PDA

View Full Version : New AMI Model = Seller's Authenticate Own Lots?



aeneas01
09-16-2009, 07:50 AM
it appears that ami has moved to a new model that a) includes seller's authenticating their own lots and b) sellers never submitting their lots to ami for inspection but instead keeping them throughout the auction and then shipping them directly to the winning bidder(s).

several ami consignors i've spoken to recently have confirmed this and i think the hodgepodge of lot photo styles and photo backdrops currently on display at ami makes it clear that consignors are taking their own photos of their items and then forwarding these photos onto ami.

needless to say ami's new model begs several questions such as a) what is ami's whopping 20% buyer's premium exactly covering these days if not, at least in part, paying for a professional evaluation to protect bidders b) how many of ami's consignors are actually qualified to evaluate their own items and c) do bidders know that consignors are holding onto their own lots, that they're not in ami's possession (what happens if the seller decides not to send the item after he receives the cash - does the buyer do battle with ami or the seller)? and, of course, another big question is whether or not ami is making any of this perfectly clear to their bidders. my guess would be no.

here's ami's lot 249, "1985 irv pankey game-worn rams helmet".
http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/Auction_Item.asp?Auction_ID=51958&period=open&offset=0&ListStyle=&auclisttype=open&auccat=All%20Categories&aucsearch=helmet&SortBy=

not only is this helmet not even remotely close to what pankey wore when with the rams (wrong helmet manufacturer, wrong facemask, bogus decals, incorrect decal placement, etc., etc.) but it's not even an authentic rams helmet. this thing is so bad, such a complete mess, that it's actually comical. yet there it is at ami, in all of its glory, being shopped around as an authentic gamer.

the photos that accompany this lot are clearly amateurish, complete with a carpet background, which leads me to believe this is another example of an ami consignor that did his own work on his item, including the evaluation. yet according to the full lot description this item has been evaluated by ami's 100% authentic team. huh? is ami's 100% authentic team now working off of consignor photos? is that the effort ami bidders now get for the 20% premium they fork over? my guess is they don't even get that - my guess is that no qualified person even glanced at this lot.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/ami00.jpg


of course there are some consignors out there that are perfectly capable of evaluating their own lots - in fact i would put more weight in the opinion of some consignors than i would in the opinion of some paid authenticators. for example i noticed that forum member roger gibson has listed some of his very nice items with ami, an example of a consignor perfectly capable of evaluating his own lots.

but do bidders know this is what they're paying for when they agree to ami's 20% premium? or do bidders believe that the 20% fee they're shelling out is earmarked for, at least in part, a professional and impartial third party evaluation? i would say the latter, especially considering ami is still adding "100% authentic team" to the lot descriptions...

imo ami has clearly created a consignor's paradise with their new model - or so it would seem. seller's can keep their items at home without fear of them becoming entangled in ami's financial obligations, they can whip up their own evaluations and then ship out the goods when they get paid. and of course seller's can also take advantage of ami's willingness to engage in hidden reserves - per ami's fine print:

"Unless explicitly stated otherwise by AMI, each Lot is being sold with reserve as a reserve auction... AMI reserves the right to place a bid on any Lot on behalf of the seller up to the amount of the reserve... AMI will not specifically identify bids placed on behalf of the seller."

so a seller can list an item at ami with a starting bid of of $200 and have ami place a $1,000 hidden reserve on it (not to confused with a standard, publicly viewable reserve, i.e. reserve not met / reserve met) - and the bidding audience will have no idea whatsoever that a reserve of a $1,000 has been placed on the item. ami will then bid on the seller's item, on behalf of the seller, as frequently as they deem necessary, up to the amount of the reserve. i'll repeat - ami, the auction house, will place bids on the seller's item up to the amount of the reserve.

and what will the bidding public see prior to the seller's item reaching its reserve? a bunch of bids on the seller's item that would clearly imply an apparent interest in the item. what will the bidding public not see? that ami, the auction house, has placed these bids with the sole intent of bidding up the price and creating the impression of interest, activity and value.

so imo it's quite clear why a consignor might choose ami - but what's not clear to me is why a buyer would choose ami. my guess is that when the word gets out buyers will take their business elsewhere - and the consignors will follow...

...

mvandor
09-16-2009, 08:10 AM
for example i noticed that forum member roger gibson has listed some of his very nice items with ami


Roger, Roger, Roger... :eek:

hblakewolf
09-16-2009, 09:21 AM
it appears that ami has moved to a new model that a) includes seller's authenticating their own lots and b) sellers never submitting their lots to ami for inspection but instead keeping them throughout the auction and then shipping them directly to the winning bidder(s).

several ami consignors i've spoken to recently have confirmed this and i think the hodgepodge of lot photo styles and photo backdrops currently on display at ami makes it clear that consignors are taking their own photos of their items and then forwarding these photos onto ami.

needless to say ami's new model begs several questions such as a) what is ami's whopping 20% buyer's premium exactly covering these days if not, at least in part, paying for a professional evaluation to protect bidders b) how many of ami's consignors are actually qualified to evaluate their own items and c) do bidders know that consignors are holding onto their own lots, that they're not in ami's possession (what happens if the seller decides not to send the item after he receives the cash - does the buyer do battle with ami or the seller)? and, of course, another big question is whether or not ami is making any of this perfectly clear to their bidders. my guess would be no.

here's ami's lot 249, "1985 irv pankey game-worn rams helmet".
http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/Auction_Item.asp?Auction_ID=51958&period=open&offset=0&ListStyle=&auclisttype=open&auccat=All%20Categories&aucsearch=helmet&SortBy=

not only is this helmet not even remotely close to what pankey wore when with the rams (wrong helmet manufacturer, wrong facemask, bogus decals, incorrect decal placement, etc., etc.) but it's not even an authentic rams helmet. this thing is so bad, such a complete mess, that it's actually comical. yet there it is at ami, in all of its glory, being shopped around as an authentic gamer.

the photos that accompany this lot are clearly amateurish, complete with a carpet background, which leads me to believe this is another example of an ami consignor that did his own work on his item, including the evaluation. yet according to the full lot description this item has been evaluated by ami's 100% authentic team. huh? is ami's 100% authentic team now working off of consignor photos? is that the effort ami bidders now get for the 20% premium they fork over? my guess is they don't even get that - my guess is that no qualified person even glanced at this lot.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/ami00.jpg


of course there are some consignors out there that are perfectly capable of evaluating their own lots - in fact i would put more weight in the opinion of some consignors than i would in the opinion of some paid authenticators. for example i noticed that forum member roger gibson has listed some of his very nice items with ami, an example of a consignor perfectly capable of evaluating his own lots.

but do bidders know this is what they're paying for when they agree to ami's 20% premium? or do bidders believe that the 20% fee they're shelling out is earmarked for, at least in part, a professional and impartial third party evaluation? i would say the latter, especially considering ami is still adding "100% authentic team" to the lot descriptions...

imo ami has clearly created a consignor's paradise with their new model - or so it would seem. seller's can keep their items at home without fear of them becoming entangled in ami's financial obligations, they can whip up their own evaluations and then ship out the goods when they get paid. and of course seller's can also take advantage of ami's willingness to engage in hidden reserves - per ami's fine print:

"Unless explicitly stated otherwise by AMI, each Lot is being sold with reserve as a reserve auction... AMI reserves the right to place a bid on any Lot on behalf of the seller up to the amount of the reserve... AMI will not specifically identify bids placed on behalf of the seller."

so a seller can list an item at ami with a starting bid of of $200 and have ami place a $1,000 hidden reserve on it (not to confused with a standard, publicly viewable reserve, i.e. reserve not met / reserve met) - and the bidding audience will have no idea whatsoever that a reserve of a $1,000 has been placed on the item. ami will then bid on the seller's item, on behalf of the seller, as frequently as they deem necessary, up to the amount of the reserve. i'll repeat - ami, the auction house, will place bids on the seller's item up to the amount of the reserve.

and what will the bidding public see prior to the seller's item reaching its reserve? a bunch of bids on the seller's item that would clearly imply an apparent interest in the item. what will the bidding public not see? that ami, the auction house, has placed these bids with the sole intent of bidding up the price and creating the impression of interest, activity and value.

so imo it's quite clear why a consignor might choose ami - but what's not clear to me is why a buyer would choose ami. my guess is that when the word gets out buyers will take their business elsewhere - and the consignors will follow...

...

All great points. As per AMI's current "auction rules", the below information is currently on their site:

Sales Final and Inspection of Lots
Buyer acknowledges that he/she has been provided the opportunity to inspect the property before purchasing same and Buyer has/has not inspected the property at his or her sole discretion. ALL SALES ARE FINAL. Buyer is solely responsible for determining the condition of any property. For detailed Lot descriptions, please call BEFORE that auction ends. For every bidder's convenience, all Lots are exhibited in AMI's North Las Vegas, Nevada Gallery and can be shown by appointment. Should an item after the auction be determined as fake or have "issues", and in the posession of the wining bidder, who's going to refund the bidder's payment? How would the winning bidder even try begin to get their money back? Would AMI wash their hands of this and put the burden on the consignor? AMI never had posession of the item!

Way too many flaws with this system, beginning with the consignor writing their own description, taking the photos and also providing their own LOA.

Can you imagine other aution houses such as Lelands, MASTRO or Huggins and Scott (to name a few) ever developing their business around such an inept and flawed model?

I've yet to talk to single collector who would consign or bid on anything from AMI based on their current "business model".

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net

Neely8
09-16-2009, 09:25 AM
Wow that all sounds like a total clusterf&ck!. What's the point of it all? If AMI isn't going to scrutinize anything that is being consigned and auctioned why not just put your item up on ebay? You'd probably save yourself a few bucks (well maybe not with ebay/paypals continually escalating fees) due to their 20% consignment fee. It's not like their reputation isn't seriously tarnished at this point to be able to bring in top dollar for items. And it sounds like to me shill bidding is totally acceptable at AMI. Unbelievable!

aeneas01
09-16-2009, 10:50 AM
And it sounds like to me shill bidding is totally acceptable at AMI. Unbelievable!

here's the thing, technically it's not shill bidding. even worse, it's not even illegal. i've recently had conversations with quite a few auction house owners about this very subject and i've also spoken to the feds about it as well.

hidden reserves, while unbelievably deceptive imo, are perfectly legal. to be clear, hidden reserves are different than typical (standard) reserves in that with hidden reserves the bidding audience usually has absolutely no idea that a reserve has been set. with a typical (standard) reserve format the bidding audience does know that a reserve has been set given that throughout the course of an auction lots with reserves would show "reserve not met" or "reserve met".

incredibly, in both cases auction houses are legally allowed to bid on behalf of consignors up to the set reserve amount. apparently the catch is that as long as the item has not reached the set reserve amount, then it is not technically "in play" - or for sale. as such the seller and broker can do anything they want with it - pull it from auction, paint it purple or bid it up. but once the item reaches the set reserve then the laws kick in, the item is "in play". and if an auction house bids on behalf of the bidder after it reaches its set reserve, then it is shill bidding and illegal (however in some states, under certain circumstances, an auction house can continue to bid on an item after it reaches its reserve, and so can the consignor).

the laws regulating auction houses vary from state to state but it seems that most states are very clear on one point - if an auction intends to employ hidden reserves and bid on behalf of the consignor, it must make this perfectly clear to the bidding audience - the bidding audience must be very clear on this point.

anyway i found the conversations i had with auction houses about the subject very interesting to say the least - and only one owner i spoke with admitted that their auction house engaged in hidden reserves. at least one auction house i spoke with lied to my face, swore they don't do it and have never done it even though i know they have. in fact i know of at least one auction house that has told consignors to go ahead and bid on their own items, even past the reserve, and then stuck the consignors with buyers fees when they ended up being the high bidder! apparently the consignors were told that unless they paid the fees the auction would be illegal, the bidding considered shill. this is utter nonsense as far as i've been able to tell.

i also had an extremely interesting conversation with dave grob on the matter - i wasn't aware that dave had already written extensively about this topic and, as one would expect, he doesn't think hidden reserves and bidding on behalf of the consignor have any place in an honestly run auction house. no argument here.

in fact i can't believe anyone would participate in an auction that condoned and employed hidden reserves, bidding on behalf of the consignor and/or allowed consignors to bid on their own items. i would suggest that everyone ask auction houses up front, even get it in writing, if they engage in this sort of practice.

the other issue is a bidders max bid and an auction house's accessibility to this private information. as it turns out just about every auction house has access to this information which is nothing short of frightening for very obvious reasons. why a bidder would participate in an auction where the auction house was privy to their max bids is also beyond me.

there are auction software packages out there that have addressed this important issue by entirely removing the ability of an auction house to see a bidder's max bid. "create auction" is one such auction software package, which is used by rea. in fact "create auction" will not even license their software to an auction house that engages in hidden reserves and bids on behalf of consignors! again, if i were a bidder i would make sure that i asked an auction if it could view my max bids before i considered bidding with them.

....

kingjammy24
09-16-2009, 01:55 PM
"it appears that ami has moved to a new model ..."

AMI announced this new model awhile ago. dave grob wrote an interesting commentary on it when it came out back in may. ami has been unable to pay their debts for awhile and i imagine victor and kieta are now on a first-name basis with all of the clerks at the clark county courthouse. this woeful plan was apparently the best victor could come up with. here is my post about it at the time with quotes from dave grob: http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showpost.php?p=141204&postcount=32

"..a) what is ami's whopping 20% buyer's premium exactly covering these days.."

it was announced that it would go to pay off other consigners. if bird33 is any indication, apparently that isn't happening so who knows where the money is really going.

"b) how many of ami's consignors are actually qualified to evaluate their own items"

who knows. i'm sure AMI has done their due diligence in vetting each consigner in terms of their expertise. "i'm an expert. i promise!" hey if they think lou knows what he's doing, then anyone's got a shot.

"..(what happens if the seller decides not to send the item after he receives the cash - does the buyer do battle with ami or the seller)? "

i imagine AMI is acting as an escrow service to prevent such issues. that is, if victor has an ounce of common sense which may be overly optimistic.

"..yet according to the full lot description this item has been evaluated by ami's 100% authentic team. huh? is ami's 100% authentic team now working off of consignor photos?"

if consigners and various other creditors weren't paid by AMI, then it seems likely the 100% team wasn't paid either. is there even a 100% team anymore?

"..is that the effort ami bidders now get for the 20% premium they fork over? my guess is they don't even get that - my guess is that no qualified person even glanced at this lot."

well..no. they don't get that. the 20% goes to pay off the litany of unpaid consigners banging down AMI's doors. essentially, for 20% you get to authenticate your own item and list it on AMI's website. of course, for far less you could do exactly the same on ebay and reach an audience 50x larger. AMI doesn't photograph the items, doesn't store them, doesn't ship them, doesn't authenticate them. but they do collect the 20% buyer's premium. why? because that's victor's only possible hope for hoisting his ass out of the quagmire of crap it's currently trapped in. why would any consigner fall for this? victor's hook was that if AMI owes you money then the only hope you have of getting any of it is to keep consigning with them. sort of like..you buy a crappy car from a crappy car dealer. you demand your money back. the dealer says in order to give you your money back, you have to work at the car lot for a week and then he'll have the money to give you. basically, AMI has consigners doing free work just to be paid the money they're owed. i don't know who's a bigger idiot..victor for coming up with such a reprehensible plan or the people falling for it.

"of course there are some consignors out there that are perfectly capable of evaluating their own lots - in fact i would put more weight in the opinion of some consignors than i would in the opinion of some paid authenticators. for example i noticed that forum member roger gibson has listed some of his very nice items with ami, an example of a consignor perfectly capable of evaluating his own lots."

yes but how are all of the potential bidders on a given lot supposed to know who's genuinely capable and who isn't? some people know roger gibson but many don't. what if some guy wants to bid on one of roger's jerseys and has no clue who roger gibson is? that was the whole benefit of hyping up guys like lampson and bushing. the more they self-promoted themselves, the more well-known and accepted as "experts" they became.

"but do bidders know this is what they're paying for when they agree to ami's 20% premium? or do bidders believe that the 20% fee they're shelling out is earmarked for, at least in part, a professional and impartial third party evaluation? i would say the latter, especially considering ami is still adding "100% authentic team" to the lot descriptions..."

if they read GUU and read AMI's emails, then they ought to know that the their 20% is being used to pay off previously-stiffed consigners. however, since bird33 still hasn't been paid it's anyones guess as to what's actually happening with the money. even if there is no actual "100% Team" looking at anything these days, then i can't imagine the authentication is any worse than what AMI has always offered. whether the guard at the gate is drunk or just completely absent doesn't make much difference; he's still completely useless in either case.

"imo ami has clearly created a consignor's paradise with their new model.."

AMI's last 3 auctions were pitiful in terms of the items offered. i'm surprised they didn't just offering the twigs and pinecones that victor finds laying around his property. their current auction has substantially more items and it caused me to wonder who on earth, in this day and age, is consigning with AMI? then it hit me; people looking to launder garbage (no offense to rk gibson). if you know your items aren't going to be looked at, then it's a prime time to rid yourself of every garbage item you ever got stuck without any of it being able to be traced back to you. can't sell it on ebay because then people will know its you. can't send it to another auction house because they'll reject it. send it to AMI? hoorah, you're not stuck with that POS anymore. all you've got to do is hope some sucker buys it, as with AMI's current 1987 george bell jersey which already has a bid. i can hear some consigner cheering the fact that he's about to be rid of that homemade piece of garbage.

rudy.

David
09-16-2009, 02:11 PM
I remember Mastro would occasionally have a lot the winner had to get from the consignor, but that's when it was something really big like a car where it wasn't feesible to have Mastro hold. I'm also confident someone from Mastro inspected the lot before auction.

kingjammy24
09-16-2009, 04:57 PM
"What's the point of it all? If AMI isn't going to scrutinize anything that is being consigned and auctioned why not just put your item up on ebay?"

well yes. or another auction house. unless you're deliberately trying to launder a bad item. let's say you bought a bad jersey awhile ago. you sunk
a few thousand into some big shirt and it turned out to be bogus. sort of sucks to see your hard-earned money slip away huh? what to do? if you put your item up on ebay, 1) everyone will know you've got a bad shirt and are trying to unload it. 2) upon selling your shirt, the buyer has your info and the shirt can be tracked back to you. you want to wash your hands of this thing anonymously. you need some sort of middleman who'll shield your identity from the buying public. and of course, some sort of middleman who apparently doesn't authenticate or screen their items. AMI is a dream come true for you. toss in your junk, AMI won't screen it, buyers will never know it came from you and the collecting public will never know you pawned your bad shirt off on someone else. you'll get your money back AND maintain your rep. win-win!

"And it sounds like to me shill bidding is totally acceptable at AMI."

shill bidding, half-nude bikini babes cavorting in old relics, employees wearing jerseys and playing with bats in the back room, not paying consigners, ..all in a day's work at AMI.

anyway, i'm not sure if anyone noticed but AMI now has the "GUU-esque" feature where people can comment on/discuss individual auction lots. it almost seems too easy.

i am a little curious why roger gibson decided to go with AMI. maybe he can provide some insight.

rudy.

kingjammy24
09-16-2009, 05:23 PM
,,the catch is that as long as the item has not reached the set reserve amount, then it is not technically "in play" - or for sale.

if an item has a hidden reserve and the reserve is ultimately not reached, can the auction house/consigner still sell the item to the highest bidder? if so, then wouldn't placing an astronomical hidden reserve (say $10 million) enable the auction house to bid throughout the entire auction until the very end? sure the hidden reserve isn't met but if it's hidden, noone knows (except the auction houes and consigner tee hee) and the auction house/consigner are free to sell it to the highest (inflated) bid. the item was constantly bid up by the auction house but it's all legal because it was never technically "in play". the auction house can bid on an item all it likes, and view bidder's max bids, as long as they never put the item into play which they can do simply by setting an astronomical hidden reserve.

it must be confusing to place the highest bid and then be informed you didn't win the item because the entire time there was a hidden reserve and it wasn't reached.

"i would suggest that everyone ask auction houses up front, even get it in writing, if they engage in this sort of practice."

the assumption being that the auction houses will provide honest answers? if they said they didn't engage in that sort of practice and put it in writing and they did wind up engaging in it, how would one prove that?
i can't imagine many (or any?) houses opening up the bidding records so bidders can check them out.

"the other issue is a bidders max bid and an auction house's accessibility to this private information. as it turns out just about every auction house has access to this information which is nothing short of frightening for very obvious reasons. why a bidder would participate in an auction where the auction house was privy to their max bids is also beyond me."

i think there are many similar questions; why participate in an auction which employs lou lampson? why participate in an auction where the house refuses to remove bad items? why participate in anything doug allen or victor moreno run? because at the end of the day, the items themselves take precedence. collectors would be willing to "meet a guy in a dark alley" if it meant obtaining their grail. i'm curious how many would even care if they were told the item had been stolen from the team or player.

"again, if i were a bidder i would make sure that i asked an auction if it could view my max bids before i considered bidding with them."

again, the assumption really being that the answer given could be trusted to be truthful?

anyway, here are dave grob's thoughts on hidden reserves:

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=675

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1250962699/NO+Hidden+Reserves+Required+or+Desired

AMI's policy on hidden reserves is hardly surprising. What would be surprising is if someone like rob lifson or dave grob employed that policy. for victor moreno, it's par for the course.

rudy.

hblakewolf
09-16-2009, 07:43 PM
here's the thing, technically it's not shill bidding. even worse, it's not even illegal. i've recently had conversations with quite a few auction house owners about this very subject and i've also spoken to the feds about it as well.

hidden reserves, while unbelievably deceptive imo, are perfectly legal. to be clear, hidden reserves are different than typical (standard) reserves in that with hidden reserves the bidding audience usually has absolutely no idea that a reserve has been set. with a typical (standard) reserve format the bidding audience does know that a reserve has been set given that throughout the course of an auction lots with reserves would show "reserve not met" or "reserve met".

incredibly, in both cases auction houses are legally allowed to bid on behalf of consignors up to the set reserve amount. apparently the catch is that as long as the item has not reached the set reserve amount, then it is not technically "in play" - or for sale. as such the seller and broker can do anything they want with it - pull it from auction, paint it purple or bid it up. but once the item reaches the set reserve then the laws kick in, the item is "in play". and if an auction house bids on behalf of the bidder after it reaches its set reserve, then it is shill bidding and illegal (however in some states, under certain circumstances, an auction house can continue to bid on an item after it reaches its reserve, and so can the consignor).

the laws regulating auction houses vary from state to state but it seems that most states are very clear on one point - if an auction intends to employ hidden reserves and bid on behalf of the consignor, it must make this perfectly clear to the bidding audience - the bidding audience must be very clear on this point.

anyway i found the conversations i had with auction houses about the subject very interesting to say the least - and only one owner i spoke with admitted that their auction house engaged in hidden reserves. at least one auction house i spoke with lied to my face, swore they don't do it and have never done it even though i know they have. in fact i know of at least one auction house that has told consignors to go ahead and bid on their own items, even past the reserve, and then stuck the consignors with buyers fees when they ended up being the high bidder! apparently the consignors were told that unless they paid the fees the auction would be illegal, the bidding considered shill. this is utter nonsense as far as i've been able to tell.

i also had an extremely interesting conversation with dave grob on the matter - i wasn't aware that dave had already written extensively about this topic and, as one would expect, he doesn't think hidden reserves and bidding on behalf of the consignor have any place in an honestly run auction house. no argument here.

in fact i can't believe anyone would participate in an auction that condoned and employed hidden reserves, bidding on behalf of the consignor and/or allowed consignors to bid on their own items. i would suggest that everyone ask auction houses up front, even get it in writing, if they engage in this sort of practice.

the other issue is a bidders max bid and an auction house's accessibility to this private information. as it turns out just about every auction house has access to this information which is nothing short of frightening for very obvious reasons. why a bidder would participate in an auction where the auction house was privy to their max bids is also beyond me.

there are auction software packages out there that have addressed this important issue by entirely removing the ability of an auction house to see a bidder's max bid. "create auction" is one such auction software package, which is used by rea. in fact "create auction" will not even license their software to an auction house that engages in hidden reserves and bids on behalf of consignors! again, if i were a bidder i would make sure that i asked an auction if it could view my max bids before i considered bidding with them.

....

Robert-

Can you elaborate on your direct involvement/relationship with managing the Game Used Universe auctions?

Thanks.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net

aeneas01
09-16-2009, 08:13 PM
AMI announced this new model awhile ago. dave grob wrote an interesting commentary on it when it came out back in may.... here is my post about it at the time with quotes from dave grob: http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_f...4&postcount=32 (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showpost.php?p=141204&postcount=32)

yes, i saw those posts rudy but i'm not sure i entirely agree with your and dave's premise - specifically:

"... now more of the burden for getting the item consignment ready falls on the collector; A collector who is both owed money and now doing the bulk of the work. In essence, collectors are being charged for the time they are now spending to sell their own item. Since the money they were rightfully entitled to is now being seen by AMI as credit against their account, why would a collector do more work that only results in eliminating a debt that is not his to begin?".

imo ami's new model does not create a burden for consignors, far from it in fact - what ami's new model does is invite consignors that are owed money to become willing and active participants in an auction rigged to maximize bidding activity and hammer prices. what ami is offering is this: in exchange for money owed, consignors will be allowed to list their items free of charge, and describe them in any manner they see fit. consignors will also be allowed to provide their own photos thus giving them an opportunity to show, or not show, detailed aspects of their lots. further, ami will allow bidders to set a reserve, which will not be evident to the bidding audience, and then ami will actively bid on the consignor's lot up to whatever reserve amount the consignor wishes to set. and finally, consignors will not be required to submit their items to ami for a professional evaluation - no need. instead they will be allowed to keep their items in their own possession and then decide whether or not they wish to honor the deal once the auction is over, once they receive their cash.

if this is a burden on consignors rudy, i can't imagine what relief might look like!


...their current auction has substantially more items and it caused me to wonder who on earth, in this day and age, is consigning with AMI? then it hit me; people looking to launder garbage (no offense to rk gibson). if you know your items aren't going to be looked at, then it's a prime time to rid yourself of every garbage item you ever got stuck without any of it being able to be traced back to you.

given ami is allowing consignors to hold onto their items throughout the auction and then allowing them to ship them to the winning bidders, i would think that would leave a paper trail in terms of where the lots came from. of course an enterprising seller could always ship from a distant location...

as far as ami consignors are concerned, especially very knowledgeable and very well respected consignors such as roger gibson, it's hard to blame them imo. in fact roger is the exact sort of experienced collector i would want weighing in on a lot description regardless if the item in question belonged to him - and i would certainly value his opinion over other paid authenticators i've come across. and i can say the the same about many other forum members.

but that's roger. what about the consignors that are ill-equipped to render an opinion on their own items. and what about unscrupulous consignors well versed in sports memorabilia that now have an opportunity to misrepresent their items through ami?

....

aeneas01
09-16-2009, 08:27 PM
is currently on their site:
Sales Final and Inspection of Lots
Buyer acknowledges that he/she has been provided the opportunity to inspect the property before purchasing same and Buyer has/has not inspected the property at his or her sole discretion. ALL SALES ARE FINAL.Buyer is solely responsible for determining the condition of any property. For detailed Lot descriptions, please call BEFORE that auction ends. For every bidder's convenience, all Lots are exhibited in AMI's North Las Vegas, Nevada Gallery and can be shown by appointment.

great reference howard - clearly ami's statement is no longer true given there are many consignors that are holding onto their items until it's time to ship them to the winning bidder. what is also not true is the implication on each lot page that lots have been evaluated by the "100% authentic team."

...

aeneas01
09-16-2009, 08:39 PM
Robert-

Can you elaborate on your direct involvement/relationship with managing the Game Used Universe auctions?

Thanks.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net


you bet roger, but let me get back to you on this tonight - i'm running late to my 10-year-old daughter's volleyball practice! think some us guu forum members can be vicious when we've been tread unfairly? it's nothing compared to my daughter's glare if i leave her hanging - she's got a lot of her mother in her (and i wouldn't have it any other way)!!! :)

...

kingjammy24
09-16-2009, 10:43 PM
"imo ami's new model does not create a burden for consignors, far from it in fact - what ami's new model does is invite consignors that are owed money to become willing and active participants in an auction.."

consigners are required to do work that they previously were not required to do. calling them "willing and active participants" does not diminish or negate this. whether they view this "participation" as extra work or as pleasure is entirely subjective.

"instead they will be allowed to keep their items in their own possession and then decide whether or not they wish to honor the deal once the auction is over, once they receive their cash."

is this fact or speculation? are you saying AMI is not acting as an escrow service?

"if this is a burden on consignors rudy, i can't imagine what relief might look like!"

the auction house writes the descriptions and takes the photos. there's relief. not so hard to imagine. listen, i agree that the AMI model is a consigner's free-for-all but at the same time it is undeniable that they're doing more work and the money they're owed is being repaid to them via their own work. that's the point i was making previously. AMI is paying consigners from their own work, which means the work they're doing is free. it's asinine. they've turned into a half-assed ebay with about 1/1000th of the audience and a substantially larger premium. if AMI is going to do none of the work, from storing the item to mailing it to authenticating it to photographing it to writing the descriptions, then what are they in business for? oh right..because they have a list of creditors to pay back. what a niche they've carved out for themselves. where else would collectors find photos of tarts wearing vintage flannels?

"given ami is allowing consignors to hold onto their items throughout the auction and then allowing them to ship them to the winning bidders, i would think that would leave a paper trail in terms of where the lots came from. of course an enterprising seller could always ship from a distant location..."

there is no paper trail if i send you a package from some mailbox in the middle of nowhere with no return address on it. it doesn't take an "enterprising" seller to do this. it takes anyone with half an ounce of brains who is aware that they're trying to offload junk.

"as far as ami consignors are concerned, especially very knowledgeable and very well respected consignors such as roger gibson, it's hard to blame them imo."

all the bells and whistles in the world are worthless if you aren't going to get paid. i guess it is hard for me to understand why a very knowledgable and very well respected collector such as roger gibson knowingly chose to deal with an auction house with a notable public record of failing to pay consigners and which has racked up 61 BBB complaints in the past 36 months. by comparison, GFC has 0 complaints in the past 36 months. REA has 0 complaints in the past 36 months. Lelands has 0 complaints in the past 36 months. AMI has 61 times the number of customer complaints as GFC, REA, and Lelands COMBINED. yet you intimate that it's hard to blame consigners for using them because they get to experience the joy of writing their own descriptions and taking their own photos?

rudy.

aeneas01
09-17-2009, 06:13 AM
consigners are required to do work that they previously were not required to do.

seems to me ami consignors that are owed money have been given a couple of options: 1) they can send their items in and let ami handle the show as before or 2) they can take full advantage of ami's desperate predicament and last ditch effort to attract bidders by accepting the keys to the candy store. the latter doesn't strike me as work nor a "requirement" but instead a golden opportunity for consignors to move their items without restriction through a major auction house - while the small window still remains open, before the word gets out. but, hey, that's just my take.


are you saying AMI is not acting as an escrow service?

if ami is now acting as an escrow service then what's changed in terms of ensuring that they distribute the cash they've collected? now if you're asking whether or not ami has employed a third party licensed and bonded escrow service, who knows - but i don't think so.

seems to me the only way ami was able to convince some consignors that they would receive the cash for their lots once the auction ended was to allow the consignors to keep their lots until cash was in their hands, no?


the auction house writes the descriptions and takes the photos. there's relief. not so hard to imagine.

assuming of course the auction house doesn't also leave the consignor wondering if he'll ever see his cash - not much relief there. here's my idea of relief given the circumstances: exactly what ami has been forced to offer - the keys to the candy store, carte blanche. but you consider this work and a burden while i consider an absurd opportunity, not work, made possible only because of ami's predicament. you can't convince me otherwise and i can't convince you - which is the sort of thing that makes life more interesting.


yet you intimate that it's hard to blame consigners for using them because they get to experience the joy of writing their own descriptions and taking their own photos?

hmm.... i guess i didn't make myself clear although i do i agree that creative writing and photography are two wonderfully joyous pursuits. so i'll repeat, in a somewhat different (and hopefully easier to understand) format: it's hard to blame consignors for doing business with ami when ami is apparently willing to:

1. allow consignors to write their own lot descriptions (and all that this implies).
2. allow consignors to evaluate their own items (and all that this implies).
3. allow consignors to take their own photos (and all that this implies).
4. place hidden reserves on consignor lots, reserves that will not be obvious or apparent to the bidding audience.
5. place multiple bids on a consignor's lot, on behalf of the consignor, up to the hidden reserve that has been agreed upon.
6. create the illusion of activity, interest and value in a consignor's lot by placing multiple bids on the lot up to the hidden reserve.
7. allow the consignor to keep their items in their own possession.
8. waive the requirement that items need to be submitted for a professional evaluation.
9. imply that lots have been evaluated by the "100% authentic team" by including this reference on each lot page.
10. not reveal these details to the bidding audience. or at least not make them very apparent.

so again, i can understand why a consignor might be motivated to list with ami, especially consignors that are owed money by ami given there seems to be no risk in terms of losing their items or cash, but i don't understand why anyone would possibly bid with ami.


the assumption being that the auction houses will provide honest answers? if they said they didn't engage in that sort of practice and put it in writing and they did wind up engaging in it, how would one prove that? i can't imagine many (or any?) houses opening up the bidding records so bidders can check them out.

if an auction house tells a bidder that they don't engage in hidden reserves or that they don't have access to max bids when they do, it's fraud. and while it's highly doubtful any auction house would ever share their bidding records with bidders, i'm rather certain there are agencies that can get different results. so again, i would encourage bidders to ask auction houses about their policies concerning hidden reserves and accessibility to max bid amounts before bidding - an email inquiry might be a good approach. and if it's discovered that an auction house was untruthful, it can then be reported to those that find this sort of thing very interesting - and i'm not talking about the forum members!

i've got a question for you rudy - how long do you think it will take dealers to exploit ami's new approach? for example it's rather easy to identify roger gibson's items by the photo backdrop, a brick wall - the same photos he has posted at the forum in the past. and the same is true with the person that listed the rams reproduction that i eluded to earlier (btw it has since been pulled) - he obviously has other items listed given the photo backdrop is the same in all of his lots, a beige carpet.

couple this with sellers and buyers being privy to each others' address and contact info, given it seems apparent that sellers will be shipping their items directly to buyers, and it raises some interesting possibilities.

for example when a bidder wins an item it seems that it would then be rather easy for him to work a deal on other items the consignor might have, even the items that didn't sell. and consignors, it would seem, would also be able to rather easily offer their buyers other items from their inventory. in short, it seems that an added benefit of doing business with ami these days may include access to ami's buyers and sellers. would ami really allow this?

....

aeneas01
09-17-2009, 07:38 AM
Robert-

Can you elaborate on your direct involvement/relationship with managing the Game Used Universe auctions?

Thanks.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net


howard - i accepted chris's invitation to help out with guu auctions and have been working hard to help create an even better guu auction experience.

when the fall auction launches i think the changes will be very apparent, most notably a new auction site with a considerably different look and feel. we have decided to go with the same auction software used by rea for many reasons including ease of use and a familiar navigational layout. but we also valued the developer's commitment to integrity.

for example his software design includes a feature that does not allow access to max (up to) bids which is extremely important to us. when a bidder enters a max bid at a guu auction he can rest assured that it will be for his eyes only. further, we were very impressed that the software developer made it a point to ask us if we intended to engage in hidden reserves - the reason he asked was because he wanted us to know that he would not license his software to any auction house that engaged in this sort of activity. we liked this.

but to answer your question howard, i am directly involved in every aspect of guu's auction development and everything that implies, and have been since june or so.

as far as the forum is concerned, i expect to continue to post as i have always posted in the past and not be influenced by my involvement with guu auctions. will that be possible? i think so. of course i have little doubt that some may question my motivations whenever i now post on a subject, other auction houses perhaps, but i believe that my future posts will be entirely consistent with what i've posted in the past, long before i was ever involved with guu auctions. if not i'm sure i'll hear about it!

hope this answered your question.

...

mvandor
09-17-2009, 07:55 AM
howard - i accepted chris's invitation to help out with guu auctions and have been working hard to help create an even better guu auction experience.

when the fall auction launches i think the changes will be very apparent, most notably a new auction site with a considerably different look and feel. we have decided to go with the same auction software used by rea for many reasons including ease of use and a familiar navigational layout. but we also valued the developer's commitment to integrity.

for example his software design includes a feature that does not allow access to max (up to) bids which is extremely important to us. when a bidder enters a max bid at a guu auction he can rest assured that it will be for his eyes only. further, we were very impressed that the software developer made it a point to ask us if we intended to engage in hidden reserves - the reason he asked was because he wanted us to know that he would not license his software to any auction house that engaged in this sort of activity. we liked this.

but to answer your question howard, i am directly involved in every aspect of guu's auction development and everything that implies, and have been since june or so.

as far as the forum is concerned, i expect to continue to post as i have always posted in the past and not be influenced by my involvement with guu auctions. will that be possible? i think so. of course i have little doubt that some may question my motivations whenever i now post on a subject, other auction houses perhaps, but i believe that my future posts will be entirely consistent with what i've posted in the past, long before i was ever involved with guu auctions. if not i'm sure i'll hear about it!

hope this answered your question.

...

Well, just like GUU lost it's mantle of objectivity when it decided to become an auction venue, you just gave up yours as well. For example, while I agree with you 100% re: AMI, your comments now come across as little more than an attack on a competitor.

Life ain't the same after you dive into the money pool, my friend. :D

aeneas01
09-17-2009, 09:44 AM
Well, just like GUU lost it's mantle of objectivity when it decided to become an auction venue, you just gave up yours as well. For example, while I agree with you 100% re: AMI, your comments now come across as little more than an attack on a competitor.

Life ain't the same after you dive into the money pool, my friend. :D

so i've lost my "mantle of objectivity" have i? tell me michael, was it intact when i took the time to help you out with your tomlinson and montana helmets? when i explained to you what to look for in fake modern helmets so you wouldn't get taken again?

guu will be offering some helmets in their upcoming fall auction, just as lambeauleeper will be offering helmets on ebay. if i now comment on lambeauleeper will it also strike you as little more than an attack on a competitor?

...

shoremen44
09-17-2009, 09:58 AM
Well, just like GUU lost it's mantle of objectivity when it decided to become an auction venue, you just gave up yours as well. For example, while I agree with you 100% re: AMI, your comments now come across as little more than an attack on a competitor.

Life ain't the same after you dive into the money pool, my friend.

I dont know aneas01 personally, but I have to say that I have ever seen is objectivity, and concern for the collector from him.

With that said from someone who has dealt with AMI in the past (and is still owed money) they deserve every negative comment that comes their way... if anything that is said isnt true we would all comment, but all the crap they have pulled is right there for everyone to see.

Furthermore, Chris and GUU has never been anything but helpful and objective in my mind, but why should Chris, aneas01, or GUU have to be objective when it comes to competition?... It's business, GUU should laud their positives, and while a good business should never focus on another companies negatives, knowing them and informing your customers of them and why you are better when they ask is simply good business.

commando
09-17-2009, 10:45 AM
The idea that Robert, or any other individual, cannot be objective because they're compensated for their knowledge, is insane. Why shouldn't someone who knows more than virtually anyone else on a subject (a true expert) NOT get compensated for their knowledge? Do you think people go to medical school to not get paid? Sure, doctors volunteer their time here and there... And yes, a few doctors over the years have been caught doing extra, unneeded procedures to make extra money.... But come on, if you think this type of greedy behavior is the norm, then you're jaded, my friend.

Oh, and I realize Robert's game-used education probably didn't cost as much as medical school... But if you think learning what Robert has learned was free, and didn't take a huge investment in time and resources, you're wrong again.

Come on, people. Think about who you're talking about (or get to know them) before you throw someone under the bus.

mvandor
09-17-2009, 10:56 AM
so i've lost my "mantle of objectivity" have i? tell me michael, was it intact when i took the time to help you out with your tomlinson and montana helmets? when i explained to you what to look for in fake modern helmets so you wouldn't get taken again?

guu will be offering some helmets in their upcoming fall auction, just as lambeauleeper will be offering helmets on ebay. if i now comment on lambeauleeper will it also strike you as little more than an attack on a competitor?

...

Robert, yes, if you now have a financial interest in an auction business (I assume you're not donating your time/expertise to someone else's business), any comments you make going forward will be viewed differently. You take that as a personal afront? It's not, it would be true for Jesus Christ himself, it's a very fair statement that has nothing to do with you personally.

Of course, if what sounds like a substantial contribution of your time IS sans any monetary remuneration, that colors your PERCEIVED objectivity less in my opinion, however your heavy involvement in GUU Auctions would still cast a cloud over your criticisms of competing auction houses.

Does that lessen my appreciation for what you bring to GUU members with your expertise, or what you specifically have assisted me or others on here? Of course not. Does it lessen my respect for you? Not at all, you're #1 in my list here.

But it does create what us old schoolers used to consider a "conflict of interest" when you post criticisms of what would now appear to be competitors.

If the roles were reversed, I would honestly expect you to say the same about me.

suicide_squeeze
09-17-2009, 11:17 AM
so i've lost my "mantle of objectivity" have i? tell me michael, was it intact when i took the time to help you out with your tomlinson and montana helmets? when i explained to you what to look for in fake modern helmets so you wouldn't get taken again?

guu will be offering some helmets in their upcoming fall auction, just as lambeauleeper will be offering helmets on ebay. if i now comment on lambeauleeper will it also strike you as little more than an attack on a competitor?

...

Robert,

As any seasoned collector is aware, anything that is stated by a knowledgeable hobbiest like yourself who posesses deep insight into the authenticity of the items being offered into the hobby is appreciated.

If what you discuss is true, and what you present are facts that back your statements......I don't care if you're selling tickets to the next "Jimmy Carter Communism Tea-Party" gathering......it has deep relevance and is welcome by any collector.

Don't ever stop posting. It would be a serious loss to the forum members who enjoy this site.

suicide_squeeze
09-17-2009, 11:36 AM
Robert, yes, if you now have a financial interest in an auction business (I assume you're not donating your time/expertise to someone else's business), any comments you make going forward will be viewed differently. You take that as a personal afront? It's not, it would be true for Jesus Christ himself, it's a very fair statement that has nothing to do with you personally.

Of course, if what sounds like a substantial contribution of your time IS sans any monetary remuneration, that colors your PERCEIVED objectivity less in my opinion, however your heavy involvement in GUU Auctions would still cast a cloud over your criticisms of competing auction houses.

Does that lessen my appreciation for what you bring to GUU members with your expertise, or what you specifically have assisted me or others on here? Of course not. Does it lessen my respect for you? Not at all, you're #1 in my list here.

But it does create what us old schoolers used to consider a "conflict of interest" when you post criticisms of what would now appear to be competitors.

If the roles were reversed, I would honestly expect you to say the same about me.

mvandor,

With all due respect to a good forum member as I consider you are, if Robert states facts backed up by evidence related to them, how can that shed any "attack" on another auction house, or tarnish his comments on items that are unquestionable bad, simply because he is performing a very needed service for the auctions here on the GUU? I see it as a plus to the hobby in every way, shape, and form. He has shown obvious and overwhelming knowledge over the so-called "experts" in the hobby (at least in regards to football memorabilia).

This forum has exposed and displayed in black and white miles and miles of evidence against the competency of the authenticators utilized by the major auction houses in the industry. In some cases, the very fact that the "authenticators" are referred to as such, IMO, is borderline breaking the law. They are rediculously inept at identifying what they are holding in thier own hands as to the true authenticity of what the piece is.

I have no problem with whatever the service, pay, arrangements, or otherwise Robert has in regards to being "employed" by GUU to work with or on their auctions. It can only add to the integrity of this site, their auction experience, and help to protect the collecting public from buying an item that turns up being something other than what it is offered to be.

It's an absolute win-win for everyone who uses this site. And I would go as far as saying we all will never see the day where Robert would cross the line and sell his soul to the devil for financial gain while authenticating "garbage" in an auction, like so many of the so called expert authenticators have done. There just wouldn't be any reason for that, as he would be exposed by the very same site that he is serving in no time whatsoever. Then, and only then, would he lose cred here. I don't see it, his integrity appears to be too high for that.

Thumbs up to GUU for utilizing his knowledge. It's all good in my book.


http://www.barbandgreg.com/images/Emoticons/barboard.gif

kingjammy24
09-17-2009, 02:22 PM
robert,

you're too sharp a guy to believe that simply because you find something enjoyable that others necessarily would as well. practically the only universal truth about every consigner is that they want to maximize the hammer price of their item and one way to do so is to present the item as impressively as possible. this requires skill, knowledge and talent that many don't have and have no interest in learning. you seem to believe it's fun and not a burden trying to present your item as well as it would appear at REA or Heritage with a copy of MS Paint and a 4 megapixel powershot. (hell i don't even have a mannequin. but maybe that's part of the "fun" of it all..going and purchasing a few thousand dollars worth of professional equipment and then learning how to use it all). i guess if you believe it's such a joy then i expect you'll be asking future GUU consigners to take their own photos. why not right? wouldn't pose any burden to anyone because everyone loves photography. at the same time, it'd save chris cavalier the time and expense. when they complain that their items weren't professionally presented, just tell them to think of all the fun they had.

"if ami is now acting as an escrow service then what's changed in terms of ensuring that they distribute the cash they've collected?"

in this situation, a proper escrow service would involve more than the distribution of cash. it would involve the distribution of goods. what good is it to bidders if AMI is only collecting their cash but not the consigner's goods? IF ami was operating as a proper escrow service, then your suggestion that consigners could "..decide whether or not they wish to honor the deal once the auction is over, once they receive their cash" would be impossible.

"..seems to me the only way ami was able to convince some consignors that they would receive the cash for their lots once the auction ended was to allow the consignors to keep their lots until cash was in their hands, no?"

i don't know. later in your post you pose the same scenario and then almost rhetorically ask me "would ami really allow this?" so i don't know what you really believe is happening. personally, i wasn't sure how AMI was able to convince anyone to do business with them. hence why i asked if roger gibson could provide some insight into what compelled him to do business with such a company.

"..but you consider this work and a burden while i consider an absurd opportunity, not work, made possible only because of ami's predicament. you can't convince me otherwise and i can't convince you - which is the sort of thing that makes life more interesting."

tell you what.. offer your own customers an "absurd opportunity" to become "willing and active participants" in the food they eat. how? make them cook it all themselves. after all, it is their food so they've got a vested interest in trying to make it good. your job? exactly what AMI does..just sit back and charge them for doing the work...err..having the "fun". don't know how to cook? hey, many of AMI's customers have little clue about professional photography but they're probably having a blast learning! did your jersey come out looking crappy and thus fail to fetch a great price? no different than your food coming out crappy because you had no clue how to operate the broiler. hey the AMI folks probably had no clue what an f-stop on a nikon d90 was the first time either. it's always fun when you have no clue what you're doing!

"..creative writing and photography are two wonderfully joyous pursuits."

the assumption being that since you personally enjoy it then everyone else does as well? that it's a wonderfully joyous thing when all you want is make your roger staubach helmet look great and yet everything keeps coming out blurry and dark so you spend 5 hours trolling photography forums without any clue as to what any of the terms mean? or engaging in creative writing when you feel immensely inept with the written word? i agree..couldn't be a burden to anyone as it's well known that all collectors love professional photography and creative writing and are greatly skilled at both. oy. one man's joy is another man's burden.

rudy.

earlywynnfan
09-17-2009, 03:59 PM
Why does this thread sound like an argument? It started off so well.

Ken

xpress34
09-17-2009, 06:09 PM
Wow... maybe I missed something in trolling through all of the stating and rehashing of AMI's new 'business model', but here is the very eerie feeling I'm coming away with...

It has been made VERY clear here that Victor has screwed consignors and creditors 8 ways to Sunday - correct???

And one of the big points is that the 20% Buyer's Premium is going to go to pay off some of those debts and consignors - correct???

And the current consignors get to keep their item UNTIL they get paid - correct???

And finally, AMI is acting as their own 'so-called' Escrow (and as was stated earlier, they are not doing what a true Escrow service would do) in collecting the money for the consignors - correct???

These all lead to one VERY disturbing conclusion for me - as it should for ANY bidders:

Let's say AMI has 100 items 'consigned' (for lack of a better or 'real' term) to their current auction and assume that EVERY item sells and AMI collects on every auction... now, the 'consignors' still have their items, so technically, AMI doesn't owe them for their items - they still possess them... what is to keep this from being their LAST auction and them just skipping town with the proceeds that they helped increase with 'shill bidding' (hidden reserve)???

I mean yes, they could have done it in the past, but now, they are collecting money for items they don't even possess?!?!?

Compared to everything else I've ever read about AMI, this scenario doesn't seem too crazy or bizarre to me...

Just my .02

- Chris

aeneas01
09-18-2009, 12:23 AM
so i've lost my "mantle of objectivity" have i? tell me michael, was it intact when i took the time to help you out with your tomlinson and montana helmets? when i explained to you what to look for in fake modern helmets so you wouldn't get taken again (by the likes of lambeauleeper)? guu will be offering some helmets in their upcoming fall auction, just as lambeauleeper will be offering helmets on ebay. if i now comment on lambeauleeper will it also strike you as little more than an attack on a competitor?


Robert, yes, if you now have a financial interest in an auction business... any comments you make going forward will be viewed differently.... your heavy involvement in GUU Auctions would still cast a cloud over your criticisms of competing auction houses... (it creates) what us old schoolers used to consider a "conflict of interest" when you post criticisms of what would now appear to be competitors.

interesting, michael.... you recently posted the following in response to a forum member asking about an ebay helmet offered by lambeauleeper: "LL is an ebayer that puts together some very good replicas of HOF NFL players, but then sells them misleadingly for big bucks..."

do you feel collectors should consider your criticism of lambeauleeper "clouded" and "little more than an attack on a competitor" as well given you also sell football helmets on ebay? further, do you feel that you lack objectivity when it comes to commenting on bad helmets because you also engage in the buying and selling of helmets? and finally michael, do you feel that your "old school" sensibilities regarding conflicts of interest pertain to you as well?

...

mvandor
09-18-2009, 09:40 AM
interesting, michael.... you recently posted the following in response to a forum member asking about an ebay helmet offered by lambeauleeper: "LL is an ebayer that puts together some very good replicas of HOF NFL players, but then sells them misleadingly for big bucks..."

do you feel collectors should consider your criticism of lambeauleeper "clouded" and "little more than an attack on a competitor" as well given you also sell football helmets on ebay? further, do you feel that you lack objectivity when it comes to commenting on bad helmets because you also engage in the buying and selling of helmets? and finally michael, do you feel that your "old school" sensibilities regarding conflicts of interest pertain to you as well?

...

Robert, you're far too bright not to get my point, so you must be in denial.

I don't sell lids as a business, so as you know, the analogy is not accurate.

If I negatively reviewed one of the competitors to my actual business which is my livelihood (I have no side businesses) on a forum, although I might be 100% accurate, I would expect readers to take my opinion with a grain of salt because I'm speaking about a competitor. That simply doesn't scream "objectivity".

You're obviously taking my comments as some personal attack on your integrity, which they are not.

aeneas01
09-20-2009, 06:51 AM
You're obviously taking my comments as some personal attack on your integrity, which they are not.

news flash michael - when you presumptuously and publicly accuse someone of lacking objectivity because of money, not only is it a personal attack on that person's integrity but on their character as well. do you really need that explained to you? and when you claim the same rules don't apply to you, that's the height of hypocrisy. do you really need that explained to you as well?

look michael, if you want to leave the knitting circle and join the men for cigars and brandy, i'm all for it - but try to bring something interesting, useful and helpful to the table instead of poorly crafted devil's advocate arguments and snide and flippant remarks. honestly, i can't remember the last time you've contributed something interesting and uniquely yours to the forum - click on your name, scroll down to "find all posts by mvandor" and you'll see what i mean.

frankly, whether you know it or not, you're one of those internet forum guys that needs to feel relevant yet rarely has anything relevant to contribute. as a result you self-promote, claim the expertise of others as yours, wade out of your depth and jump into any conversation for the sake of jumping, without thinking. and it gets you into trouble. fix this and it would be a good start. and then try to see the forest through the trees rather than bite the hands that feed you.

and in the meantime, for the love of roberto clemente, try to stop throwing folks under the bus when you clumsily try to come across as an insider with something to offer - for example, you recently posted about an individual who was willing to discretely help out honest collectors despite considerable risk. you then, as if to show you were uniquely in the know, proceeded to identify the individual by name, identified his his business and volunteered his email address. good grief...

to the rest of you guys, thanks very much for your support - and thanks to all of you guys that dropped me emails offering the same. really, it's very much appreciated.

...

aeneas01
09-20-2009, 07:00 AM
Why does this thread sound like an argument?

i hear ya ken and i wish it hadn't gone in that direction...

hidden (secret) reserves, auction houses bidding on lots on behalf of their consignors, consignors allowed to bid on their own items, viewable/accessible max (up to bids), consignors evaluating their own items, auction house claiming they're evaluating items when they're not - it goes on and on. and it's going on at this very moment. you would think that would be plenty to discuss...

...

aeneas01
09-20-2009, 09:23 AM
practically the only universal truth about every consigner is that they want to maximize the hammer price of their item and one way to do so is to present the item as impressively as possible. this requires skill, knowledge and talent that many don't have...

given the skill, knowledge and talent apparently required to ready a lot for auction, it's kinda hard to believe that ebay ever got off the ground, eh my friend? 23 million ebay listings as we speak, who knew there was so much damn talent out there?!?

here are four photos, from four different lots, snagged from a couple of major sports memorabilia auction houses - they represent the only photo that was featured in each lot and are presented exactly as they were at the auction houses (same size, rez, etc.). call me crazy, but i don't think ansel or henri knocked these things out - in fact i'm pretty certain my 10-year-old daughter, equipped with your 4mp powershot, could best the effort.....

lot sold for $170,000
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/170k.jpg

lot sold for $31,000
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/31k.jpg

lot sold for $17,000
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/17k-1.jpg

lot sold for $13,000
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/13k.jpg


and here are four lot descriptions taken from a couple of major sports memorabilia auction houses, presented in their entirety. not sure how much creative literary talent, skill or knowledge it would take to do the same....

1. Flannel jersey with Tim McAuliffe tag in the collar. The words "Red Sox" are spelled out in felt on the front and Kramer's number "18" are applied in felt to the back. A small fabric swatch with the year "48" is sewn to the tail. Vintage number change. Condition: No holes or tears but does show heavy use with wear evident on the letters, numbers and piping.

2. These professional model weapons were turned to the specifications of their namesakes, Maris and Mantle: 1.) 1964-1967 Adirondack "307D" block-letter ("MARIS TYPE") model (32.8oz/34", 11" crack); 2.) 1968-1970 Adirondack "288D" block-letter ("MANTLE TYPE") model (35.8oz/34"); and 3.) 1973-1975 Hillerich & Bradsby "K55" Mickey Mantle signature model (30.6oz/35"). Heavy to excessive use throughout. Individual photo LOAs from John Taube PSA/DNA.

3. This head gear of the Bills offensive lineman Sherman White during his last season in the NFL shows nice use with scuffs and has the number "83" on the back in sticker form. Rawlings size 7 1/8-7 1/4 helmet has 1983 recertification sticker inside ear flap. Complete with padding inside. This also was the last year for the dominant white background color of the Buffalo helmet, replaced by the present red.

4. Presented is a white and black Everlast satin robe signed by Muhammad Ali. The black Sharpie signature of the former heavyweight champion is located above the lower left pocket and grades (“6”) with moderate bleeding. This handsome garment features excellent construction, gorgeous material and is accompanied by an auction LOA from James Spence Authentications.

-------------------

granted, if your looking for "creamily delicious" then you would certainly have to call in the heavy hitters! seriously rudy, all kidding aside and ignoring the extreme examples i included above, i understand your point completely. i really do. this kind of work can be a chore, especially if done carefully and right - i know, we're in the process of doing just that right now. but you can't tell me that there aren't consignors out there that are jumping at the opportunity to finally be able to sell their items through a major auction house on their own terms - with their own descriptions, evaluations and photos. there are, i've spoken to a couple.

is it an enormous amount of work to competently prepare 5-10 of your own lots for auction? does it require a unique and special level of skill, knowledge and talent? no, not when you're talking about experienced collectors, which most of those consignors are i believe. to tell you the truth rudy, i'm a little surprised to hear that you think so highly of the collective skills/talents of paid evaluators given the brutal time you often give them!


a) what good is it to bidders if AMI is only collecting their cash but not the consigner's goods? b) IF ami was operating as a proper escrow service, then your suggestion that consigners could "..decide whether or not they wish to honor the deal once the auction is over, once they receive their cash" would be impossible.

a) exactly b) who said ami was operating as a proper escrow service?


tell you what.. offer your own customers an "absurd opportunity" to become "willing and active participants" in the food they eat. how? make them cook it all themselves....

funny, but not an accurate analogy - customers are the bidders, not the consignors. how about this - let's say i owe my oyster wholesaler a bunch of money. why would he continue to broker through me? well i sell a lot of oysters, have an established oyster clientele. and not only does he want to get the money back i owe him but he also wants to sell oysters. so i offer to split my oyster profits with him (buyers premium + sellers premium) to pay down my debt and tell him i won't inspect them when they come in, won't check out the lot tag to ensure they are what he says they are (which we normally do religiously). further, i'll allow him to bring me my order each day and pick up what i don't use at the end of the day to ensure that i don't accumulate an inventory that i can't pay for. i would say that would be a compelling proposition and that he would be interested in being a willing and active participant...


if an item has a hidden reserve and the reserve is ultimately not reached, can the auction house/consigner still sell the item to the highest bidder? if so, then wouldn't placing an astronomical hidden reserve (say $10 million) enable the auction house to bid throughout the entire auction until the very end? sure the hidden reserve isn't met but if it's hidden, noone knows (except the auction houes and consigner tee hee) and the auction house/consigner are free to sell it to the highest (inflated) bid. the item was constantly bid up by the auction house but it's all legal because it was never technically "in play". the auction house can bid on an item all it likes, and view bidder's max bids, as long as they never put the item into play which they can do simply by setting an astronomical hidden reserve.

exactly.

...

kingjammy24
09-20-2009, 01:40 PM
"given the skill, knowledge and talent apparently required to ready a lot for auction, it's kinda hard to believe that ebay ever got off the ground, eh my friend? 23 million ebay listings as we speak, who knew there was so much damn talent out there?!?"

there isn't. it's well known that ebay listings typically fetch noticeably lower hammer prices on similar items than auction houses. if it didn't, there'd be no reason to consign to an auction house. secondly, ebay's substantially lower premiums mean that consumers on both sides of the coin don't have the same expectations as they would if they were paying the typical 20/20. they don't have the same expectations and consequently they don't pay as much. apples and oranges. we were discussing an auction house.

the operating environments and factors for success for ebay vs auction houses are different.

"here are four photos, from four different lots.."

is the implication here that the lots would not have received higher bids with better presentation?

"this kind of work can be a chore, especially if done carefully and right - i know, we're in the process of doing just that right now."

why bother? as you said, ebay's successful. 23 million listings. give your daughter a polaroid and call it a day.

"you can't tell me that there aren't consignors out there that are jumping at the opportunity to finally be able to sell their items through a major auction house on their own terms - with their own descriptions, evaluations and photos. there are, i've spoken to a couple."

the main reason auction houses fetch higher prices than ebay is because of their percieved added-value; specifically, professional presentation and authentication. if AMI has eliminated those factors, what seperates them from ebay? the fact that they have 1/1000th the audience or their 20% buyer's premium vs. ebay's 0%? that is, once you eliminate the value-added features that enable auction houses to collect higher hammer prices, what exactly is the point of consigning to AMI? you say it's the opportunity to write their own descriptions, perform their own authentications and take their own photos. big deal, you can do all of that on ebay while reaching a substantially bigger market and you don't have to deal with victor moreno or kieta. you're no longer going to get the auction house premium hammer price once people realize AMI is more of a third-rate ebay than a traditional auction house. so if consigners are no longer receiving the auction house premium from AMI what's the point?

beyond that, i'm curious behind the real motivations of these consigners you mention. why would a consigner prefer their own photography to that of a professionals? why would a consigner want their item not to have third-party authentication when the general consensus in this hobby is that it increases hammer price? i can see why they'd want to write their own descriptions but i have trouble understanding legit reasoning behind the others. did roger gibson really feel that the only way to do his jerseys justice was to have a brick-wall background? or that collectors would certainly pay more for his jerseys if they knew that they were authenticated by the same person who owned them? undoubtedly roger is a knowledgable NFL collector but once you start authenticating your own items, your opinions can no longer be taken as seriously. dave bushing has been down that path. obviously i can't read roger's mind but was it really the ability to take his own photos and authenticate his own jerseys that sold him on AMI?

anyway, in this particular instance with AMI, there's more to it than simply consigners selling on their own terms. there's the entire issue of dealing with a company with a long, sordid history of customer dissatisfaction on multiple levels and that's what i meant when i questioned why anyone would do business with them. i understand the terms seem attractive to some but to me, there are no terms attractive enough to deal with victor moreno/kieta.

"let's say i owe my oyster wholesaler a bunch of money. why would he continue to broker through me?.."

as opposed to suing you, collecting full payment plus any damages incurred and never having to deal with you again? i don't know.
you sell oysters and have an established clientele. big deal, there are others i can sell to, receive prompt payment in full and not incur the headaches of dealing with lying deadbeats. for me, life is too short to deal with people like that regardless of what terms they promise. i do understand that if i was the sort of wholesaler who deliberately didn't want his oysters inspected, then i'd choose you. however, roger doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who has to hide his oysters.

rudy.

aeneas01
09-20-2009, 06:05 PM
apples and oranges. we were discussing an auction house.

my bad, i thought we were discussing the tremendously arduous task of taking a photo of an item and describing it - and the tremendous level of skill, talent and knowledge required to pull something like that off!


is the implication here that the lots would not have received higher bids with better presentation?

heck no! i thought $170,000 for that flannel was a steal, dirt cheap - obviously the single photo doomed it from the start!


why bother? as you said, ebay's successful. 23 million listings. give your daughter a polaroid and call it a day.

an interesting thought indeed - but mom would probably balk, the school thing and all... perhaps during a summer auction? we'll see.


if AMI has eliminated those factors, what seperates them from ebay?

i'll tell ya one thing that separates them - ebay lots don't claim to have been authenticated by the "100% authentication team" when they haven't!


what exactly is the point of consigning to AMI? you say it's the opportunity to write their own descriptions, perform their own authentications and take their own photos. big deal.so now you have me saying that it's the "opportunity" to take your own photos, dictate your own spiels and stamp your own lots that's the rub... before you had me saying that it was the "joy" of taking your own photos, etc., etc... oy vey!

as i've mentioned a couple of times before, here's the the point of consigning to ami if you're owed money:

1. you can work your own lot descriptions (and all that this implies).
2. you can evaluate your own item(s) (and all that this implies).
3. you can take your own photos (and all that this implies).
4. ami will place hidden (secret) reserves on your lot(s).
5. ami will bid your lot(s) up to the hidden (secret) reserve.
6. ami will create the illusion of activity, interest and value in your lot(s) by bidding it up to the hidden reserve.
7. ami will allow you to hold onto your lot(s), so there's no risk of losing it.
8. ami will not require that your lot(s) pass a pro evaluation.
9. ami will imply that your lot(s) have been evaluated by their "100% authentic team" by including this reference on each lot page.
10. ami will not reveal these details to the bidding audience. or at least not make them very apparent.

so you see rudy, the "opportunity" and/or "joy" of dictating your own lot description, stamping your own lots and presenting whichever photo you feel best tells the story you want to tell is just part of the point in consigning to ami.


you're no longer going to get the auction house premium hammer price once people realize AMI is more of a third-rate ebay than a traditional auction house.

i think that's obvious - but what's equally obvious, at least to me, is the window hasn't closed yet. and it's time to get while the gettin's good....


beyond that, i'm curious behind the real motivations of these consigners you mention... why would a consignor want their item not to have third-party authentication when the general consensus in this hobby is that it increases hammer price?

who says an ami consignor is not going to benefit from a third-party authentication in terms of hammer price? at the bottom of each ami lot a bidder will find this: authenticator - 100% authentic team.


...but once you start authenticating your own items, your opinions can no longer be taken as seriously.

i disagree rudy. if i was in the market for a late '80s, early '90s blue jays shirt do you think i would hesitate buying one from you if you told me it was authentic, showed me why it was authentic, authenticated it? of course not. perhaps that's just me but i don't think so - i believe everyone that knows you would do the same based on the well-earned respect they have for your knowledge in that area. like most things, i think it's a case by case sitch....


obviously i can't read roger's mind but was it really the ability to take his own photos and authenticate his own jerseys that sold him on AMI?

i certainly won't speak for roger, but i think it's abundantly clear that ami offered owed consignors quite a few incentives...


as opposed to suing you, collecting full payment plus any damages incurred and never having to deal with you again...

yeah, nothing to that suing game - especially when you're out of state. easy money. pick up the phone and it's done. and it won't cost you a thing 'cause attorneys are lining up to take these cases on a contingency basis. mama mia rudy... the bleak reality is the best a consignor could hope for in a sitch like this would be a speedy settlement that he could stomach - out of which he would have to cover his attorneys fees. screw a settlement and push for trial? better have a sense of adventure, deep pockets and lots of time on your hands - real court 'ain't people's court! so what's another option? giving the debtor a chance to pay in full....

...