New AMI Model = Seller's Authenticate Own Lots?

[aeneas01]

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/A...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.




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]

for example i noticed that forum member roger gibson has listed some of his very nice items with ami

Roger, Roger, Roger...

[Neely8]

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]

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]

,,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/42624...red+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.

[aeneas01]

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

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?

....

[hblakewolf]

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]

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)!!!

...

[aeneas01]

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.

...

[kingjammy24]

"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.