Sender: Rare book and manuscripts <EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU>
> Nina's point about the buyers' premium is the key to the whole discussion.
> Charging a sellers' commission as well as a buyers' commission has the house
> working for two agents. The right hand against the left.
Following this discussion from outside the United States I wonder if
the Buyer's Premium has even been challenged in law in America?
As Gabriel Austin points out above it has the auction house 'working for two agents.
The right hand against the left.'
Is it not the auction houses simply bluffing vendors with lower commissions?
A search of the net found a letter by Peter Walton, a campaigner against the
premium in Britain, who challenges, 'any auction house to be honest and abandon the
buyer's premium, and raise the vendor's commission to compensate.' This would
get rid of the small fry quicker than anything else.
Paul Mills.
To the editor: declaring a vested interest we run a small specialist on-line rare book
auction business where no buyer's premium is charged.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rare book and manuscripts [mailto:EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Nina Musinsky
> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 1:48 PM
> To: EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS-L] NY Auction Bidding Legislation
>
>
>
> Re Edward's points:
>
>
>
> To be more specific, the reserve is easy enough to discern (approximately)
>
> if the lot fails to sell or if it sells at or below the low estimate with no
>
> evidence of a second bidder. My point was really that when the bidding goes
>
> higher the reserve is irrelevant: in a "successful" (from the auction
>
> house's point of view) sale who cares what the reserve is? The
>
> bidder/buyer's focus is then on the other bidders against whom he/she is
>
> competing. This "capitalism as theatrical event" aspect of auctions is the
>
> essence of their appeal for sellers, and it won't be changed by this
>
> legislation.
>
>
>
> I don't see how the basic structure of the auction process is altered when
>
> bidders jump in at the last minute.
>
>
>
> You are right, Edward, that this legislation would affect the isolated case
>
> of a single bidder who wishes to pay no more than the low estimate: if
>
> "consignor's bid" is called out by the auctioneer, or if the bidding opens
>
> at the reserve, some temporary mystification is taken away -- temporary
>
> because, under US law at least, in which the auctioneer must announce (or
>
> mutter) the fact that a lot fails to sell, that single bidder quickly finds
>
> out whether or not he/she has been bidding against the reserve if the lot is
>
> bought in. -- As Sotheby's lawyers pointed out, auctions are already
>
> strictly regulated in NY. I don't think that this slight variation in
>
> auction practice would fundamentally alter the economic power of the auction
>
> houses, contrary to Sotheby's argument. Whether one considers the proposed
>
> legislation negative or positive, in my opinion its effect would be
>
> negligible.
>
> Christie's new buyer's premium of 25% below $20,000 should ideally (but
>
> probably won't) have a far greater deterrent effect on consignors in areas
>
> of low-value material like the majority of books and prints-- which is just
>
> what the managers of the big auction houses want: to get rid of the small
>
> fry.
>
>
>
> Nina Musinsky
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Rare book and manuscripts [mailto:EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On
>
> Behalf Of Edward Levin
>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:03 PM
>
> To: EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
>
> Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS-L] NY Auction Bidding Legislation
>
>
>
> >Nina Musinsky wrote:
>
> > ... After
>
> > even a bit of auction experience bidders can easily figure out where the
>
> > reserve lies.
>
>
>
> Really? For the major auction houses, the reserve is typically at or not
>
> much less than the low estimate (by an earlier NY consent decree it can't be
>
>
>
> higher than the low estimate), but it can indeed be considerably lower than
>
> that low estimate. As an experienced auction bidder myself, I would have no
>
> way of knowing or guessing or figuring out those cases in which it is the
>
> latter.
>
>
>
> >The bottom line in the Anglo-American auction system is that
>
> > one either buys the lot at the reserve or competes with other bidders. If
>
> > no
>
> > one wants to pay the reserve price, the lot is unsold. This is how
>
> > auctions
>
> > work now, and the auctioneer's calling out below-reserve bids as
>
> > "consignor's bids" might enlighten a few newcomers but would not alter the
>
> > auction process.
>
>
>
> In any number of instances it will indeed alter the auction process as, in
>
> my experience, the process is rarely as straightforward as you describe. If
>
> you've participated in many auctions (which I assume you have) then you will
>
>
>
> have witnessed any number of instances where bidders will join the bidding
>
> in the middle of the process, or at the very last second. The model of
>
> several bidders all starting off together from the beginning and gradually
>
> dropping off one by one is hardly a universal description of the auction
>
> process in actual practice.
>
>
>
> Consider the case when only a single bidder is initially bidding on a given
>
> lot (which does indeed happen). That bidder may indeed be willing to pay the
>
>
>
> reserve price, but could only do so if the auctioneer either starts the
>
> bidding at the reserve price, or calls out "consignor's bids" until the
>
> reserve is reached, or waits for a lurking, last-minute bidder to recognize
>
> that they will have to jump in sooner that they wished.
>
>
>
> I don't think that the proposed legislation is entirely negative, but it
>
> would indeed change the dynamics of the process to some extent.
>
>
>
> Edward Levin