A prediction and some thoughts about some Cardinal coins coming up for auction

[MJ]

Thanks Martin.

 

Here is an interview done with Martin for the sale

 

MJ

[therealanaconda-migration]

So much angst, misinformation and speculation! Do I hear an axe grinding in the backround?

 

The sale was first announced in late August (5 months before the sale), and public advertising began in early September. Major players were contacted personally and numerous private viewings were given. There are no worries about the advertising lead time. (Besides, wasn't it just within the last week or two that it was announced that the Walton 1913 nickel will be auctioned...and when will that action be? Central States auction, mid-April 2013, just 3 months away.)

 

Regarding the reason for selling, that too has already been stated publicly. Just check out the CoinWorld article in the December 3rd, 2012 issue (published online November 26th). I had been receiving competing offers on numerous coins at truly eye-popping numbers. So, considering the set had already been completed for an extended time, and already researched, published and displayed, and recognizing that further upgrades would not be available, it seemed opportune to consider those offers and let the bidders fight it out publicly in an auction setting. If I had any worries about the values, and was still interested in selling, I would have just done so privately. Yes, high-population circulated coins have not fared well in the current market, but these coins follow a different market.

 

It will be interesting to see the final results! You know the Eliasberg chain cent sold last January after just a few months exposure and realized $1.38 million. In approving the PCGS-MS65BN Beckwith-Collins-Naftzger-Cardinal example, John Albanese was quoted recently as saying it was superior to the Eliasberg cent. So, my guess is it does at least go higher than 50% of what the lesser Eliasberg coin brought.

 

The 1794 dollar was never "on the market" for a published price less than the 1933 SG, let alone on the market "for years" at a lesser price. Yes, the coin was known to the market and it was displayed for years, but it was never featured in any price listings. For the last 5 or more years before I bought it, it was on permanent display at the American Numismatic Association museum and at ANA events. The ANA had it continously insured for $10 million. So, to say it was marketed for years at a lesser price would suggest the ANA was okay with insurance fraud. Not too realistic!

 

There are quite a few mega-millionaire and billionaire coin collectors out there to participate. I seriously doubt that any will brag and show their hands publicly before the auction, but I do expect they will not back down from going after what they want.

 

1) Thank you, Mr. Logies for posting great information to this thread. I'm always wanting to learn. That's why in part I post things like this; to stimulate discussion so we all can learn.

 

Congratulations to you for being able to buy on behalf of the Cardinal Foundation, such wonderful coins. I think all of us would love to be the caretakers of any chain cents and 1794 dollars, let alone pristine examples that seemingly transport you back to the moment of their manufacture when you simply look at their image. You are one fortunate person and I am happy for you.

 

2) As far as 'angst, misinformation and speculation' or 'hearing axes grind', I can only speak for myself, and like I said in the opening post, I like you, think highly of you and as you know, we've never had words of any kind at any time in any way (only pleasant conversation) and so I certainly have no axe to grind with you or the Cardinal Foundation or the sellers of you coins. Please know my comments are not intended to do anything other than what I said they're intended to do; stimulate discussion.

 

3) And, I am very glad that you agree with me in thinking that any comments made in this thread by anyone will have no effect whatsoever on the final outcome of the sale as you stated "I do expect they (potential buyers) will not back down." As I also stated, I hope the coins bring "all the money".

 

4) My comment that the announcement seemed insufficiently timed in advance comes from the earliest announcement of the sale I could find on the internet which was Nov. 7, 2012, here:

 

http://news.coinupdate.com/stacks-bowers-galleries-to-auction-cardinal-collection-1691/

 

So while the sale may have been first announced in late August, and public advertising began in early September, I couldn't find any reference on the internet earlier than the aforementioned November 7th announcement.

 

5) So, with your new information in mind, I would like to re-predict the outcome of the sale with regard to the aforementioned four pieces:

 

Chain: $1.1 million

Wreath: $850,000

Half Disme: $1.2 million

1794 Dollar: $4.1 million

 

[L1ncolnF4n]

So much angst, misinformation and speculation! Do I hear an axe grinding in the backround?

 

The sale was first announced in late August (5 months before the sale), and public advertising began in early September. Major players were contacted personally and numerous private viewings were given. There are no worries about the advertising lead time. (Besides, wasn't it just within the last week or two that it was announced that the Walton 1913 nickel will be auctioned...and when will that action be? Central States auction, mid-April 2013, just 3 months away.)

 

Regarding the reason for selling, that too has already been stated publicly. Just check out the CoinWorld article in the December 3rd, 2012 issue (published online November 26th). I had been receiving competing offers on numerous coins at truly eye-popping numbers. So, considering the set had already been completed for an extended time, and already researched, published and displayed, and recognizing that further upgrades would not be available, it seemed opportune to consider those offers and let the bidders fight it out publicly in an auction setting. If I had any worries about the values, and was still interested in selling, I would have just done so privately. Yes, high-population circulated coins have not fared well in the current market, but these coins follow a different market.

 

It will be interesting to see the final results! You know the Eliasberg chain cent sold last January after just a few months exposure and realized $1.38 million. In approving the PCGS-MS65BN Beckwith-Collins-Naftzger-Cardinal example, John Albanese was quoted recently as saying it was superior to the Eliasberg cent. So, my guess is it does at least go higher than 50% of what the lesser Eliasberg coin brought.

 

The 1794 dollar was never "on the market" for a published price less than the 1933 SG, let alone on the market "for years" at a lesser price. Yes, the coin was known to the market and it was displayed for years, but it was never featured in any price listings. For the last 5 or more years before I bought it, it was on permanent display at the American Numismatic Association museum and at ANA events. The ANA had it continously insured for $10 million. So, to say it was marketed for years at a lesser price would suggest the ANA was okay with insurance fraud. Not too realistic!

 

There are quite a few mega-millionaire and billionaire coin collectors out there to participate. I seriously doubt that any will brag and show their hands publicly before the auction, but I do expect they will not back down from going after what they want.

 

1) Thank you, Mr. Logies for posting great information to this thread. I'm always wanting to learn. That's why in part I post things like this; to stimulate discussion so we all can learn.

 

Congratulations to you for being able to buy on behalf of the Cardinal Foundation, such wonderful coins. I think all of us would love to be the caretakers of any chain cents and 1794 dollars, let alone pristine examples that seemingly transport you back to the moment of their manufacture when you simply look at their image. You are one fortunate person and I am happy for you.

 

2) As far as 'angst, misinformation and speculation' or 'hearing axes grind', I can only speak for myself, and like I said in the opening post, I like you, think highly of you and as you know, we've never had words of any kind at any time in any way (only pleasant conversation) and so I certainly have no axe to grind with you or the Cardinal Foundation or the sellers of you coins. Please know my comments are not intended to do anything other than what I said they're intended to do; stimulate discussion.

 

3) And, I am very glad that you agree with me in thinking that any comments made in this thread by anyone will have no effect whatsoever on the final outcome of the sale as you stated "I do expect they (potential buyers) will not back down." As I also stated, I hope the coins bring "all the money".

 

4) My comment that the announcement seemed insufficiently timed in advance comes from the earliest announcement of the sale I could find on the internet which was Nov. 7, 2012, here:

 

http://news.coinupdate.com/stacks-bowers-galleries-to-auction-cardinal-collection-1691/

 

So while the sale may have been first announced in late August, and public advertising began in early September, I couldn't find any reference on the internet earlier than the aforementioned November 7th announcement.

 

5) So, with your new information in mind, I would like to re-predict the outcome of the sale with regard to the aforementioned four pieces:

 

Chain: $1.1 million

Wreath: $850,000

Half Disme: $1.2 million

1794 Dollar: $4.1 million

 

Talk is that there are several bidders gearing up for a boxing match of money on those pieces.

[cardinal-migration]

Hello therealanaconda,

 

Thank you for your reply and update. I rarely see threads where the OP makes multiple responses to their own posts without intervening messages, so I inferred motivation that may not have been. I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion.

 

The internet can be a very transient media, with some postings expiring without notice and not readily retrieved after the fact. So, simple searches might not accurately identify the initial publication of various information.

 

This is the ad that appeared online in CoinWorld 9/18/2012 (note the date at the lower right), seven weeks prior to the article you referenced. This was the first ad that exhibited photos; the week before there was an announcement basically to "stay tuned" but many already knew what was coming.

 

[therealanaconda-migration]

No problem. It's all good.

 

By the way, I have seen the wreath cent in 69 in person. It's an incredible coin.

 

The existence of only one copper coin from 1793 in 69 strongly suggests that no one will ever come up with a time machine in the future that would allow them to travel back in time, go to the mint and get a sack full of early coppers to hide away somewhere. Unless of course they will in fact do that and they traveled back and only put this one coin aside.

 

My thinking is that if they were smart enough to make the time machine, they would have put aside more than one coin. Come to think of it, maybe one is better than a sack....I do remember some stamp collector burning the only duplicate of the British Guina one cent magenta to make the other unique.

 

[Of course, our potential time traveler could have been really, really smart and known that one cent, if invested at 9% for 219 years yields more than three million dollars, and it yields more than two billion dollars if the interest rate rises to 12%, and therefore, wanted to invest only one cent in the venture. (Collector's Universe currently yields 12%)]

 

Hmmmm.... (Is that Twilight Zone music I'm hearing ever so softly in the background?)

 

In all seriousness, good luck on the sale and your decision to focus next on putting together the world's finest collection of monster toned Morgans.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That 1799 cent is dreamy...

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

That 1799 cent is dreamy...

 

I guess, however, the 1793 is dreamier... :cloud9:

[Conder101]

The existence of only one copper coin from 1793 in 69 strongly suggests that no one will ever come up with a time machine in the future that would allow them to travel back in time, go to the mint and get a sack full of early coppers to hide away somewhere.

It doesn't suggest that at all. We don't currently have such a time machine, but if say someone from 2100 did, why would he have them discovered before his own time? If someone from the future did that, odds are that they are still in hiding, or were simply transported from the 1790's to 2100 and simply do not exist in our current time. Unless you can account for the history of every piece struck and demonstrate that at some point it's condition dropped below MS-69, there is the admittedly extremely remote possibility some of the ones you can't trace are currently being WOWed over in 2100.

[therealanaconda-migration]

Over on the PCGS forum, one person said:

 

"King of Siam set was offered quite a few times without reserves and somehow that didn't sell either each time."

 

Mr. Logies, is there any chance this will happen (the coins will not sell even though offered without reserves) on the Cardinal coins?

[MJ]

I'll go with the following all in:

 

Half Disme: $1.55 million

1794 Dollar: $ 6.2 million

 

MJ

[MarkFeld]

Over on the PCGS forum, one person said:

 

"King of Siam set was offered quite a few times without reserves and somehow that didn't sell either each time."

 

Mr. Logies, is there any chance this will happen (the coins will not sell even though offered without reserves) on the Cardinal coins?

 

Adrian, I'm sure that Mr. Logies has a thicker skin than I do. But if I were in his shoes, I would be deeply offended by that question. Especially considering some of incorrect statements and/or assumptions which are already part of this thread.

[MJ]

Over on the PCGS forum, one person said:

 

"King of Siam set was offered quite a few times without reserves and somehow that didn't sell either each time."

 

Mr. Logies, is there any chance this will happen (the coins will not sell even though offered without reserves) on the Cardinal coins?

 

Adrian, I'm sure that Mr. Logies has a thicker skin than I do. But if I were in his shoes, I would be deeply offended by that question. Especially considering some of incorrect statements and/or assumptions which are already part of this thread.

 

Martin does have thick skin.

 

You are easily offended

 

Adrian is annoying.

 

Solved.

 

MJ

[Tradedollarnut]

Congratulations to Martin for building such a fine collection

[therealanaconda-migration]

Oh, hey, TDN! Good to see you posting over here.

[therealanaconda-migration]

(MJ, in the same post that you state I am annoying, you predict that the 1794 dollar would net Mr. Logie's foundation a loss of more than 1.5 million dollars. I bet Mr. Logies finds your prediction, well, somewhat annoying.)

 

Anyway, yes, I can be annoying, but that hasn't been my intention in this thread. I'm just not at all shy or omniscient, and I am a very curious person. That combination sometimes can produce annoyance.

 

I suspect that my question "deeply offends" Mark, because Mark believes that only an unethical person would allow his coins to be sold in an auction advertised as "unreserved", and therefore Mark, assuming that I am educated in all the ways of unreserved auctions, concludes that I am knowingly insinuating that Mr. Logies might be open to some unethical behavior, and therefore, I am knowingly or intentionally being offensive.

 

Put another way, my suspicions are that Mark believes that anytime a coin that has been offered in an unreserved auction doesn't sell, something unethical has taken place, excepting the cancellation of the sale or the situation that no one bids even one dollar on the coin. Therefore, inherent in asking someone like Mr. Logies if his coins might not sell despite them being offered in an unreserved auction, is the insinuation that Mr. Logies might allow something unethical to occur. (Anyone for Spanish? Good. I wanna take this nice and slow. I have enough problems already!)

 

The problem is Mark's apparent assumption and my obvious ignorance.

 

I'm thinking that maybe coins offered in an unreserved auction might not get sold for some good reason. I was a personal injury lawyer, not a contracts and collectibles lawyer.

 

By the way, when I sold my inventory through Heritage in 2008, the sale was announced as unreserved. That's what it was. Until someone stated that the King of Siam set went unsold several times in an unreserved sale (something that may or may not be true, I have no idea.....), I had never considered that someone might offer coins in an unreserved sale and then permit the coins to be not sold (unless the sale was cancelled due to something necessitating the cancelling of the sale like bad weather or rampaging street narwhales).

 

So, when someone offers an almost eight million dollar coin and it is stated that the sale of the coin is in an unreserved auction, and then someone alleges that unreserved sales of expensive coins don't take place for mysterious reasons, I think it reasonable to ask the question that I asked. Again, remember, in my mind at the time I asked the question I was thinking maybe it's possible that coins in unreserved auctions might not sell even when everyone is being ethical. Also, know that I have not read the terms and conditions to the Stacks/Bowers sale.

 

So, I'll withdraw my potentially offensive question, and ask Mark, or anyone else that cares to answer, a preliminary question.

 

Mark, is there anyway an honest rare coin auction company can offer a coin in an auction advertised as unreserved and then the coin not sell (excepting no one bid for the coin or the sale being cancelled in its entirety before taking place)?

 

Put another way, Mark, is it your opinion that something unethical has gone on if coins offered in an unreserved auction don't sell, excepting cancellation of the sale or no one bidding on the coin?

 

I want to know and think you, Mark, know the answer...or maybe MJ wants to render an opinion....or anyone!

 

[MJ]

Adrian, it is still is 2 million dollars more then you are predicting

 

They all can't be winners. Hope I'm wrong.

 

MJ

[MJ]

<

 

I want to know and think you, Mark, know the answer...or maybe MJ wants to render an opinion....or anyone!>>

 

It would be wrong. An auction house needs to protect both sides.

 

MJ

[therealanaconda-migration]

I bet an auction house has no fiduciary duty to a consignor other than what exists by contract between them and maybe a pinch of law.

 

I would think an auction house would think the seller is smart enough to protect himself if he represents a foundation with an almost 8 million dollar coin. If the sale is truly unreserved, and the coin sells, the auction house makes their commission without any reductions for an unsold coin. If the coin is offered reserved, it might not sell and the house might not make as much money as if it did.

 

I guess the ideal situation for the everyone (except maybe the ignorant public, like me) would be an ethical reason to offer coins in an auction as unreserved, thereby whetting the appetite of all potential buyers who think that a good deal might be had because no protection is afforded to the seller, and also have some way of ethically not selling the coin.

 

Get it? They get everyone's attention by advertising the coin as offered with no reserve but somehow actually ethically protect the seller.

 

I want to know how that is done or if it can't be done.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I bet an auction house has no fiduciary duty to a consignor other than what exists by contract between them and maybe a pinch of law.

 

I would think an auction house would think the seller is smart enough to protect himself if he represents a foundation with an almost 8 million dollar coin. If the sale is truly unreserved, and the coin sells, the auction house makes their commission without any reductions for an unsold coin. If the coin is offered reserved, it might not sell and the house might not make as much money as if it did.

 

I guess the ideal situation for the everyone (except maybe the ignorant public, like me) would be an ethical reason to offer coins in an auction as unreserved, thereby whetting the appetite of all potential buyers who think that a good deal might be had because no protection is afforded to the seller, and also have some way of ethically not selling the coin.

 

Get it? They get everyone's attention by advertising the coin as offered with no reserve but somehow actually ethically protect the seller.

 

I want to know how that is done or if it can't be done.

 

 

The only thing I know about a Cardinal is that it is the name of a bird and baseball team, both good things.

 

The only thing I know about an Anaconda is that they crush you and eat you. A bad thing.

 

I do know Blarney pretty well, thanks to Uncle Seamus in Brooklyn.

 

It is not a giant leap in reason to wonder if your Posts are less about "gee I want to know why the sky is blue" but rather "I am going to cause some turmoil for purely personal reasons".

 

You are a well versed numismatist, as I recall.

 

Your Barrister abilities (assuming some level of ability) not withstanding, your Posts have the "Seamus" feel of cold and calculating, with a touch of targeted innuendo.

 

I would think if the goal is an ethic education in auction services, one would present the request for help in such a Quest in a slightly more mannerly use of the language of the Bard.

[therealanaconda-migration]

The goal didn't start out to be "an ethic education in auction services" and thanks for your advice but I like the way this thread is going. Thanks also for your opinions even though I disagree with them.

 

By the way, what turmoil have I caused? The auction hasn't ended and the coins probably will sell.

[dimefreak]

It will only take one bidder..... As long as you are not counting house bids (thumbs u

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Stating "thank you" is a start in the right direction of mannerly discussion.

 

I of course expect your disagreement, and this is your Right.

 

Turmoil is utter confusion and agitation, both of which were accomplished by your choice of words in presenting your thoughts.

 

I don't know what your unstated goal started out to be, but I am happy for the education afforded me by Uncle Seamus.

 

For any further questions you may have concerning my thoughts, I refer you to my previous Post describing what my knowledge of an Anaconda is.

 

Until proven differently to me, I will retain that level of knowledge.

 

With Respect,

 

John Curlis

[therealanaconda-migration]

John, you're funny. I bet you are over 65 years old. Correct?

[therealanaconda-migration]

The following appears in the terms and conditions of the Stacks/Bowers auction "catalog":

 

"Where the Consignor has re-purchased a lot and the lot is either returned to the Consignor or otherwise dealt with or disposed of in accordance with the Consignor’s direction, or pursuant to contractual agreement, Stack’s Bowers reserves the right to so note in the prices realized or to omit a price from the prices realized. "

 

So, when a coin is offered "no reserve", the consignor can re-purchase the coin and the auction company can omit the price from the prices realized. That is plain English.

 

So, there we have our answer. "No reserve" doesn't mean the seller can't protect his interest by "re-purchasing" his coin and the price can be omitted from the prices realized.

 

"No Reserve" doesn't mean that a coin offered with "no reserve" is going to be sold to the highest bidder unless you define highest bidder as including the guy who owns the coin and typically, you don't buy things from yourself but here the buyer can, by definition.

 

And, since the terms and conditions are public, most people would think that it isn't unethical because all of this is out in the open.

 

So, Mark, in my opinion, my question doesn't carry with it any offensive implication, just like I thought.

 

And, knowing that Martin Logies is very smart, I know that he doesn't want to make public any intention he may have to re-purchase coins so I won't ask him "Might you re-purchase coins?" I suspect he wouldn't answer that question, again because he is smart, and besides, why wouldn't he protect the coins by providing a floor to their hammer price?

 

By the way, I agree that there are lots and lots of millionaires and billionaires out there and they do indeed buy trophy coins and spend lots of money on them regardless of how the economy is doing and regardless of the bid/ask on a MS 65 Morgan Dollar or BTW in MS 65 and regardless of what is posted on some message board.

 

So, anyways, we'll see what happens.

 

I hope a new world record is set. The coin market could use some publicity. Society has changed over the past 30 years and despite what the US mint has tried to do with the Silver Eagle Series, the state quarters, the wives of president's series, the America the Beautiful Quarters series, the gold eagles, the platinum eagles, and the gold buffaloes series, and even despite gold going from $254 to over $1600 in the last decade, coin collecting is currently almost on life support. Heck, Coin World has even become a monthly. It's just the way it is. I didn't make it that way but that is my opinion.

 

The good news is that even cool coins aren't getting more and more expensive every year so for those of us who are young, we won't have to shell out more and more money for the coins we want.

[therealanaconda-migration]

How can the coins fail to meet reserves if they are (supposedly) being sold at no reserve?

 

As lengthfully stated above, the buyer can re-purchase the coins and Stacks Bowers can list nothing for the price in the prices realized.

[MarkFeld]

The following appears in the terms and conditions of the Stacks/Bowers auction "catalog":

 

"Where the Consignor has re-purchased a lot and the lot is either returned to the Consignor or otherwise dealt with or disposed of in accordance with the Consignor’s direction, or pursuant to contractual agreement, Stack’s Bowers reserves the right to so note in the prices realized or to omit a price from the prices realized. "

 

So, when a coin is offered "no reserve", the consignor can re-purchase the coin and the auction company can omit the price from the prices realized. That is plain English.

 

So, there we have our answer. "No reserve" doesn't mean the seller can't protect his interest by "re-purchasing" his coin and the price can be omitted from the prices realized.

 

"No Reserve" doesn't mean that a coin offered with "no reserve" is going to be sold to the highest bidder unless you define highest bidder as including the guy who owns the coin and typically, you don't buy things from yourself but here the buyer can, by definition.

 

And, since the terms and conditions are public, most people would think that it isn't unethical because all of this is out in the open.

 

So, Mark, in my opinion, my question doesn't carry with it any offensive implication, just like I thought.

 

And, knowing that Martin Logies is very smart, I know that he doesn't want to make public any intention he may have to re-purchase coins so I won't ask him "Might you re-purchase coins?" I suspect he wouldn't answer that question, again because he is smart, and besides, why wouldn't he protect the coins by providing a floor to their hammer price?

 

By the way, I agree that there are lots and lots of millionaires and billionaires out there and they do indeed buy trophy coins and spend lots of money on them regardless of how the economy is doing and regardless of the bid/ask on a MS 65 Morgan Dollar or BTW in MS 65 and regardless of what is posted on some message board.

 

So, anyways, we'll see what happens.

 

I hope a new world record is set. The coin market could use some publicity. Society has changed over the past 30 years and despite what the US mint has tried to do with the Silver Eagle Series, the state quarters, the wives of president's series, the America the Beautiful Quarters series, the gold eagles, the platinum eagles, and the gold buffaloes series, and even despite gold going from $254 to over $1600 in the last decade, coin collecting is currently almost on life support. Heck, Coin World has even become a monthly. It's just the way it is. I didn't make it that way but that is my opinion.

 

The good news is that even cool coins aren't getting more and more expensive every year so for those of us who are young, we won't have to shell out more and more money for the coins we want.

 

Adrian, what you deem "plain English" is not such to me.

 

For example, in situations where the consignor "re-purchases" the lot, does that necessarily mean there was or wasn't a reserve? And if a coin is offered at "no reserve", is the consignor allowed to bid on it? For that matter, if a coin is offered with reserve, is the consignor allowed to bid on it, or must the auction house do so on his behalf?

[therealanaconda-migration]

Here are your questions and my answers (and my answers are only my opinions and are not to be construed as legal advice) :

 

1) "in situations where the consignor 're-purchases' the lot, does that necessarily mean there was or wasn't a reserve?"

 

The consignor can re-purchase a lot when there is a reserve and also when there is no reserve, so a consignor's repurchasing of a lot will not indicate whether or not the lot was offered with or without a reserve.

 

2) "if a coin is offered at 'no reserve', is the consignor allowed to bid on it?"

 

Yes, the consignor is allowed to bid on an item he consigned even if the coin offered is offered at 'no reserve'.

 

3) "if a coin is offered with reserve, is the consignor allowed to bid on it, or must the auction house do so on his behalf?"

 

If a coin is offered with reserve, the consignor is allowed to bid on it or he can have the auction house bid on it for him.

 

Also, while you didn't ask me, I see no reason why the auction house and the consignor could not agree by contract, to have a proxy (someone that isn't the consignor nor the auction house but who represents the consignor) bid on the coin on behalf of the consignor, and the consignor and the auction house could agree that in the event of the proxy's winning bid, the buyer's premium is different that that charged to regular bidders.

 

Note: I'm not saying that Stack's Bowers or anyone else like their past or future consignors have done or will do any particular thing(s). I have zero experience with them. I'm just stating my opinion about what would appear to me to be legal (and therefore arguably ethical, since all of this is part of their public terms and conditions) according only to their terms and conditions. I also do not know what laws and case law pertain to their auctions.

 

Terms and Conditions of Stack's Bowers

 

 

[therealanaconda-migration]

Relevent sections from their terms and conditions:

 

"Bidders may include consignors who may bid and purchase lots in the Auction Sale consigned by the consignor...

 

A Consignor that bids on their own lots in the Auction Sale may pay a different fee than the Buyer’s Premium charged to all other Buyers.

 

Where the Consignor has re-purchased a lot ...Stack’s Bowers reserves the right to ...omit a price from the prices realized.

 

Stack’s Bowers ... may have information about any lot that is not known publicly, and Stack’s Bowers ... reserves the right to use such information, in a manner determined solely by them and for their benefit, without disclosing such information ...

 

Bidder acknowledges and agrees that Stack’s Bowers ...may have access to information concerning the lots that is not otherwise available to the public. Any claimed conflict of interest or claimed competitive advantage resulting therefrom is expressly waived by all participants in the Auction Sale.

 

The Auctioneer shall have the right to open or accept the bidding on any lot by placing a bid on behalf of the Consignor or his or her agent..."

[MarkFeld]

Here are your questions and my answers (and my answers are only my opinions and are not to be construed as legal advice) :

 

1) "in situations where the consignor 're-purchases' the lot, does that necessarily mean there was or wasn't a reserve?"

 

The consignor can re-purchase a lot when there is a reserve and also when there is no reserve, so a consignor's repurchasing of a lot will not indicate whether or not the lot was offered with or without a reserve.

 

2) "if a coin is offered at 'no reserve', is the consignor allowed to bid on it?"

 

Yes, the consignor is allowed to bid on an item he consigned even if the coin offered is offered at 'no reserve'.

 

3) "if a coin is offered with reserve, is the consignor allowed to bid on it, or must the auction house do so on his behalf?"

 

If a coin is offered with reserve, the consignor is allowed to bid on it or he can have the auction house bid on it for him.

 

Also, while you didn't ask me, I see no reason why the auction house and the consignor could not agree by contract, to have a proxy (someone that isn't the consignor nor the auction house but who represents the consignor) bid on the coin on behalf of the consignor, and the consignor and the auction house could agree that in the event of the proxy's winning bid, the buyer's premium is different that that charged to regular bidders.

 

Note: I'm not saying that Stack's Bowers or anyone else like their past or future consignors have done or will do any particular thing(s). I have zero experience with them. I'm just stating my opinion about what would appear to me to be legal (and therefore arguably ethical, since all of this is part of their public terms and conditions) according only to their terms and conditions. I also do not know what laws and case law pertain to their auctions.

 

Terms and Conditions of Stack's Bowers

 

 

I don't know what Stacks' policy is, but in the case of Heritage, at least, a consignor cannot bid on his own lots. And that is regardless of whether there is a reserve.

So much of what of you are discussing is probably speculative. I prefer to address scenarios with established factual parameters. But that is probably because I am not as imaginative as you are. And I say that sincerely and as a compliment.

[therealanaconda-migration]

Here are your questions and my answers (and my answers are only my opinions and are not to be construed as legal advice) :

 

1) "in situations where the consignor 're-purchases' the lot, does that necessarily mean there was or wasn't a reserve?"

 

The consignor can re-purchase a lot when there is a reserve and also when there is no reserve, so a consignor's repurchasing of a lot will not indicate whether or not the lot was offered with or without a reserve.

 

2) "if a coin is offered at 'no reserve', is the consignor allowed to bid on it?"

 

Yes, the consignor is allowed to bid on an item he consigned even if the coin offered is offered at 'no reserve'.

 

3) "if a coin is offered with reserve, is the consignor allowed to bid on it, or must the auction house do so on his behalf?"

 

If a coin is offered with reserve, the consignor is allowed to bid on it or he can have the auction house bid on it for him.

 

Also, while you didn't ask me, I see no reason why the auction house and the consignor could not agree by contract, to have a proxy (someone that isn't the consignor nor the auction house but who represents the consignor) bid on the coin on behalf of the consignor, and the consignor and the auction house could agree that in the event of the proxy's winning bid, the buyer's premium is different that that charged to regular bidders.

 

Note: I'm not saying that Stack's Bowers or anyone else like their past or future consignors have done or will do any particular thing(s). I have zero experience with them. I'm just stating my opinion about what would appear to me to be legal (and therefore arguably ethical, since all of this is part of their public terms and conditions) according only to their terms and conditions. I also do not know what laws and case law pertain to their auctions.

 

Terms and Conditions of Stack's Bowers

 

 

I don't know what Stacks' policy is, but in the case of Heritage, at least, a consignor cannot bid on his own lots. And that is regardless of whether there is a reserve.

So much of what of you are discussing is probably speculative. I prefer to address scenarios with established factual parameters. But that is probably because I am not as imaginative as you are. And I say that sincerely and as a compliment.

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

I must be living in a different dimension than you are. I say that because I didn't do any speculating in my post that you quote.

 

Maybe you missed this part where I specifically state I'm not doing any speculating:

 

"Note: I'm not saying that Stack's Bowers or anyone else like their past or future consignors have done or will do any particular thing(s)."