SOLD PNY Liquidation - Auction #1 Blue $0.25 Hotstamps (1 rack) - Ending 10/13 8pm Central (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to be a bearer of bad news @SalesGuru but I think the auction was over at 9:16 (5 minutes after @n0m1n4l bid of $456 at 9:11) - your bid of 460 came at 9:17 server time...ugh

Although @n0m1n4l 's bid was not in a increment of $5 (per auction rules)...not sure how that should be handled...obviously the intent was there
 
I’m on my phone right now and the $1s are easy enough to see but I’ll have to go through the times on my laptop to see what increments it goes down to. You guys can see it better than me right now.
 
Although @n0m1n4l 's bid was not in a increment of $5 (per auction rules)...not sure how that should be handled...obviously the intent was there

"Minimum" increment of $5. A $6 increment is legit. Even a $5.03 increment is.
 
I’m on my phone right now and the $1s are easy enough to see but I’ll have to go through the times on my laptop to see what increments it goes down to. You guys can see it better than me right now.

From what I see..

n0m1n4l's bid at 9:11 for $456 is legit and wins the auction.
SalesGuru's bid at 9:17 for $460 is a minute late and a dollar short.
 
I do think that making bid increments a mandatory amount makes sense - just my $.02. 100% not what happened here as the time limit had already been reached, but using this auction as an example, in the heat of the moment during the back and forth bidding at the end of any auction, I would hate for someone to "mess up" by putting in a bit a bid of $460, when the last person bid $456, and the result being the $460 doesn't carry. I can speak for myself only here, but I was purely bidding in increments of $5 (i.e. $5, $10, $15, $20) - so if I was in this till the end I could see myself unintentionally screwing this up, and to be disqualified because the bid was $1 / chip short on a $460+/chip bid would rub me the wrong way

With all that said, doesn't make a difference for this auction, and is 100% just my opinion - I don't expect people to agree
 
Easily solved. Auction bid and bid increment rule can be changed to "All bids must be clear multiples of $N" to prevent fractionalization (is that a word?) of bids. Maybe add another statement, "All bids outside of these multiples shall be rounded down to the nearest recognized bid increment, or considered void."
 
Easily solved. Auction bid and bid increment rule can be changed to "All bids must be clear multiples of $N" to prevent fractionalization (is that a word?) of bids. Maybe add another statement, "All bids outside of these multiples shall be rounded down to the nearest recognized bid increment, or considered void."
I think either an explicit disclaimer such as this, or let bids like this occur. IMO it was excellent gamesmanship for end of auction chaos. I personally like the strategy since it seems legal within the rules set.
 
I think either an explicit disclaimer such as this, or let bids like this occur. IMO it was excellent gamesmanship for end of auction chaos. I personally like the strategy since it seems legal within the rules set.

Oh yes, I'm not against the strategy that was behind the bidding done here. It was, in fact, allowed by the posted guidelines (I hesitate to use the term "legal" because this isn't a matter of law). I only posted to address @gkitt80 's post on how to restrict bids to whole dollar amounts and multiples of the bid increment over and above the starting bid. It's really only a way to keep the numbers "clean".
 
It was, in fact, allowed by the posted guidelines (I hesitate to use the term "legal" because this isn't a matter of law).
"Allowed" is much more accurate than legal. I concur with that clarification as well. :):):). Definitely not talking about law here! Also there was a 426 bid earlier that seems to be universally accepted, so......there's that.....:whistle: :whistling:
 
Have we hijacked this thread enough, yet? I mean, we could go on to a discourse of the decline of European wines on the casual North American dinner table market with the general exception of Spanish Garnacha / Tempranillo, or perhaps some French Cotes du Rhone, and Italian Chianti Classico, seeming that there's abundant competition from Australia/New Zealand and Chile/Argentina for the working man's/woman's money....
 
Have we hijacked this thread enough, yet? I mean, we could go on to a discourse of the decline of European wines on the casual North American dinner table market with the general exception of Spanish Garnacha / Tempranillo, or perhaps some French Cotes du Rhone, and Italian Chianti Classico, seeming that there's abundant competition from Australia/New Zealand and Chile/Argentina for the working man's/woman's money....
Show off... if it isn't available in box form, then it's money that's going towards chips.:D:D:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom