<< <i>Call me suspicious, but I'm not spending $3900, $5000 or $9500 on anyone's word, unless that word is accompanied by a check >>
<< <i>While a number of respondents have expressed sentiments such as those above, I don't do business that way and believe that most other dealers do not either. >>
...and that really surprises me. Not questioning your judgement, or anyone else's, but is it just a trust/ethics type issue, or?
My point comes from knowledge of the other side. If I've expressed interest to you in a $2500-$3500 coin, I green light you, you look for two to three weeks to find just the right piece, and call me to buy. If an 'event' of more immediate importance has occured (medical, business, family, etc.), the money may be gone, and I feel like a fool and scammer telling you so. On dealings of a $$$ level that I can't come up with in a short time frame, I just feel more secure knowing that you know I'm not going anywhere, hence money upfront.
From what I can gather, 5% is ballpark. It can go higher or lower, depending on the dealer - client relationship and the hammer price(s) of the coin(s) involved.
I have no problem paying someone I trust 5% of hammer if he looks at the coin and likes it. Most of the time I've asked someone to view a coin for me, I was advised not to bid on it. The only other alternatives to this are:
a) view the coins yourself - not possible if you are a collector and have a regular job b) bid on coins sight unseen - to me, bidding based on an image is sight unseen, which I would never do under any circumstances c) develop a contact at the various auction houses and trust his / her judgement. Occasionally you might find someone whose judgement you can trust. I've found someone like this at one auction house. However, often, maybe your contact might encourage you to bid on a slightly better than average coin (say 6 or 6.5 out of ten) when you want one which is at least a 7.0 or 7.5 out of ten).
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i><< While a number of respondents have expressed sentiments such as those above, I don't do business that way and believe that most other dealers do not either. >>
...and that really surprises me. Not questioning your judgement, or anyone else's, but is it just a trust/ethics type issue, or? >>
It doesn't surprise me at all. I have dealt with several dealers having them represent me in just the fashion that Mark has stated. None of them wanted signed contracts or money up front, and I honored my commimtments with them. A tremendous amount of business is done in this hobby based on someones verbal agreement. For that reason I can understand Mark's statement that he probably would not do business with the person in the future even with cash up front. If a person can't be trusted to honor their word, why would you do business with them?
In this hypothetical situation, part of your 5% fee is to compensate you for risks such as this. So, even though the bidder is NOT a man of his “handshake” word and therefore cannot be trusted, your accepting the 5% fee obviously would expose you to some risk – this "non-payment" aspect being the main risk.
Your 5% fee is NOT merely for “viewing the coin” and giving your opinion (heck, you did not even know what the correct value of the coin was). So, while you have every right to be put off by your bidders poor behavior, you should be willing to view this as part of what you are paid for, perhaps the MAIN thing that you are paid for which is the assumption of risk. Risk is pretty much built into all transactions. matteproof
<< <i>So, while you have every right to be put off by your bidders poor behavior, you should be willing to view this as part of what you are paid for, perhaps the MAIN thing that you are paid for which is the assumption of risk. >>
Matteproof, I disagree.
In this scenario the fee is for viewing/studying the coin, reporting back to the client on it, providing an informed opinion, answering questions and facilitating the bidding and shipping arrangements.
<< While a number of respondents have expressed sentiments such as those above, I don't do business that way and believe that most other dealers do not either. >>
<<...and that really surprises me. Not questioning your judgement, or anyone else's, but is it just a trust/ethics type issue, or?...>>
DJC, please see Condor101's post to this thread - he did a great job of addressing your point and question.
Again, while I have never been burned doing things this way, I realize that clear communication and understanding between the parties involved is essential. There is also an element of mutual trust required.
<< <i>Coinguy1, what if the hammer price was $8,500 (you think it is worth $5,000), what do you do then? >>
Joe, regardless of how little or how much I thought the coin was worth vs. its hammer price, I would attempt to get the client to honor his committment.
If that failed, I would either try to sell the coin myself or see if the auction company could try to sell it to the under-bidder, and offer to make up the difference in price if they were successful.
<< <i><< So, while you have every right to be put off by your bidders poor behavior, you should be willing to view this as part of what you are paid for, perhaps the MAIN thing that you are paid for which is the assumption of risk. >>
Matteproof, I disagree.
In this scenario the fee is for viewing/studying the coin, reporting back to the client on it, providing an informed opinion, answering questions and facilitating the bidding and shipping arrangements. >>
Hey coinguy1. I understand your comment above. But stop and think about this for a minute. As I see it, when a person enters into a transaction, any transaction, whether it be a service agreement or some other contract, there is always risk associated with it. Risk is inherent in EVERY contract/transaction regardless of what service a person performs or widget that he sells. Each party to a contract assumes some risk - it is the nature of contracts.
When you faciliated the bid in your hypothetical example, you demonstrated that you were assuming a specific risk (the risk of paying and perhaps not getting repaid). Even if you bid under the client's name, the auction house would hold you liable for his lack of paying them. In essence, you became "surety" for the bidder, which is a classic/textbook example of assumption of risk. So, as I see it, the action of facililitating the bid alone raised the service to MORE than just a professional numismatic "viewing/studying the coin, reporting back to the client on it, providing an informed opinion, answering questions..." This in addition to the seperate risk that is inherent in the contractual dynamic itself. matteproof
Matteproof, thanks for the explanation. I guess I am forced to agree with just about all of that.
I might, however, provisionally disagree with one part of what you posted:
<< <i>Even if you bid under the client's name, the auction house would hold you liable for his lack of paying them >>
If the auction house allowed the client to register under his own name/account (after providing them with references, information, etc,) and with his permission I bid under his account, any subsequent dispute would/should be between the client and the auction house. In other words, in that instance, I would not be assuming the risk of non-payment.
By the way, based on many of your previous posts, I anticipated when I disagreed with you, that you would present a worthy counter point or two.
<< <i>By the way, based on many of your previous posts, I anticipated when I disagreed with you, that you would present a worthy counter point or two. >>
Hey coinguy1. You are far too kind. I'm thankful and humbled that you have found anything that I've said to be worthy. matteproof
Comments
The cost in time and cash outlay to inforce the verbal contract would probably exceed the potential loss of taking the coin back.
Adolf Hitler
<< <i>Call me suspicious, but I'm not spending $3900, $5000 or $9500 on anyone's word, unless that word is accompanied by a check >>
<< <i>While a number of respondents have expressed sentiments such as those above, I don't do business that way and believe that most other dealers do not either. >>
...and that really surprises me. Not questioning your judgement, or anyone else's, but is it just a trust/ethics type issue, or?
My point comes from knowledge of the other side. If I've expressed interest to you in a $2500-$3500 coin, I green light you, you look for two to three weeks to find just the right piece, and call me to buy. If an 'event' of more immediate importance has occured (medical, business, family, etc.), the money may be gone, and I feel like a fool and scammer telling you so. On dealings of a $$$ level that I can't come up with in a short time frame, I just feel more secure knowing that you know I'm not going anywhere, hence money upfront.
I think iy is probably because of eBay and TT
I am not sure what I would do in such a scenario - hopefully never get myself into it
5 or 10% seems like alot to look at and give an opinion on a coin for a potential bidder
is there a max on this type of service?
would Laura get $5K for telling a buyer she likes a $100K coin?
I have no problem paying someone I trust 5% of hammer if he looks at the coin and likes it. Most of the time I've asked someone to view a coin for me, I was advised not to bid on it. The only other alternatives to this are:
a) view the coins yourself - not possible if you are a collector and have a regular job
b) bid on coins sight unseen - to me, bidding based on an image is sight unseen, which I
would never do under any circumstances
c) develop a contact at the various auction houses and trust his / her judgement. Occasionally you might find someone whose judgement you can trust. I've found someone like this at one auction house. However, often, maybe your contact might encourage you to bid on a slightly better than average coin (say 6 or 6.5 out of ten) when you want one which is at least a 7.0 or 7.5 out of ten).
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i><< While a number of respondents have expressed sentiments such as those above, I don't do business that way and believe that most other dealers do not either. >>
...and that really surprises me. Not questioning your judgement, or anyone else's, but is it just a trust/ethics type issue, or? >>
It doesn't surprise me at all. I have dealt with several dealers having them represent me in just the fashion that Mark has stated. None of them wanted signed contracts or money up front, and I honored my commimtments with them. A tremendous amount of business is done in this hobby based on someones verbal agreement. For that reason I can understand Mark's statement that he probably would not do business with the person in the future even with cash up front. If a person can't be trusted to honor their word, why would you do business with them?
Your 5% fee is NOT merely for “viewing the coin” and giving your opinion (heck, you did not even know what the correct value of the coin was). So, while you have every right to be put off by your bidders poor behavior, you should be willing to view this as part of what you are paid for, perhaps the MAIN thing that you are paid for which is the assumption of risk. Risk is pretty much built into all transactions.
<< <i>So, while you have every right to be put off by your bidders poor behavior, you should be willing to view this as part of what you are paid for, perhaps the MAIN thing that you are paid for which is the assumption of risk. >>
Matteproof, I disagree.
In this scenario the fee is for viewing/studying the coin, reporting back to the client on it, providing an informed opinion, answering questions and facilitating the bidding and shipping arrangements.
<< While a number of respondents have expressed sentiments such as those above, I don't do business that way and believe that most other dealers do not either. >>
<<...and that really surprises me. Not questioning your judgement, or anyone else's, but is it just a trust/ethics type issue, or?...>>
DJC, please see Condor101's post to this thread - he did a great job of addressing your point and question.
Again, while I have never been burned doing things this way, I realize that clear communication and understanding between the parties involved is essential. There is also an element of mutual trust required.
Joe.
<< <i>Coinguy1, what if the hammer price was $8,500 (you think it is worth $5,000), what do you do then? >>
Joe, regardless of how little or how much I thought the coin was worth vs. its hammer price, I would attempt to get the client to honor his committment.
If that failed, I would either try to sell the coin myself or see if the auction company could try to sell it to the under-bidder, and offer to make up the difference in price if they were successful.
<< <i><< So, while you have every right to be put off by your bidders poor behavior, you should be willing to view this as part of what you are paid for, perhaps the MAIN thing that you are paid for which is the assumption of risk. >>
Matteproof, I disagree.
In this scenario the fee is for viewing/studying the coin, reporting back to the client on it, providing an informed opinion, answering questions and facilitating the bidding and shipping arrangements. >>
Hey coinguy1. I understand your comment above. But stop and think about this for a minute. As I see it, when a person enters into a transaction, any transaction, whether it be a service agreement or some other contract, there is always risk associated with it. Risk is inherent in EVERY contract/transaction regardless of what service a person performs or widget that he sells. Each party to a contract assumes some risk - it is the nature of contracts.
When you faciliated the bid in your hypothetical example, you demonstrated that you were assuming a specific risk (the risk of paying and perhaps not getting repaid). Even if you bid under the client's name, the auction house would hold you liable for his lack of paying them. In essence, you became "surety" for the bidder, which is a classic/textbook example of assumption of risk. So, as I see it, the action of facililitating the bid alone raised the service to MORE than just a professional numismatic "viewing/studying the coin, reporting back to the client on it, providing an informed opinion, answering questions..." This in addition to the seperate risk that is inherent in the contractual dynamic itself.
I might, however, provisionally disagree with one part of what you posted:
<< <i>Even if you bid under the client's name, the auction house would hold you liable for his lack of paying them >>
If the auction house allowed the client to register under his own name/account (after providing them with references, information, etc,) and with his permission I bid under his account, any subsequent dispute would/should be between the client and the auction house. In other words, in that instance, I would not be assuming the risk of non-payment.
By the way, based on many of your previous posts, I anticipated when I disagreed with you, that you would present a worthy counter point or two.
<< <i>By the way, based on many of your previous posts, I anticipated when I disagreed with you, that you would present a worthy counter point or two. >>
Hey coinguy1. You are far too kind. I'm thankful and humbled that you have found anything that I've said to be worthy.