Sender: Rare book and manuscripts <EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU>
To return to my original post about the buyer's premium.
Surely the crux of the matter is this:
"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 level the playing field for all to compete equally. If auctioneers need up
to 40% of the hammer price to continue in business let them say as much
up front - i.e. we will take in your book for sale and give you 60% of the proceeds.
A law to enforce this would seem to be sensible.
Paul Mills.
> -----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