delete

Or a bit less. Shrug

I think that we need a new guess the final price to see who can figure out the price with the commission structure and overhead premium.

Coin World has changed it now

@Crypto said:
wow double the previous hobby High

It's the coin to have. It transcends the hobby.

I wonder if it was picked up by a coin collector?

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:
wow double the previous hobby High

It's the coin to have. It transcends the hobby.

I wonder if it was picked up by a coin collector?

Rumor is not a coin collector

Good to know.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was purchased by someone whose other hobbies have items costing even more.

@Gazes said:

Any idea if buyer was US citizen?

My guess is no .
Maybe a Middle Eastern Prince ?

This coin has A LOT of PR value that comes with purchase . I am sure they can monetize it.
They did pick up the Davinci for $450M .

@1peter1223 said:

@Gazes said:

Any idea if buyer was US citizen?

My guess is no .
Maybe a Middle Eastern Prince ?

This coin has A LOT of PR value that comes with purchase . I am sure they can monetize it.
They did pick up the Davinci for $450M .

"Davinci". It's of questionable origins lol

What did the stamps sell for?

The incorrect reporting of the price realized for such an important item mystifies me. Not a confidence builder.

I wonder if the stamp prices are also incorrect?

@tradedollarnut said:
And the discrepancy raises a question: did Sotheby’s cut a deal to the eventual winner thus giving him an advantage in the bidding?

They wouldn't have been so blatant, would they?

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
And the discrepancy raises a question: did Sotheby’s cut a deal to the eventual winner thus giving him an advantage in the bidding?

They wouldn't have been so blatant, would they?

I have no idea what’s allowed or not. All I know is I have never seen a buyers fee recalculated after the fact. And if this is indeed the case, ironically the under bidder was willing to pay more with his losing bid than the winner did with his winning bid

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
And the discrepancy raises a question: did Sotheby’s cut a deal to the eventual winner thus giving him an advantage in the bidding?

They wouldn't have been so blatant, would they?

I have no idea what’s allowed or not. All I know is I have never seen a buyers fee recalculated after the fact. And if this is indeed the case, ironically the under bidder was willing to pay more with his losing bid than the winner did with his winning bid

That’s only if bidders were calculating the BP incorrectly.

“Lots with this symbol indicate that a party has
provided Sotheby’s with an irrevocable bid on the
lot that will be executed during the sale at a value
that ensures that the lot will sell. The irrevocable
bidder, who may bid in excess of the irrevocable
bid, may be compensated for providing the
irrevocable bid by receiving a contingent fee, a
fixed fee or both. From time to time, a Sotheby’s
shareholder may be an irrevocable bidder. If the
irrevocable bidder is the successful bidder, any
contingent fee, fixed fee or both (as applicable)
for providing the irrevocable bid may be netted
against the irrevocable bidder’s obligation to
pay the full purchase price for the lot and the
purchase price reported for the lot shall be net of
any such fees.”

And there you have it. There was indeed an irrevocable bid announcement on this coin. Ironic, isn’t it that the underbidder was willing to pay appx $19,200,000 all in. [btw - that was my exact prediction]

Not a collector?...Hmmm.......he is now. His collection worth is in a rarified atmosphere.

@tradedollarnut said:
“Lots with this symbol indicate that a party has
provided Sotheby’s with an irrevocable bid on the
lot that will be executed during the sale at a value
that ensures that the lot will sell. The irrevocable
bidder, who may bid in excess of the irrevocable
bid, may be compensated for providing the
irrevocable bid by receiving a contingent fee, a
fixed fee or both. From time to time, a Sotheby’s
shareholder may be an irrevocable bidder. If the
irrevocable bidder is the successful bidder, any
contingent fee, fixed fee or both (as applicable)
for providing the irrevocable bid may be netted
against the irrevocable bidder’s obligation to
pay the full purchase price for the lot and the
purchase price reported for the lot shall be net of
any such fees.”

And there you have it. There was indeed an irrevocable bid announcement on this coin. Ironic, isn’t it that the underbidder was willing to pay appx $19,200,000 all in. [btw - that was my exact prediction]

When I read that, It seems like the buyer did pay $19,509,750, it's just that $637,500 was previously invoiced as a contingent or fixed fee?

Is that not the way to read it?

People keep telling me calculating BP is easy

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

That would depend on whether or not the underbidder is experienced enough to understand the nuance of what happened. In a worst case scenario, he throws his hands up in disgust and leaves coin collecting forever

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

That would depend on whether or not the underbidder is experienced enough to understand the nuance of what happened. In a worst case scenario, he throws his hands up in disgust and leaves coin collecting forever

Some people who complain about the BP are told to grin and bear it.

How many have given up bidding in auctions with BPs?

To me, it’s a similar situation.

Here, the bidder may just know what hammer price he or she bid and not understand the BP at all.

Perhaps the underbidder would have received the same smooch, and his net payment would have been less than the winner's net payment.
That said, this is a hell of a way to run a railroad!

@MrEureka said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

That would depend on whether or not the underbidder is experienced enough to understand the nuance of what happened. In a worst case scenario, he throws his hands up in disgust and leaves coin collecting forever

Anyone who provided Sotheby's with a guaranty on an auction lot knew exactly what he was doing, and how the price would be reported.

And FWIW, yes, I understand why he might not like that part of the arrangement, but it has to be that way. Otherwise, it would be way too easy to manipulate auction records in a really big way.

I’m talking about the underbidder- there’s no evidence that he provided any sort of guaranty.

You are assuming that the irrevocable bid was the winning bid, but this is not certain...