Options
Interesting auction #2
coolkarma
Posts: 512 ✭✭
Recently, I've had a couple of rather "interesting" auction experiences. I have waited until the "strange" situations were resolved before posting this, but now I would like to know if others have had similar experiences. All of this occurred online. This is Surprise #2. Surprise #1 is in a separate thread, but they make a very interesting pair.
In Heritage's July 4 Bullet auction, I bid on a coin and was told I had the high bid. I also received an email indicating I had the high bid. I had intended to bid again, but I got distracted (it was July 4) and missed the auction close. To my pleasant surprise, I checked the web site that evenng and it indicated I had won the lot! I was excited.
Surprise #2. During lunch the next day I checked their web site, and now it indicated the coin had sold for more than my bid!
I emailed, called and sent a copy of the web page declaring the auction closed and my bid the winning bid. Today I received the final word. It was a "computer glitch", which occurred for a small number of lots. They are awarding the lot to someone else whose higher bid was not placed due to the "computer glitch". They offered me a monetary settlement (a coupon) which probably is generous. But of course, I wanted the coin.
This is essentially the opposite of my Surprise #1. Anyone else have a similar experience?
CoolKarma
In Heritage's July 4 Bullet auction, I bid on a coin and was told I had the high bid. I also received an email indicating I had the high bid. I had intended to bid again, but I got distracted (it was July 4) and missed the auction close. To my pleasant surprise, I checked the web site that evenng and it indicated I had won the lot! I was excited.
Surprise #2. During lunch the next day I checked their web site, and now it indicated the coin had sold for more than my bid!
I emailed, called and sent a copy of the web page declaring the auction closed and my bid the winning bid. Today I received the final word. It was a "computer glitch", which occurred for a small number of lots. They are awarding the lot to someone else whose higher bid was not placed due to the "computer glitch". They offered me a monetary settlement (a coupon) which probably is generous. But of course, I wanted the coin. This is essentially the opposite of my Surprise #1. Anyone else have a similar experience?
CoolKarma
0
Comments
how did the winning bidder put in their bid?
Was it after the auction closed the person contacted them?
basically you are telling me, in a round about way, if you want to make sure you win
a coin you need to bid strong. There is no "ebay style sniping" unless you are there
as it is hammered.
what are your feelings about how you will go about purchasing coins online now?
If they gave you the coin at your lower bid, there would be another unhappy bidder possibly telling his story of woe here, and an unhappy consignor as well.
What they did was probably the "right" thing for the auctioneer and most of the people involved. Sell the coin as it should have been...to the highest bidder.... and compensate the losing bidder (you) in some fashion that hopefully keeps him (you) happy.
It certainly doesn't make the auctioneer look very good, but then nobody's perfect.
(Again, all of this assumes the auctioneer is telling the whole and unvarnished truth).
I find it all to easy to blame this on a computer glitch. But a glitch on a small number of lots? Frankly, I don't believe it. You would think that Heritage would have a system that works. The fact that this happened to you leads me to beliver that they don't have their act together.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
All bidders of record for the affected lots should be notified of the new hammer time.
Higgest bid at time of glitch should be starting price.
Auction houses job is to get the highest amount of money for the sellers, this seems the fair way to do it.
How many people wopuld have increased their bids if not for the glitch?
( I know it is different from e-bay with the 2 bid increment raise)
A witty saying proves nothing- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor
does the truth become error because nobody will see it. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
Time and technology will resolve many of these issues. I think we can all agree that we don't want to go back to the old days, so lets accept these limitations at face value. I am a somewhat cynical person but I don't find either of these two "Interesting Auctions" to be suspect.
Was it after the auction closed the person contacted them? FC
FC, I don't really know. One of the people I spoke with indicated that a higher maximum (much higher) had been entered before my bid.
what would be the proper thing for them to do? TommyType
TommyType, I agree with the basic tone of your message. This is a no win situation - someone is going to receive the short stick. They at least gave me a stick
The coins should be re-listed with no additional cost to the seller or buyer... Heywood
Heywood, This sounds very reasonable to me. However, I don't think they can do this. The last person I spoke with wanted to make it clear they had not reopened the auction, and would not. "Reopened" may have specific legal implications. At the very least, that possbility is not included in their Terms and Conditions.
FatMan, This was a bullet auction and no one at Heritage has suggested that sniping or network glitches were the problem. The suggestion was that their auction support software had a glitch such that it did not treat max bids appropriately. This would have been true even if there were no online bidding (e.g., if the bids were submtted via phone or fax).
Now that I can step back a little further, I can more clearly state what I was looking for.
1) Both companies claimed these were not frequent occurences, but they weren't unique either. How frequent are they? So far it sounds like they are very infrequent since no one else seems to have encountered this one.
2) I think it would be valuable if the auction houses had a specific policy in their Terms and Conditions to address this situation. Heywood's suggestion sounds good to me, but any explicit policy would at least let everyone know what to expect. Technology is not perfect and policies should acknowledge this "fact of life".
Thanks for all your comments.
CoolKarma
MS Buffalo
MS 1951