Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[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 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.

[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

[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?