|
Author
|
Topic: Should auction consignors identities be disclosed?
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-25-2004 08:54 PM
   
When auction houses use their terms and conditions to limit their responsibility for the claims of their consignors (on issues as varied as authenticity and claim to title) should auction houses disclose (at least) the verified name of each lot's consignor in their catalog? Should they offer consignor's contact information available upon request? What protections if any should be extended to consignors? I ask these questions in hopes of hearing perspectives from consignors, bidders and auctioneers alike. |
Astro-Auction
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-25-2004 09:17 PM
Not usually a problem with online auctions... |
denem
Member Posts: 141
From: Columbia, SC, USA
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 04-25-2004 09:48 PM
IMO: interesting topic......i guess people should have the right to know the provenance of an item, especially a high- end item. so, the auction house SHOULD provide this information if asked. |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 04-25-2004 10:15 PM
Great topic, Robert. My opinion: The burden should be on the auction house, consignors and bidders, in that order. In my opinion, that is a large part of what a bidder is paying for in the considerable buyer's premiums (as high as 20%). Maybe I'm naive, but that amount of money should in my opinion entitle a bidder to a fair amount, such as an authenticity guarantee and some kind of recourse if the item is ever found to be not as it was described. Unfortunately, judging from the stated Terms and Conditions of certain auction houses, authenticity is not guaranteed and recourse is limited, if available at all. Also, because consignors are also paying a hefty fee (15% or more), I believe the burden should not be placed completely on them. An auction house is supposed to function as some kind of guarantee of quality themselves. The large percentages they are taking in should be for something, not just storage, etc. |
fabfivefreddy
Member Posts: 1067
From: Leawood, Kansas USA
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 04-25-2004 11:13 PM
I don't think a consignor should have to reveal his/her identity. This is a privacy issue too. Auction houses allow people to discreetly sell an item without worrying about anything.
Let's say you inherit an expensive item and want to sell it. Allowing the auction house to certify it as authentic and paying a percentage for consigning is a great way to sell it. It takes away any need to research it and perhaps even hurt the value by offering it to many dealers.
I believe that the person buying the items at auction has to be aware of the terms and to avoid buying things from sellers that don't offer a good guarantee.
An auction house is like a dealer- there are good ones, bad ones, and incompetent ones. Pick the one you trust.
Tahir |
Richard
New Member Posts: 5
From: Morrisonville, New York USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted 04-25-2004 11:16 PM
Overall, I don't think that consignors should be identified before the auction. That is, unless the consignor wishes to be or if the fact that a piece comes from a famous consignor which could add value to the piece. I believe that otherwise it would prejudice the value of a piece or add question to authenticity.However, there is one exception to this rule. It would be nice to identify the consignors for pieces that are found to be falsly represented. I worry that, with autographs in particular, that a stamp of approval from an auction house is tantamount to a stamp of authenticity. I feel that some forgers may actually use auction houses to pass off merchandise slowly, confuse the market, and therefore have them accepted as legitimate and obscure thier origin. |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 04-25-2004 11:36 PM
Sorry Robert, I didn't specifically answer your question in my previous post. I do not believe consignors should have to be identified in a major auction and I do not believe buyers should have to be identified either. The buyers and consigners don't owe that. They pay their considerable fees so that the burden for transactions should be on the auction house, or at least in my opinion that's where it should be. Look at it this way. The auction house receives money from *both* the consignor and the buyer. The burden should be on the auction house. The consignors and buyers in these large auctions that charge considerable premiums don't owe anything more than what they already give. |
cklofas
Member Posts: 221
From: Euless,TX USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 04-26-2004 01:03 AM
In general, no - the consignor and bidder should be able to remain anonymous. However, if there is an issue that develops, the parties should be identified so that they can resolve the situation. As some others have said, the auction house should eliminate the vast majority of problems before they are ever listed, they are getting those fees for a reason. |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-26-2004 02:11 AM
Does this bring up the question "How reliable the Aurora auction is compared to Christies & Sothebys" ? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-26-2004 05:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Does this bring up the question "How reliable the Aurora auction is compared to Christies & Sothebys" ?
These questions were not inspired by Aurora specifically as the issue applies to all auctions, online and offline. If you refer to Christie's and Sotheby's T&C, you will notice they too offer only limited warranties. I would rather this discussion remain generic and not discuss individual auction houses' policies. That this question was posted following Aurora's auction was only because I was waiting for the three recent auctions (Swann, Superior, Aurora) to be completed before posting. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-28-2004 01:16 PM
The topic is interesting because it raises the question of whether the auction house should be acting as merely a (well paid) agent, ie zero liability, or as principal, ie full liability, with "ownership" effectively transferring to the house, pending sale. As an occasional consignor I feel no compulsion to hide my ID, but I like the idea of an anonymous market because it eliminates any pre-conceived prejudices and probably improves liquidity.Regarding liability, I tend to agree with those who say that if an auction house is getting 15-20% from the buyer and 15% from the consignor that should more than fund them to do their own homework and bear responsibility for verification of authenticity and consignor's "claims" - thus eliminating the need for consignor disclosure. (Is their insurance for this sort of thing?)
That said, we live in the real world and can't expect the leopard to change his spots <LOL>. Paul Bramley
|
divemaster
Member Posts: 1376
From: ridgefield, ct
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-28-2004 02:21 PM
There's an interesting passage in Weinberger's book on Robbins Medallions where he cites the 1998 Superior Galleries Auction. He states that a flown Apollo 11 medallion that belonged to Buzz Aldrin sold for $4025 [including the buyers premium], while the same medallion from an unown consigner sold for $2070 [including the buyers premium]. A 94% premium to own one from Buzz.
I think that it's in the astronauts best interest to identify themselves. But I'm sure that knowing that it came from me won't effect the price whatsoever.
However, it might be an interesting idea to give the consigner the choice of being listed in the catalog.
As for liability versus the fees collected, I think that's spelled out pretty well in the catalog. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on you and you have X amount of days to prove it and get a refund. I had this happen once at one of the old Superior auctions and my money was cheerfully and quickly refunded. The auction houses have a right to make their money, too.My two cents.
-tracy
|
advertisement