How accountable is an auction service for the content of their catalogues and the online description

keets

How accountable is an auction service for the content of their catalogues and the online descriptions they use?? Certainly they can have an opinion about an item, but is an auction company liable for mis-representing an item when they claim something such as "This is the finest certified example in existence" when a glance at a pop report clearly shows otherwise?? Wouldn't you expect a cataloguer to at least check things before making such a brazen claim, a claim which might influence how bidders act?? Of course it's easy to say that the bidder should check(or know) before bidding, but I wonder how a reputable auction firm could make erroneous claims. I also wonder how frequent this kind of thing might be and how much closer we need to really check when the "numbers" hype starts.

The only reason I even noticed the item in question is because it's a rare medal and I've owned the highest graded example for quite some time now. Reading through the catalogue Terms of Sale it appears that the auctioneer and cataloguer can pretty much claim whatever they want to without the winning bidder having recourse so long as the item is genuine or authentic. Wow, maybe I should have read the terms before now!!!

Al H.

BECOKA

If the buyer pays a record price based on their description, I'd say the auction company is accountable for the difference. But my opinion never seems to matter.

leothelyon

I don't believe we'll hear here what alot a folks really think about this topic since there is an alliance somewhere in the crowd.

Leo

RegistryCoin

Reverse cherry pick?

firstmint

The marketing of numismatic items in auction catalogues has been bordering on mis-information since auction catalogues have been printed in this country (1850s).

There seems to be little accountability in what any auction firm claims, regardless of the terms printed in the catalogue. Yes, this includes the genuiness of all items, and the consignors of the material.

The bottom line is the catalogues are printed to sell things and get as much money as possible. Unfortunately, scholarship today is little more than copying from previous writings.

There are numerous issues at work in the commercial aspect of marketing numismatic material. For those who believe what they read in auction catalogues, they are the ones at risk, not the cataloguers.

PerryHall

Aren't many catalogues cut and paste exercises? Perhaps this coin was a top pop at one time and the cataloger copied this coin's description from a previous auction. Very sloppy work by a lazy cataloguer.

Longacre

I think they strive to be accurate, but like with a lot of things, there are time pressures, production deadlines, The Man beating the worker bees, etc., so sometimes things are not accurate. Bidders should check any claims made by the firms before they bid seriously on a lot.

Frankcoins

The fine print in the terms will tell you that the description is not a warranty. Auctions are liquidations BY DEFINITION.
I have said this before, but it will be followed by lots of comments by anonymous people saying "you're crazy," or, more
likely, "your crazy."

Just got back April 17 from my 6 hour CEU class at the state capital to renew my Texas auctioneer license.

By golly, auctions are STILL liquidations, and not approval services.

keets

Perhaps this coin was a top pop at one time and the cataloger copied this coin's description from a previous auction

not to be picky, but as i stated in the OP it's a medal and my graded example has been in a holder since before NGC published the pop report.

Auctions are liquidations BY DEFINITION.

that may be what they teach at auction school or what is the popularly held term used by auctioneers, but i think they are a bit different than that in the Numismatic arena. certainly you could argue that Joe Blow chose XYZ Auction Company to liquidate his collection, but in the way that most people perceive estate auctions to be, something like a Numismatic auction is entirely different, and i think you understand that difference. i don't think the notion of a "liquidation" would be believeable when it is often the auction company soliciting the liquidator.

given those circumstances it seems that there is some form of responsibletruth that should be in an auction description, not some "Term" that alleviates any liability past the items in the sale being genuine. where i come from that's commonly referred to as being rather chicken-sh*t.