Goldbergs has no sellers fee, no buyback fee?

[MikeKing]

Goldbergs is advertising no seller or buyback fee? Incredible. That's great!!!!

What's the catch??

[gmarguli]

What's the catch??

 

Large buyers fee and poor customer service?

[michael]

i can understand no sellers fees for good coins that are auction material and for the most part are special and not generics

 

everyone gets no sellers fees for these coins as per the above

 

unless you are incredibly stupid

 

well no buyback fees ...........

 

but

 

i bet the reserves they set are low

 

if you can set your own reserves which would be higher than the goldbergs would want you to set them then you probably get no deal

 

michael

[thebeav]

Hi Guys,

I can't help but appear ignorant, but, who or what is ' Goldbergs '?.....

Thanks.....Paul

[Wihlborg]

Paul,

 

Ira & Larry Goldberg are auctioneers who have auctioned a number of very large and famous collections. They are out of Beverly Hills CA. Their web site is www.goldbergcoins.com

 

John

[MarkFeld]

Paul, the "Goldbergs" refers to brothers Ira and Larry Goldberg, who conduct rare coin auctions, usually, three times per year, before each of the three Long Beach coin shows.

 

With respect to no seller's premiums being charged on consignments, here is a post I wrote "elsewhere" back in January:

 

This is what I mean when I say that in most (not all) cases, the "BUYERS' premiums" come out of the SELLERS' pockets:

 

Let's say I decide I am willing to pay a maximum of $2000 for a given coin in an auction...

 

If there is no "buyer's premium", I will bid up to $2000 hammer and the seller can receive up to $2000, plus or minus whatever he is entitled to, based upon his commission agreement with the auction house.

 

But, what if there is a 15% "buyer's premium"? I will adjust my hammer price bid so that I pay $2000 total, INCLUDING the buyer's premium - in this case I adjust/lower my hammer bid price to $1740, to take the 15% buyer's premium into account. I use a formula of 87% of the maximum price I'm willing to pay, when there is a 15% "buyer's premium" involved - it works out almost exactly right.

 

In the above example, the seller will receive up to $1740 plus or minus the agreed upon commission and not the $2000 hammer price that he would, if there were no "buyer's premium" involved.

 

In each case above, I, the buyer am willing to pay up to $2000 and might end up doing so. However, when there is a "buyer's premium", I and most buyers simply reduce the amount of our hammer bids, resulting in lower hammer prices and thus, lower prices for the seller.

 

I realize there are exceptions, in the case of bidders who don't care about an extra 15% for given coins, for whatever reason. But, I am convinced and have seen, time and time again, that most serious bidders lower their hammer price bids, to take the "buyer's premium" into account. And, the result is lower hammer prices, which in turn means lower net prices for the sellers.

 

I am not claiming that sellers do worse than they otherwise would, when "buyer's premium's" are involved, only that these premiums usually come out of the sellers' pockets and not the buyers' pockets.

[jom]

Mark: That is a no-brainer. I, personally, ALWAYS take EVERYTHING into account when I bid. I even consider the price if my bid is for only one coin that is below the $1000 CA sales tax exemption. In fact, I'll go out of my way to find someone else who is bidding so I can avoid the tax.

 

So, yes, I do believe it effects the ultimate sales price and, hence, the NET to the seller. Frankly, I don't see how the buyers fee is any different than a sellers fee when it comes to the NET to the seller. It's the same thing....on average anyway.

 

jom