that all individuals and the aggregate stay open until NO card (or set) has a bid for the bid period. It's actually not hard. One bid keeps all lots in question open, like a lot of auction companies used to do for their whole auctions.

This

Sounds like HA didn't connect the individual lots and the set lot on the backend software. IMO, HA should award the set to Powell and pay the delta to the consigner.

[bgar3]

It seems to me Powell has a very good and reasonable reliance argument.

[insidethewrapper]

If all lots ( set and individual cards) closed after no bids for 30 minutes, then the individual cards would have been the winner , as it turned out.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

If all lots ( set and individual cards) closed after no bids for 30 minutes, then the individual cards would have been the winner , as it turned out.

Apparently that wasn't true when the lot for the complete set closed which is the problem because the high bidder for the set (Powell) was told he won when the complete set lot closed. If it had stayed open he would have been able to bid above the total cost of the individual lots.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Apparently that wasn't true when the lot for the complete set closed which is the problem because the high bidder for the set (Powell) was told he won when the complete set lot closed. If it had stayed open he would have been able to bid above the total cost of the individual lots.

The truth is he wouldn't have been able to raise his bid for the full set lot -- he was the high bidder and putting in another bid would just have increased the ceiling bid and wouldn't have raised the price of the lot as no one else had bid. The Heritage software screwed up or was poorly drawn up in a myriad of ways.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The truth is he wouldn't have been able to raise his bid for the full set lot -- he was the high bidder and putting in another bid would just have increased the ceiling bid and wouldn't have raised the price of the lot as no one else had bid. The Heritage software screwed up or was poorly drawn up in a myriad of ways.

I forget if Heritage allows straight bids. Some AHs do, and some don’t. Obviously only a straight bud would work here since you’re only bidding against yourself on the full set side.