Restored Honus Wagner at SCP Auctions

[Gary Dunaier]

Heh... I'm happy with my reprint.

[Rhotchkiss]

The card hasn’t received a bid since the first day. It’s gotten 11 bids and the reserve had not been met. The card currently sits $1.2mm below the AH’s estimate.

Although I would love to see this “example” get to the AH’s $2mm+ estimate, My money is on the card not hitting its reserve and not selling (a pass).

I also believe that the card would do better in it’s pre-restoration condition; in other words, I think the card is worth less in its current state than before it was restored.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

This item has a reserve. Here is how the auction rules read on reserves: RESERVES A Reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published. Any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with "Reserve Not Met" in the online bidding. SCP may implement this reserve by bidding on behalf of the consigner and may place a bid up to the amount one increment below the reserve, by placing successive bids if necessary. No reserve bids placed by SCP will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "PASS" in the online catalog. Reserves when in place will be pre-determined and set within the auction software prior to the start of the auction. Maximum bids will be treated as straight bids on items with reserves until the reserve price is met. If you place a maximum bid in excess of a reserve amount that has not yet been met, your bid will automatically be placed at the reserve price. All bids placed after a reserve has been met will continue with normal bidding increments unless straight bids are placed by a bidder.

The point is we have no idea how many, if any, of these recent bids are anything more than the house making consecutive bids on behalf of the consignor to give the impression of bidder interest (which is exactly what is needed to generate the highest price). Maybe SCP read Jeff's prior post (#22) in this thread commenting on the lack of bidding the first day of bidding? Suddenly the bids started coming in and in Jeff's next post 13 hours later the bidding (with the BP) had hit the psychologically significant $1M level.

This to me well symbolizes the deceptive (but legal aspect) of the auction business -- the ability of the house to exercise bids on behalf of the consignor up to (the low end of) the item's estimated value. This tactic is universally employed by all prominent HAs across all fields of collecting, and absent federal legislation prohibiting the practice almost certainly will continue. HAs are expected by their consignors (and shareholders) to generate the highest possible prices for their consignors, and what state would dare proscribe the practice and induce HAs thinking of setting up/already headquartered in their jurisdictions to flee to a neighboring state? Not to mention too I doubt these states mind receiving the extra sales/use tax they receive by higher auctions prices.

I have referred to this practice of HAs exercising secret bids on behalf of the consignor to induce prospective bidders to believe there is genuine market interest at those levels as legalized fraud. Yes, if one reads the fine print one can be put on notice of the practice and therefore the uncertainty of the genuineness of any bid below the reserve price. But IMO it is the exception, not the rule, that auction observers are aware of what the auction rules allow to take place behind the scenes. Isn't the premise behind the illegality of fraudulent practices society's refusal to be a party to inducing people to believe something that in fact is not true, all with the objective of getting a person to be willing to pay something that otherwise he/she would not pay? HAs will respond that by disclosing in the rules that the practice exists, therefore bidders/observers have been fairly put on notice. But is that really true? At the end of the day why should a bidder need to have any uncertainty whether he/she is bidding against a "real" person?

The distinction between this practice and shill bidding strikes me as negligible. I thought AH's prohibited consignors from bidding on their own items. How is the AH doing it for them any different?

[2dueces]

I like the restored version.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I thought AH's prohibited consignors from bidding on their own items. How is the AH doing it for them any different?

It's legal and understandable, IMO, if the hidden reserve was agreed to with the consignor before the auction started. If not, it's effectively shill bidding. The auctionhouse is tasked to sell the item for at least the minimum the seller will accept when the seller sets a reserve. If the card sits there at $400,000 for a couple of weeks, then it most likely won't sell at/above the reserve at the end.

[Jewish-collector]

Too bad you can't un-restore a card.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

Too bad you can't un-restore a card.

I'm sure if someone stuck it in their bike spokes, they would come pretty close.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by egri

I'm sure if someone stuck it in their bike spokes, they would come pretty close.

That would be one expensive bike

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

The distinction between this practice and shill bidding strikes me as negligible. I thought AH's prohibited consignors from bidding on their own items. How is the AH doing it for them any different?

I agree with this point. Regardless whether the AH is the party entering the bogus bid, the objective is the same -- to induce the bidder to believe a bid reflects genuine market interest from a "real" bidder. The only distinction between this practice and "regular" shill bidding is that this practice is forewarned in the auction rules as allowed to take place. As I stated in my original post (which for some strange reason -- senior moment? -- refers to AHs as HAs), I regard this distinction to be unconvincing.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

It is my feeling that an item should always sell for one bid more than the second most interested party is willing to pay. I find anything that interferes with that anathema to the auction process.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I agree with this point. Regardless whether the AH is the party entering the bogus bid, the objective is the same -- to induce the bidder to believe a bid reflects genuine market interest from a "real" bidder. The only distinction between this practice and "regular" shill bidding is that this practice is forewarned in the auction rules
as allowed to take place. As I stated in my original post (which for some strange reason -- senior moment? -- refers to AHs as HAs), I regard this distinction to be unconvincing.

Disagree. By this logic starting any card with an opening bid of more than .01 is shill bidding. There is very little difference between starting a card with a high opening bid and having a reserve. I have seen cards get no bids or one bid in auctions. I prefer the reserve being posted at sometime before the auction and not remain hidden.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

It is my feeling that an item should always sell for one bid more than the second most interested party is willing to pay. I find anything that interferes with that anathema to the auction process.

This to me is the classic definition of market value, and I wholeheartedly agree that a realized price reflecting only one bid above a house bid or reserve price is not indicative of true market value. When the realized hammer price is the stated reserve (i.e., the item actually sells), at least in that instance the market has been put on notice what has taken place. That stands in contrast to a bid above a hidden reserve, which, even though stated in the rules as allowed to take place, is more deceptive.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

Too bad you can't un-restore a card.

Most professional restorations are reversible.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by rats60

Disagree. By this logic starting any card with an opening bid of more than .01 is shill bidding. There is very little difference between starting a card with a high opening bid and having a reserve. I have seen cards get no bids or one bid in auctions. I prefer the reserve being posted at sometime before the auction and not remain hidden.

If pursuant to the auction rules the house is allowed to open the bidding (which is not the case with some AHs), then in that instance (i.e., an opening bid placed to give the impression of actual market interest at that level when in fact there is none), then yes, I would refer to that as a shill bid.

[FrankWakefield]

As a teenager (which for me was about a two decade process), if I bought something at a Saturday auction (I'm talking live in person auctions, pre eBay, and not talking baseball card auctions), Dad would see whatever it was and ask me what I'd paid for it, then he'd say "Well, when you buy something at an auction you can know one thing, that you paid more for something than anyone else there thought it was worth." But he'd been a child from the Depression.

We've become a nation of haters. And I see that in myself. I'm not very keen on the slabbing/grading of cards. But with this Wagner card I can see that it would be better preserved inside the plastic. I'm amused by what I see as the ardent fans of graded cards having their faith shaken by an altered card inside the slab.

Come on now... the card is a genuine Wagner. It looks better after it was worked on. It's in graded plastic. Who of us would not welcome that card into their collection? And are there any of us who, if we were given that card, we'd then burn it?

I like it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rats60

Disagree. By this logic starting any card with an opening bid of more than .01 is shill bidding. There is very little difference between starting a card with a high opening bid and having a reserve. I have seen cards get no bids or one bid in auctions. I prefer the reserve being posted at sometime before the auction and not remain hidden.

I have to disagree with the logic here. Neither a high starting bid nor a reserve is the problem. It's the appearance of market interest in a card that is created by "bids" that aren't by someone intending to purchase. A high starting bid or a public reserve doesn't create that false impression.

That being said I don't believe in high starting bids or reserves either, but I have no problem chalking that up to personal taste and don't see anything wrong with either practice

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by atx840

Before the restoration

"This example once suffered from a surface crease which detracted from the beauty of the card. "

What a mess! It looks like somebody ate it and puked it out!

Yawl need to cut this restorer some slack. He was given this nightmare of a card to work on, and it must have been extremely difficult. He had to spend days looking at this card under magnification and try to recreate the print spots. Obviously, matching the ink, which was made a hundred and ten years ago, wasn't easy to do. If you study the orange background, you'll see the colored-in areas appear yellowish. Again, what a mess. They should have just left the thing alone.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

What a mess! It looks like somebody ate it and puked it out!

Yawl need to cut this restorer some slack. He was given this nightmare of a card to work on, and it must have been extremely difficult. He had to spend days looking at this card under magnification and try to recreate the print spots. Obviously, matching the ink, which was made a hundred and ten years ago, wasn't easy to do. If you study the orange background, you'll see the colored-in areas appear yellowish. Again, what a mess. They should have just left the thing alone.

I agree that restoration is difficult, but you shouldn't restore a card if you have to rebuild the face of the player. This Wagner was a better choice for restoration.

[mrreality68]

I would be proud if I owned the unrestored card.

Regardless of how the restorer did and obviously it “worked” because someone is willing to pay a lot for this card.

But I like they way it was and I personally do not like the card being touched up

[MVSNYC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Most professional restorations are reversible.

This.

Many years ago there was a restored Wagner for sale in Mastros; the restoration was later "reversed", although PSA still re-slabbed it as "authentic, altered".

Here's an image post-restoration reversal...

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

This.

Many years ago there was a restored Wagner for sale in Mastros; the restoration was later "reversed", although PSA still re-slabbed it as "authentic, altered".

Here's an image post-restoration reversal...

I'm glad that card was brought back to it's original condition. It looks great just the way it is.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

This.

Many years ago there was a restored Wagner for sale in Mastros; the restoration was later "reversed", although PSA still re-slabbed it as "authentic, altered".

Here's an image post-restoration reversal...

Here's the restored version.

4b.jpg

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

The distinction between this practice and shill bidding strikes me as negligible. I thought AH's prohibited consignors from bidding on their own items. How is the AH doing it for them any different?

It's effectively the same thing.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I'm glad that card was brought back to it's original condition. It looks great just the way it is.

Agreed it looks great and would look great in any collection.

I do not understand why they restored this one in the first place

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

I do not understand why they restored this one in the first place

Maybe this one was restored during the disco days when it was only worth a few thousand? Just guessing here.

[uniship]

It’s. A. Wagner.

Going to sell for a small fortune. Rightfully so.

$2m

[Leon]

Originally Posted by uniship

It’s. A. Wagner.

Going to sell for a small fortune. Rightfully so.

$2m

You are probably right. Actually, if they cut it in 2 they could sell it twice!

and for the Wags that had the restoration removed. Good call.

.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Leon

No they aren't. And it seems a lot of them don't know what the F they are doing! (according to the bids I see) They should become a member and get enlightened.

.

Maybe if they read the archived threads or have a time machine. Because currently it only seems to be a bunch of whiners complaining about graded cards or other things they act like experts on but now less than some of these “novices”

[Schlesinj]

I am assuming the buyers are looking at this as a piece of art then a baseball card collector. A display piece and they would rather look pretty.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

I am assuming the buyers are looking at this as a piece of art then a baseball card collector. A display piece and they would rather look pretty.

I agree the potential buyers for this piece are buying it more the the status and prestige of owner the "Holy Grail of Baseball Cards"

And they will probably just be displaying it or showing it in that fashion and/or as a Piece of Art or Both

[tulsaboy]

I'm not a pre-war collector, though I sure like to learn from this group and to see everyone's collections. They are mind blowing. I am curious to watch over the next few decades to see how prevalent "restoration" becomes in the sportscard industry. In other collectable/art markets, it is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes actually adds value.) Major museums regularly do cleanings of old art, and as part of those cleanings often gently touch up some of the art where age/weathering/poor treatment has taken its toll. When art is defaced by museum visitors, it is often restored to eliminate/remove the damage. I know that similar approaches are taken with vintage posters and prints. Being familiar with vintage cars, it is of course routine to restore older vehicles (though there is a niche market for untouched, factory original examples as well.) I completely understand that the idea of filling in paper loss, recoloring areas that are missing color, removing marks etc. is repugnant to (probably) most sportscard collectors. Personally, I like em just as they are, warts and all. But tobacco cards, like the T206, are now well over 100 years old. And they are cardboard. Cards that have now been slabbed are probably mostly protected from further damage from handling and accidents, but the vast bulk of cards that are not in holders will continue to age and sustain damage. I am just interested to see whether or not these items, as they push through their second century of existence, begin to experience more "restoration." And, most importantly, whether or not that becomes an accepted practice.
kevin

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by rats60

Disagree. By this logic starting any card with an opening bid of more than .01 is shill bidding. There is very little difference between starting a card with a high opening bid and having a reserve. I have seen cards get no bids or one bid in auctions. I prefer the reserve being posted at sometime before the auction and not remain hidden.

Reserves should be posted and represent the starting point for bids. All subsequent bids should be by potential buyers prepared to pay that amount plus the vig. Any other method could only be for the purpose of creating false impressions among buyers: either that they could win the item with a bid less than a secret reserve, or in the instance at hand, that bids are coming from real collectors but are actually the AH bumping the bidding up toward said reserve. When secrets are only kept from the buyers, that strikes me as shady business. Just my opinion.

[Hankphenom]

And I would MUCH rather own the unrestored version of this card, not even a close call, IMO. Considering the rarity and iconic status in the hobby, it looks fine, in fact it's a compliment to its appeal that it survived 100+ years in that condition without being tossed away at some point.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by tulsaboy

I'm not a pre-war collector, though I sure like to learn from this group and to see everyone's collections. They are mind blowing. I am curious to watch over the next few decades to see how prevalent "restoration" becomes in the sportscard industry. In other collectable/art markets, it is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes actually adds value.) Major museums regularly do cleanings of old art, and as part of those cleanings often gently touch up some of the art where age/weathering/poor treatment has taken its toll. When art is defaced by museum visitors, it is often restored to eliminate/remove the damage. I know that similar approaches are taken with vintage posters and prints. Being familiar with vintage cars, it is of course routine to restore older vehicles (though there is a niche market for untouched, factory original examples as well.) I completely understand that the idea of filling in paper loss, recoloring areas that are missing color, removing marks etc. is repugnant to (probably) most sportscard collectors. Personally, I like em just as they are, warts and all. But tobacco cards, like the T206, are now well over 100 years old. And they are cardboard. Cards that have now been slabbed are probably mostly protected from further damage from handling and accidents, but the vast bulk of cards that are not in holders will continue to age and sustain damage. I am just interested to see whether or not these items, as they push through their second century of existence, begin to experience more "restoration." And, most importantly, whether or not that becomes an accepted practice.
kevin

Kevin you have some really valid points. Thanks for sharing them.
I do not believe (but I could easily be wrong) that restorations will be common in Card collecting. Even with the higher dollar cards. For one the way grading companies grade and then classify it (ie instead of raising the "grade" it gets either and Authentic, Altered, or Restored grade on it. Just as you see on the one in SGC. That results in less bidders at the higher prices like you have seen in several recent but past auctions. In addition card collecting has a "purity" to it and an appreciation for the life of that card. So anything that takes away from that devalues it somewhat

[drcy]

With old art and such, a lot of it is about preservation too-- deacidifying paper. For a lot of things that will deteriorate, it is recommended.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Leon

if they cut it in 2 they could sell it twice!

Why limit it to two? Cut it into teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy pieces and use them to make relic cards!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Why limit it to two? Cut it into teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy pieces and use them to make relic cards!

Good lord Gary, don't go giving them any more ideas like that. LOL Remember when Topps had their Topps206 and Topps205 sets issued in the early 2000's, and how they also bought and randomly included actual T206 and T205 cards as part of those issues? Can you imagine if Topps went ahead and acquired a real T206 Wagner, and.then announced they were going to insert it (actually a redemption card for it) in one of their products? Or maybe do it with a '52 Mantle. Can't even imagine the furor that would create for that product, and what they could end up asking for it then. (And the Breakers would probably still make a ton off of it, regardless of what Topps priced it at.)

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Kevin you have some really valid points. Thanks for sharing them.
I do not believe (but I could easily be wrong) that restorations will be common in Card collecting. Even with the higher dollar cards. For one the way grading companies grade and then classify it (ie instead of raising the "grade" it gets either and Authentic, Altered, or Restored grade on it. Just as you see on the one in SGC. That results in less bidders at the higher prices like you have seen in several recent but past auctions. In addition card collecting has a "purity" to it and an appreciation for the life of that card. So anything that takes away from that devalues it somewhat

Part of the problem from my perspective is that so many of the decisions made by the TPGs about what constitutes an "alteration" to begin with is borderline arbitrary. A card that has tape on it hasn't been altered? Really? But if you remove the tape, then it has? Lol. But only sometimes? Uhh, OK. And if the surface of a card gets dented by something, then that lowers the grade because a card with an indent is a damaged card. Unless of course the surface damage we're talking about was caused by a screw down holder smashing down the corners. That's not "damage", that's an "alteration", tantamount to trimming or recoloring a card. And speaking of timing, apparently even that's OK to do with some cards but not others. Some of this stuff is just ridiculous. The screw down holder damage equating to an alteration is the probably the one that irks me the most. The TPGs should treat that like they do with creases. Just have a rule that says a card can't grade higher than a 5 if it has screw down damage or something like that, but don't stamp it with some scarlet letter and no explanation at all for why the card received it. The fact that PSA does not differentiate between "trimmed", "recolored", and "screwed down too tight" on their slabs is a real shame. Because I guarantee the market would value those all differently if they knew the reason behind the grades.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Part of the problem from my perspective is that so many of the decisions made by the TPGs about what constitutes an "alteration" to begin with is borderline arbitrary. A card that has tape on it hasn't been altered? Really? But if you remove the tape, then it has? Lol. But only sometimes? Uhh, OK. And if the surface of a card gets dented by something, then that lowers the grade because a card with an indent is a damaged card. Unless of course the surface damage we're talking about was caused by a screw down holder smashing down the corners. That's not "damage", that's an "alteration", tantamount to trimming or recoloring a card. And speaking of timing, apparently even that's OK to do with some cards but not others. Some of this stuff is just ridiculous. The screw down holder damage equating to an alteration is the probably the one that irks me the most. The TPGs should treat that like they do with creases. Just have a rule that says a card can't grade higher than a 5 if it has screw down damage or something like that, but don't stamp it with some scarlet letter and no explanation at all for why the card received it. The fact that PSA does not differentiate between "trimmed", "recolored", and "screwed down too tight" on their slabs is a real shame. Because I guarantee the market would value those all differently if they knew the reason behind the grades.

To take this point to the next degree, doesn't the same argument -- the arbitrariness of TPG grading standards -- apply to the criteria used to designate a card any particular grade (e.g., ex-mt, nrmt, vgex, ex+, etc.)? The "7" Goudey Ruth in this same SCP auction makes the point well. The card is terribly faded, and to me has poor eye appeal. Yet it merits a "7"? Or how about blank-backed photographic cards (e.g., N172s) that have amazing photo contrast but some minor glitch on the verso? Such a card could grade a 2, while a card with a photo so dim one has difficulty making out who the player is gets an 8 because to the TPG sages the card is "technically" outstanding?

I remember well when TPG first came into being. At that time the consensus was that overall it was a good thing due to the arbitrariness and inherent conflict of interest associated with AHs/dealers grading their own material. But now a generation or so later and seeing what TPG grading has become, I sometimes wonder if the cure has turned out worse than the disease.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BobC

Good lord Gary, don't go giving them any more ideas like that.

Umm...fractional ownership is already a thing.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Umm...fractional ownership is already a thing.

I was referring to them now physically cutting up cards to sell the individual pieces, like they already do with game-used bats, jerseys, etc. That is totally different than selling fractional shares in a card, they don't cut up the card in that instance of having multiple owners.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I agree with this point. Regardless whether the AH is the party entering the bogus bid, the objective is the same -- to induce the bidder to believe a bid reflects genuine market interest from a "real" bidder. The only distinction between this practice and "regular" shill bidding is that this practice is forewarned in the auction rules as allowed to take place. As I stated in my original post (which for some strange reason -- senior moment? -- refers to AHs as HAs), I regard this distinction to be unconvincing.

Why don't the AHs just indicate there's a frigging RESERVE on the lot and either tell what it is or at least indicate when the reserve price is met.

[brianp-beme]

Imagine having a fractional share of a cutup card! I think it would be time to break out the calculator to figure out each person's ownership share of the original card.

Brian

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Part of the problem from my perspective is that so many of the decisions made by the TPGs about what constitutes an "alteration" to begin with is borderline arbitrary. A card that has tape on it hasn't been altered? Really? But if you remove the tape, then it has? Lol. But only sometimes? Uhh, OK. And if the surface of a card gets dented by something, then that lowers the grade because a card with an indent is a damaged card. Unless of course the surface damage we're talking about was caused by a screw down holder smashing down the corners. That's not "damage", that's an "alteration", tantamount to trimming or recoloring a card. And speaking of timing, apparently even that's OK to do with some cards but not others. Some of this stuff is just ridiculous. The screw down holder damage equating to an alteration is the probably the one that irks me the most. The TPGs should treat that like they do with creases. Just have a rule that says a card can't grade higher than a 5 if it has screw down damage or something like that, but don't stamp it with some scarlet letter and no explanation at all for why the card received it. The fact that PSA does not differentiate between "trimmed", "recolored", and "screwed down too tight" on their slabs is a real shame. Because I guarantee the market would value those all differently if they knew the reason behind the grades.

Hey, a Snowman post I actually agree with

The arbitrary and contradictory nature of what's considered alteration has always been something that bugged me.

I will also admit that restoration - when it's done well, not like this particular Wagner - is not something that particularly bothers me. I'd rather have a card with a pinhole fixed than the pinhole, for example.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Why limit it to two? Cut it into teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy pieces and use them to make relic cards!

In an effort to make mo money and screw the hobbyist, some greedy butt head would put pieces of cardboard into the "relic card" that weren't actually part of the card that it's supposed to be. But then again, what hobbyist would want an indiscernible piece of cardboard?

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BobC

I was referring to them now physically cutting up cards to sell the individual pieces, like they already do with game-used bats, jerseys, etc. That is totally different than selling fractional shares in a card, they don't cut up the card in that instance of having multiple owners.

Understood. I guess my point (poorly stated) is that owning a digital blockchain versus a 1 millimeter square section of an card is a distinction without a difference.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Understood. I guess my point (poorly stated) is that owning a digital blockchain versus a 1 millimeter square section of an card is a distinction without a difference.

LOL

No problem Jeff, I figured you simply misinterpreted my point.

I understand your point though, and don't disagree. I just don't really care for the idea of people cutting up items to simply make more money. In that case, even though I'm not a fan of owning digital and/or fractional interests in something like this, I'd much rather that be done than cutting up a card, bat, uniform, etc.

[JK]

Originally Posted by SteveS

This one doesn't even have a crease. First $3 million takes it.

Make this an NFT and you might get your asking price!

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Fred

Why don't the AHs just indicate there's a frigging RESERVE on the lot and either tell what it is or at least indicate when the reserve price is met.

AHs do a number of things they obviously believe help them and their consignors--what are the bidders, anyway, chopped liver? You know, the ones that actually pay the bills!--that are of dubious effectiveness, not to mention integrity, in my mind. I've always thought that their ridiculously low estimates, intended to spur more interest among bidders, might actually do the reverse, making some feel stupid to be making bids too far ahead of the estimates by the supposed pros, the AHs. Just play it straight across the board, don't try to overthink the process, and let the cards play as they lay--what a unique approach that would be! Out of curiosity, are there any AHs that do that?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Fred

Why don't the AHs just indicate there's a frigging RESERVE on the lot and either tell what it is or at least indicate when the reserve price is met.

Unfortunately every auction house does what they think is best for their client base.

I know that both Heritage Auctions and SCP both say there is a reserve and when it is met
Heritage does it a few days prior that a Reserve was met or not met
SCP upfront post that there is a Reserve and when it is met it lets you know.

I thought there was another 1 or 2 but I am drawing a blank