Today's Spink auction - some interesting observations

[1949threepence]

I listened to most of it, and successfully bid for two lots. 

First thing I noticed is that whilst I started off viewing, it was not possible to view and bid, so I ended up on audio only.

Second thing I noticed, which may or may not be controversial, is that with Lot No 208, there was seemingly a successful room bid, and the hammer came down - thud - then an internet bid flashed up. Actually it had flashed up on my screen just milliseconds before the hammer came down. The auctioneer then reversed the hammer decision, and let the auction continue. This obviously annoyed the room bidder, who I distinctly heard say "hammered to me", but the auctioneer disagreed.

Should they do that once the hammer has come down? I suppose you could argue that the internet bid was made prior to hammer, but the room bidder was unfairly misled into thinking he had won the lot. 

I thought the auctioneer seemed quite rattled at times with the internet bids, and understandably in a way, as several were coming through, and appearing separately on my screen. But obviously not appearing on his at the same time, and when they did, I think they all appeared simultaneously. There was a clear time lag on many of the lots, between them appearing on my screen (and obviously other internet users), and them subsequently being visible to the auctioneer. I didn't think this was very good.       

I won lot 257, which consisted of an 1897 high erm, low tide penny, 1897 halfpenny, 1897 farthing, and 1901 (darkened finish?) farthing, the first three in GEF with good lustre, for just £60 hammer !!! - reasonable value I thought. I also won lot 266, the 1905 shilling in VF and pretty much problem free, which finally completes my 1902 to 1936 shilling date run, last added to in 2009. It was the one missing piece. Got that for £380. Hope it's not a fake.

Lot 2005, the 1826 penny in UNC, was estimated at £500 to £600, but went for £2,800 !

How did everybody else who bid, get on? Well, I hope     

      

Edited April 28, 2017 by 1949threepence
Correcting error

[PWA 1967]

Lot 257 Mike .........the penny is the low tide 

[Rob]

I bought a lot to sell, a lot on commission and a lot for me. Pushed the boat out on lot 1941 after the penny dropped. The ticket that came with the annulet marked halfgroat was incorrectly dated a day too late, but after a bit of thinking established that the coin is ex Hugh Howard (d.1738) lot 40 part, which explained Webb's note on the ticket that the coin was not listed in Hawkins. Hawkins published in 1841, but Howard's collection wasn't sold until 1874, 136 years after his death. There are a couple more examples around, but not a lot.

Underbidder on the Aylesbury Edward the Confessor and the Richard III mule groat.

I couldn't understand the 1826 either.

 

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, PWA 1967 said:

Lot 257 Mike .........the penny is the low tide 

Although it's described as high tide, Pete. No wonder there were no other bidders lol

To be honest I couldn't get a clear view on screen, as Spinks photography isn't very good.

Ah well. 

 

   

[PWA 1967]

Just now, 1949threepence said:

Although it's described as high tide, Pete. No wonder there were no other bidders lol

To be honest I couldn't get a clear view on screen, as Spinks photography isn't very good.

Ah well. 

 

   

Still cheap enough lot........the high tide indicator i use is P of Penny to gap 

[Chingford]

The CP1826 was probably a proof, the Geo IV Copper Proofs are extremely rare, the price is consistent with others that have sold over the last few years

[1949threepence]

5 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Still cheap enough lot........the high tide indicator i use is P of Penny to gap 

Yeah, it's not bad, and my current 1897 isn't that marvellous. This is how they described it:-

Quote

257 Victoria (1837-1901), Penny, 1897, Halfpenny 1897, both high tide, Farthings (2), 1895, 1901 (S.3961, 3962, 3963, 3964), generally extremely fine, the first three lustrous, the last with dark finish (4) 

I'm impressed you can make out that kind of detail on the pic. 

Edited April 28, 2017 by 1949threepence

[PWA 1967]

There is a magnifier top right of the small picture if you click on that it makes it bigger.

[Rob]

12 minutes ago, Chingford said:

The CP1826 was probably a proof, the Geo IV Copper Proofs are extremely rare, the price is consistent with others that have sold over the last few years

No it wasn't.

[PWA 1967]

No prices realised i can find,can anyone tell me the price of the 1831 Halfpenny please.

 

[1949threepence]

15 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

There is a magnifier top right of the small picture if you click on that it makes it bigger.

Yes, you're right Pete. It's clearly low tide, but it's still a keeper and better than the one I've got.

I might well do a free raffle for members who are interested, on the other three, as long as the winner pays postage. I don't really need them.    

 

[Chingford]

41 minutes ago, Rob said:

No it wasn't.

The bids were coming from the Room in competition with the Internet, I thought it strange for a common 1826 penny to get so much interest at double book price, when it went further I assumed it was a Proof although not catalogued as such

[Chingford]

35 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

No prices realised i can find,can anyone tell me the price of the 1831 Halfpenny please.

 

It went for £600+

[PWA 1967]

49 minutes ago, Chingford said:

It went for £600+

Thanks John.

[Sword]

2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I listened to most of it, and successfully bid for two lots. 

First thing I noticed is that whilst I started off viewing, it was not possible to view and bid, so I ended up on audio only.

Second thing I noticed, which may or may not be controversial, is that with Lot No 208, there was seemingly a successful room bid, and the hammer came down - thud - then an internet bid flashed up. Actually it had flashed up on my screen just milliseconds before the hammer came down. The auctioneer then reversed the hammer decision, and let the auction continue. This obviously annoyed the room bidder, who I distinctly heard say "hammered to me", but the auctioneer disagreed.

Should they do that once the hammer has come down? I suppose you could argue that the internet bid was made prior to hammer, but the room bidder was unfairly misled into thinking he had won the lot. 

      

Nice to hear about successful bids. 

Although an auctioneer is within his right to "reverse" a hammered decision, I think it is bad taste and against etiquette to do so. Spink's T&C states: "Subject to the auctioneer’s discretion, the striking of his hammer marks the acceptance of the highest bid, provided always that such bid is higher than the Reserve".

I have been tempted to leave commission bids in the past but I noticed on their website that new clients need to supply bank and trade references. Bank references are no problem but trade references can be tricky for me as I normally buy at other auctions houses (and I doubt they are that keen to give references). Are references a strict requirement to open an account with Spink?

 

[Rob]

Discretionary, as are just about everybody else.

[1949threepence]

14 minutes ago, Sword said:

Nice to hear about successful bids. 

Although an auctioneer is within his right to "reverse" a hammered decision, I think it is bad taste and against etiquette to do so. Spink's T&C states: "Subject to the auctioneer’s discretion, the striking of his hammer marks the acceptance of the highest bid, provided always that such bid is higher than the Reserve".

I have been tempted to leave commission bids in the past but I noticed on their website that new clients need to supply bank and trade references. Bank references are no problem but trade references can be tricky for me as I normally buy at other auctions houses (and I doubt they are that keen to give references). Are references a strict requirement to open an account with Spink?

 

Yes.

There was a very obvious problem today with their internet feed, which I'm sure others will also have observed. I've definitely not noticed the same issue with dnw, whose room/web interface seems to run very smoothly. The time lag was at the auctioneer's end, as the internet bids were coming through immediately on my PC. That was confusing for the auctioneer, and in the case of lot 208, somewhat unfair on the room bidder. Paradoxically, of course, it would also have been unfair on the internet bidder, had the decision gone the other way. Bad combination of circumstances. 

As far as opening accounts with Spink, do you mean some kind of special account? The one I opened, just an ordinary customer account, needed nothing.         

 

[Sword]

13 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes.

There was a very obvious problem today with their internet feed, which I'm sure others will also have observed. I've definitely not noticed the same issue with dnw, whose room/web interface seems to run very smoothly. The time lag was at the auctioneer's end, as the internet bids were coming through immediately on my PC. That was confusing for the auctioneer, and in the case of lot 208, somewhat unfair on the room bidder. Paradoxically, of course, it would also have been unfair on the internet bidder, had the decision gone the other way. Bad combination of circumstances. 

As far as opening accounts with Spink, do you mean some kind of special account? The one I opened, just an ordinary customer account, needed nothing.         

 

I  am thinking of just an ordinary customer account. Looks like they are not  that bothered about references which is good.

[VickySilver]

49er - Can you please post pictures of the 1905 shilling once in hand?

Thanks

[1949threepence]

5 hours ago, VickySilver said:

49er - Can you please post pictures of the 1905 shilling once in hand?

Thanks

Will do 

[PWA 1967]

The 1826 Penny having looked again i cant understand as although a lovely coin the price .............. 

Has anyone got a clue as to what i am missing as there must of been atleast a couple of bidders keen ?.

[1949threepence]

41 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

The 1826 Penny having looked again i cant understand as although a lovely coin the price .............. 

Has anyone got a clue as to what i am missing as there must of been atleast a couple of bidders keen ?.

I think there was more than a couple of bidders, to be honest. At least three, with two on the internet bidding against each other, and possibly more than one in the room.  

[Fubar]

I have a job as a porter/valuer/general dogsbody in a local auction house and on busy days I operate the internet bidding system for meal breaks etc.

There is a definite delay between the hammer going down and the sound reaching those viewing online. We can hear it distinctly if viewing the auction from an adjoining room. A bit like an echo. Sometimes it's worse than others depending on how many are online and the broadband speed.
It can also be observed in the time it takes the saleroom screen to update when entering the minimum bid or the next bid or next item. This is because the signal from input has to go to the internet house and then back to the monitor.

Personally I find it annoying that some auctioneers bow to the internet too much. Giving them too much time. Another bid is, after all, more money for the vendor and the auction house. Prime responsiblity is always to the vendor. I do think they should give the room preference in such matters because they have made the effort to turn up.

The other factor is internet bidders trying to snipe. Constant hovering over the bid button shows on the auctioneer's and operator's screens and the auctioneer has to make up his mind at some time. Normally this will be in the form of a chastisement if the internet bidder is too late. Late bidding from the internet also causes all sorts of problems if it arrives before the operator has chance to hit the sold button. In this case, technically, even though the hammer has gone down the lot has not been marked as sold. This can get even worse if the internet sale is going through more than one internet auction house. I'm heartily glad that we only deal with the one.

Add to this that the normal saleroom rules don't apply in certain instances because it's the distance selling rules that count.

All the above simply means that, as a retired computer and control engineer, I'm amazed that the system works at all let alone goes wrong so little.

Kris

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Fubar
dyslexia

[jaggy]

I didn't bid in this auction as there was nothing there for me.

Like it or not, online bidding is the way of the world now and having a good system is a competitive advantage. Spink's system isn't as good as DNW or Heritage but at least they have one, unlike London Coins. While the catalogue photos are awful, using the My Spink feature does give access to better photos which is a plus.

I can't really comment on prices but, looking at other auctions where I have participated - not always successfully - prices do appear to be strong. And if it is that coin that you just want an that somebody else just wants then that can easily push the price.

[azda]

Spink has always had problems with their internet bidding, i think 2 years ago the whole thing came crashing around their ears and they lost the internet bidding completely on the day, i think Rob was sitting online at the same time i was when it went tits up. They really need to get this sorted out once and for all....