A note to all Heritage "Snipers" 0

[JadeGiant]

1 hour ago, ShallowDan said:

I had the joy of pulling off such a feat on eBay a couple of years ago when bidding on some pieces that had a relatively shallow pool of collectors.  They were being trickled out over the course of several weeks and for the bulk of the items I realized that the significant interest was from me and one other rival (ebay makes an effort to hide bidder IDs these days, but they still shows a feedback score for the person, so I knew it was the same guy every time), with no one else willing to spend as much as either of of would.

He was definitely interested in all of the items being offered up, while I was mainly just trying to get a handful of the best ones.  I quickly realized that the items I didn't bid on would be won by him, usually for a price just over $200 ea.  For the items I did bid on, he would win whenever my max was less than $500, and I would win whenever my bid was over $500.  He was basically bidding a $501 max on all of them.

As you can guess, I made sure he won more than a dozen of these at $500 with my $495 bid, while I took most of the ones I wanted at $506.  Towards the end he bumped up his max and took a few from me, but having forced him into shelling about $3K or so more for the others than he would have otherwise paid, I figured I had still won the war.   

From this point forward I will refer to you as the "Punisher" ... at least when I see your actual screen name. This is amazing. HAve you seen any of these pieces (that you didn't win) show up online anywhere to see who your foe was?

[aokartman]

Generally, the party who wins an auction lot is the party who is willing to spend the most money to acquire, or retain, the item.  Strategies are

interesting afterthoughts, and anomalies occur, but the high bid wins!  Auctions are becoming an entertainment industry for me.

The next thing (I said it here first) will be a one time fee to enroll in your preferred auction house.

That way, the transaction cost is spread between buyer, seller, and attendee!  Best, David

(Don't give them any ideas).  SMH

Edited November 24, 2020 by aokartman
emphasis in bold

[ShallowDan]

1 hour ago, JadeGiant said:

From this point forward I will refer to you as the "Punisher" ... at least when I see your actual screen name. This is amazing. HAve you seen any of these pieces (that you didn't win) show up online anywhere to see who your foe was?

Ha!  Funny that you should ask about that.  Interestingly enough, without going too deep into the details, I do know the other bidder.  I thought it might be him at the time, but wasn't 100% certain.   Later on I confirmed it was him.  I don't think he knew that it was me going against him for these pieces, but I'd say we've been friendly rivals on other auctions in the past and he has much deeper pockets than I do, so I'll figure that I just kept him honest on those particular ones. 

[tth2]

9 hours ago, ShallowDan said:

I had the joy of pulling off such a feat on eBay a couple of years ago when bidding on some pieces that had a relatively shallow pool of collectors.  They were being trickled out over the course of several weeks and for the bulk of the items I realized that the significant interest was from me and one other rival (ebay makes an effort to hide bidder IDs these days, but they still shows a feedback score for the person, so I knew it was the same guy every time), with no one else willing to spend as much as either of of would.

He was definitely interested in all of the items being offered up, while I was mainly just trying to get a handful of the best ones.  I quickly realized that the items I didn't bid on would be won by him, usually for a price just over $200 ea.  For the items I did bid on, he would win whenever my max was less than $500, and I would win whenever my bid was over $500.  He was basically bidding a $501 max on all of them.

As you can guess, I made sure he won more than a dozen of these at $500 with my $495 bid, while I took most of the ones I wanted at $506.  Towards the end he bumped up his max and took a few from me, but having forced him into shelling about $3K or so more for the others than he would have otherwise paid, I figured I had still won the war.   

[Mighty Hal]

On 11/24/2020 at 8:29 AM, ShallowDan said:

As you can guess, I made sure he won more than a dozen of these at $500 with my $495 bid, while I took most of the ones I wanted at $506.  Towards the end he bumped up his max and took a few from me, but having forced him into shelling about $3K or so more for the others than he would have otherwise paid, I figured I had still won the war.   

The seller won that war. Imagine how much less he would have gotten if either of you had walked away!

[Day Stripper]

On 11/24/2020 at 12:16 PM, aokartman said:

The next thing (I said it here first) will be a one time fee to enroll in your preferred auction house.

That way, the transaction cost is spread between buyer, seller, and attendee!  Best, David

(Don't give them any ideas).  SMH

Sort of like paying an additional entrance fee for the dealer room at a comic book/art show or convention.  A fee for the privilege of looking, and maybe, if there's something you like, spending your money.  I'm a fan of capitalism, but this feels like a bridge too far.    

The concept has the feel of the PSL (Personal Seat License) fee charged by some sports teams (NFL, NBA, MLB, auto racing) for the 'privilege' of purchasing season tickets.  Not sure how successful that was as I recall a great deal of outrage, especially among long-term season ticket holders who did not have the deep pockets to plunk down big buck ($10K+) in order to continue supporting their team in person.    

Isn't the (already high) auction house transaction cost already (and appropriately) spread between buyer and seller between the seller's commission and the buyer's fee?  What is the justification (other than because they can) to compel a non-winning bidder, or a mere 'watcher' (no offense Uatu) to pay for the privilege of bidding or merely watching?  I'd opine that such a fee would not reduce the buyer fee or seller commission; simply more money vanishing into auction house pockets.   

It feels like the cost (in lost potential bidders) would outweigh the benefit of such a fee.   

[Rick2you2]

46 minutes ago, Captain Calamity said:

Sort of like paying an additional entrance fee for the dealer room at a comic book/art show or convention.  A fee for the privilege of looking, and maybe, if there's something you like, spending your money.  I'm a fan of capitalism, but this feels like a bridge too far.    

The concept has the feel of the PSL (Personal Seat License) fee charged by some sports teams (NFL, NBA, MLB, auto racing) for the 'privilege' of purchasing season tickets.  Not sure how successful that was as I recall a great deal of outrage, especially among long-term season ticket holders who did not have the deep pockets to plunk down big buck ($10K+) in order to continue supporting their team in person.    

Isn't the (already high) auction house transaction cost already (and appropriately) spread between buyer and seller between the seller's commission and the buyer's fee?  What is the justification (other than because they can) to compel a non-winning bidder, or a mere 'watcher' (no offense Uatu) to pay for the privilege of bidding or merely watching?  I'd opine that such a fee would not reduce the buyer fee or seller commission; simply more money vanishing into auction house pockets.   

It feels like the cost (in lost potential bidders) would outweigh the benefit of such a fee.   

It’s to cover the cost of the virtual wine, canapés and band. 🦨