Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

calvindog · #1 10-03-2023, 04:04 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 10-03-2023, 04:35 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 10-03-2023, 04:40 PM

Quote:

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
.

calvindog · #4 10-03-2023, 04:56 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 10-03-2023, 05:54 PM

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 · #6 10-03-2023, 06:13 PM

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

Snowman · #7 10-03-2023, 07:22 PM

Quote:

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.

jayshum · #8 10-03-2023, 08:05 PM

Quote:

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.

raulus · #9 10-03-2023, 04:43 PM

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 · #10 10-03-2023, 04:52 PM

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 · #11 10-03-2023, 04:55 PM

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.

Centauri · #12 10-03-2023, 06:49 PM

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 · #13 10-03-2023, 07:22 PM

Quote:

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 · #14 10-03-2023, 07:37 PM

Quote:

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 · #15 10-03-2023, 07:45 PM

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

Peter_Spaeth · #16 10-03-2023, 08:05 PM

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

Centauri · #17 10-03-2023, 09:13 PM

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.

Quote:

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

Casey2296 · #18 10-03-2023, 09:34 PM

Quote:

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?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1912 Boston Garters - Show'em :)	Bryan Long	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	10-21-2013 05:59 PM
Boston Garters Speaker & EVers F/S SOLD SOLD SOLD	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	6	02-01-2008 02:58 PM
Heritage Auctions	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	38	10-30-2007 01:57 PM
Boston Garters question	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	10-23-2006 08:26 PM
D359's and Boston Garters For Sale	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	0	01-20-2005 09:01 PM