martin swan Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 I agree with Jacob, the logical end-point is that everyone would be forced to bid to their limit. What if I need to take a leak in the middle of a sale, am I artificially depressing the sale price by missing the item? As for policing bidding rings, sodomy used to be illegal between consenting adults. However, the law proved impossible to enforce and has been abandoned, at least in the UK! Hm, maybe slightly more parallels with bidding cartels than I planned .... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flyboy Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 Until an obligation to bid is introduced, "implicit collusion" is hardly going to have a consiquence, is it? Theoretically speaking, if two parties who otherwise don't know each other have interest in the same lot, they'd most likely engage in adversarial bidding. Two parties who are friends as you state, won't participate in adversarial bidding. Got to account for the difference in theoretical results somehow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
martin swan Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 Well then you have to compensate for the fact that lots of amateurs watch a pro and start bidding when he/she does! Many swings, many roundabouts .... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jacobsaunders Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 I agree with Jacob, the logical end-point is that everyone would be forced to bid to their limit. What if I need to take a leak in the middle of a sale, am I artificially depressing the sale price by missing the item? As for policing bidding rings, sodomy used to be illegal between consenting adults. However, the law proved impossible to enforce and has been abandoned, at least in the UK! Hm, maybe slightly more parallels with bidding cartels than I planned .... Hope you are not upset if I decline the invitation Quote Link to post Share on other sites
martin swan Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 Jacob you seem to have your tongue hanging out .... maybe try another emoticon? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jeffrey Holmes Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 There are partnerships and there are pools. A hypothetical partnership might include 4 wholesalers who attend all the auctions in a wide geographical area whenever there are musical instruments offered. They each take turns covering the auctions and everything they buy and sell at public auction is split four ways.... You are correct. partnerships (legal) and pools (illegal anti trust actions) are different things... When it comes to partnerships, I imagine those who are not part of the arrangement may have imaginations that run wild. There are countless reasons to partner. One simple reason might be that an instrument needs attention. A restorer and dealer have mutual need in this case. Another might be financial needs (being able to afford this piece and still afford another). It's all very nice to imagine a number of scenarios, but I have a feeling that if the stories were actually known, the reasons for various partnerships might be a bit more mundane than many suspect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Christopher Reuning Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 Jesse (Pahdahound), While I really enjoy your company outside the Skinner doorway in the sunshine on sale days, this time your imagination has got the better of ya. I bought that fiddle...it really is composite and I did not buy it in consort with any other dealers. Sorry to dissapoint, but it was just another boring day at the office. Cheers and take care, Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GoldenPlate Posted May 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 One of the good things about Maestronet is that one is most likely able to find a satisfied answer from this forum Quote Link to post Share on other sites
martin swan Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 I really enjoy your company outside the Skinner doorway in the sunshine on sale days Smokers? We really have to stamp out that smokers' cartel, God knows what evil plans they're hatching in the doorway .... it really puts us non-smokers at a disadvantage. After all, whose interests are the auction houses supposed to protect? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cuzco School Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 One of the good things about Maestronet is that one is most likely able to find a satisfied answer from this forum Definitely one will be able to find a self-satisfied answer from this forum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GoldenPlate Posted May 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 Yes? One of the good things about Maestronet is that one is most likely able to find a self-satisfied answer from this forum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fiddlecollector Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 I was especially surprised by this Voirin violin bow which has a 'France' stamp receiving the catalogue designation as 'by'. It sold for $8000. Stamping the country of origin was required by the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890. Voirin died in 1885. Something doesn't add up.... Perhaps they were sold after his death by his widow who still ran the shop with Claude Thomassin? (i think). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Addie Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 Good to keep in mind that: McKinley Tariff Required country of origin, but many, many post McKinley items do not have country of origin stamps, and a country of origin stamp does not necessarily mean post-McKinley Act. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.