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...

[hblakewolf]

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...

...

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

1. 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]

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]

"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_f...4&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]

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]

"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]

,,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.

[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