The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Sidewinder wrote: Sun Sep 01, 2024 5:36 am

epigramophone wrote: Sat Aug 24, 2024 10:19 am By naming the Melba's comparatively bland successor the New Melba, the Gramophone Company ensured that in the public perception the original Melba was obsolete. Art Nouveau had indeed had it's day.
The G&T machine would have made an interesting Winter restoration project, but the auction fees went beyond what I considered to be reasonable. The amount charged to both the buyer and the seller totalled over 50% of the hammer price. I cannot imagine how this could be justified.
For all it's faults, eBay would have allowed the buyer to pay less and the seller to keep more of the proceeds.

Yes auction fees getting a bit out of hand. I had a flashback to a "dealer" who sells on ebay who - a few years ago - tried to add his own 10% or so to the final ebay price as "commission" for the auction. Obviously smelt the bacon as well!

What are peoples thoughts on auctioneers who are also secretly dealers, ie many objects they are auctioning (like half of the lots) are in fact items they have bought & "consigned" themselves? thanks

I think it’s ok if auctioneers sell there own items although they are often obviously ‘well’ described and photographed. A comprehensive service often not extended to other sellers.

It’s difficult to fully understand how these large buyer’s premiums can be justified. There was no buyer’s premium in the 1970s and before and yet auction houses survived. I believe Sotheby’s started this and I remember big signs up in Christie’s South Kensington saying that there was no buyer’s premium there. They soon followed suit though.

Sellers should be made fully aware that they will only receive potentially half the money that the seller actually pays for the item. The hammer price only representing around 70% of what the buyer is actually paying and therefore what the item is worth on the day. I see the buyer’s premium as underhand as it is a means of hiding a huge increase in commission from the seller. If this was untrue the auction houses would be upfront and simply have a sellers commission of 50% with no buyer’s premium. It would amount to the same thing.

It irritates me with all these endless antiques auction house and antiques hunt programmes that buyer’s premium is never mentioned. This gives a false impression of an items actual worth.

epigramophone wrote: Sun Sep 01, 2024 10:11 am I am old enough to remember when only the vendor paid the fees. In the UK Buyer's Premiums were introduced by Christie's and Sotheby's in 1975, originally at 10%. All the other auction houses soon jumped on the band wagon and their rates have been increasing ever since, particularly in recent years when 25% or more is not uncommon.

This increase is probably due to more than greed: survival of brick and mortar establishments in a competitive environment against virtual shops that have much lower costs.

epigramophone wrote: Sun Sep 01, 2024 10:11 am
I am old enough to remember when only the vendor paid the fees. In the UK Buyer's Premiums were introduced by Christie's and Sotheby's in 1975, originally at 10%. All the other auction houses soon jumped on the band wagon and their rates have been increasing ever since, particularly in recent years when 25% or more is not uncommon.

Also Sotheby's & Christies, and a few others had departments headed by world experts in their fields, ensuring that the objects were correctly described. They also had their own shipping departments that were dedicated to great service. How did they survive (and prosper) with their huge staff and buyers commissions below 20%

jamiegramo wrote: Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:53 am
I think it’s ok if auctioneers sell there own items although they are often obviously ‘well’ described and photographed.

Here I would disagree as the Auctioneer can shill the bidding for their own objects up as high as they desire. They control the floor, and in a way are duping the customer? They can also sell some lots of real customers cheaply so as to give an impression that bargains are to be had. So surely it is a conflict of interest?

Sidewinder wrote: Sun Sep 01, 2024 5:28 pm

jamiegramo wrote: Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:53 am
I think it’s ok if auctioneers sell there own items although they are often obviously ‘well’ described and photographed.

Here I would disagree as the Auctioneer can shill the bidding for their own objects up as high as they desire. They control the floor, and in a way are duping the customer? They can also sell some lots of real customers cheaply so as to give an impression that bargains are to be had. So surely it is a conflict of interest?

Yes this could be perfectly true.