Watched the Pogue auction at Stacks-Bowers yesterday. 1804 $1 was hammered "sold" for about $10.6 million and 1822 $5 was hammered "sold" for about $7.3 million. Shortly after the auction ended, prices realized were posted and both coins were labeled as "passed". There could be a number of reasons for this, like a title dispute, authenticity doubts, bidder unable to pay, etc.. However, it's exceedingly likely there was a hidden reserve on both coins, which is what is said in the popular press. Stacks-Bowers terms and conditions allow this, but it leaves a bad impression. No way that I could begin to bid in this range. But some of the bidders had to have given a lot of thought to how much they would pay and what assets would be liquidated to pay for the coin. The bidding process for both coins was prolonged as bidders had a tough time deciding whether to raise their bids as the total rose. The high bidders on the two coins must have been shocked to find out after the auction that they weren't going to get the coins after all. I know it's hard to feel sorry for folks that can spend millions on coins, but the same thing could happen with $500 coins in an auction. It's also possible that some bidders were museums or other non-profits rather than collectors or dealers. Reuters news agency described the 1804 $1 as being over 200 years old .... a reasonable assumption. Stacks-Bowers has stated the coins will not be in a future auction and will be returned to Pogue. My speculation is that Pogue has standing private offers on the coins and wanted to see if he could get more at auction; hence, the reserves. It would have been better if the reserves had been announced prior to the auction though.
The high bidders on the two coins must have been shocked to find out after the auction that they weren't going to get the coins after all The high bidders were the auction house. The customers who were the underbidders would have known that they were not the buyers. All they would have known at the time is that the coins were 'sold' to a paddle number that was not theirs.
Guess I'm unfamiliar with how this works. Is a hidden reserve always exercised by the house using a secret bidder number to bid-up the price? Seems doubly duplicitous ... there is a secret reserve being enforced by a secret bidder. Or does everyone in the room know the house bidder number? It certainly wasn't made clear to those bidding on the internet. If so, it would be the second highest bidders who should be upset. Still would be better to just have the reserve be the opening price. They were obviously hoping that having an opening price well below the secret reserve would get things going and then a competitive spirit would take over and drive the price above the reserve.
Reserves are often set at 10% below the lower estimate. Sales without reserve are usually only found at the lowest end of the auction market, where they just want to get stuff moved on. An estimate that seems unreasonably high is often a sign that the vendor has insisted on an unreasonable reserve. A sign of a passed lot is that the auctioneer brings the hammer down but does not announce a paddle number. There are many ways of dealing with a passed lot.
They auction houses set their own polices, but SB announced ahead of time they have the right to bid up to the reserve price on behalf of the consignor. No one knows who was what except for the house and the bidders with real money know their bid.
CalCol: <<Watched the Pogue auction at Stacks-Bowers yesterday. 1804 $1 was hammered "sold" for about $10.6 million and 1822 $5 was hammered "sold" for about $7.3 million. (Cited from: >> This statement is NOT true. I was at the auction. The auctioneer definitely said "pass" after the closing of the bidding for each of these two lots. CalCol: <<My speculation is that Pogue has standing private offers on the coins and wanted to see if he could get more at auction; hence, the reserves.>> As I have made clear in my articles, the Pogue Family Coin Collection is being sold. The collection was not owned by one person. My strong impression is that the Pogues were not listening to offers before the Pogue IV sale. In the past, I have interviewed Brent and others involved in the building of this collection. AF: <<All they would have known at the time is that the coins were 'sold' to a paddle number that was not theirs. >> For these two lots, paddle numbers were not announced. As I said above, the auctioneer said "pass" at the end of the bidding for each of these two lots. All of the other lots in the sale were sold. AF: << There are many ways of dealing with a passed lot. >> In the State of NY, there are NOT many ways in legal sense, though there is more than one way. For a third time, I make clear that the auctioneer spoke the word 'pass'! AF: << An estimate that seems unreasonably high is often a sign that the vendor has insisted on an unreasonable reserve.>> No, that would often be a sign that the consignor "insisted on an unreasonable reserve," not the "vendor." Baseball21: <<They auction houses set their own polices, but SBG announced ahead of time they have the right to bid up to the reserve price on behalf of the consignor. No one knows who was what except for the house and the bidders with real money know their bid. >> My current understanding is that, under NY State Law, an undisclosed reserve is legal and the auction firm may bid for the purpose of pushing the level to reach the reserve. There was an announcement before the auction began, and it was implied that there would be such activity. I am not aware of any evidence that the reserves were changing during the activity. Pogue Family Coin Collection Part 18 – Half Dollars and Bust Dollars Fare Well in 4th Auction Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, part 17: Importance of 4th Sale to Collectors who Cannot Afford the Coins
