No one seems to be paying much attention to Brompton's

[fragslap]

...which ends in the next two days:

https://www.bromptons.co/auction/7th-18th-october-2020/list/page-1.html

Overall seems a bit more interesting than Tarisio, although the top item -- Peter Guarneri ex-Isenberg -- didn't sound too impressive to me in the youtube video they provided.

[martin swan]

Maybe the amount of discussion on Maestronet is not a reliable indicator of how much people are paying attention ...?

It's hard to know isn't it? The more interested I am in something at auction the less I would talk about it - and yet the less interested I am in something the less I would talk about it. 

[Shelbow]

Well I just post all the links in the one auction thread and leave it at that unless I see something especially curious to talk about.

I'm keeping an eye on Tarisio, bromptons and amati as standard plus a whole bunch of others.

I don't really have the money to talk about anything interesting at the moment .

 

[chrissweden]

Bids are always placed last day if not last minute to keep potential competitors at bay, if a lot gets a lot of attention immediately it is likely others will spot it and bid on it...

[deans]

I doubt chatter on this message board actually contributes to actual auction bids, except for maybe EBAY listings. Anyone in the world who wants a Peter Guarneri and has the ability to buy one knows about Brompton's. 

[amatuer]

People must be interested, 68 bids and sold for £576,000!

[tradfiddle]

42 minutes ago, amatuer said:

People must be interested, 68 bids and sold for £576,000!

Yes, £576k immediately deleted from the auction listing (along with the ex-Alard Vuillaume)  and into internet oblivion a few minutes after they closed - as if lots 237 and 238 had never existed. Bromptons is not that big on transparency...

 

[GeorgeH]

6 minutes ago, tradfiddle said:

Yes, £576k immediately deleted from the auction listing (along with the ex-Alard Vuillaume)  and into internet oblivion a few minutes after they closed - as if lots 237 and 238 had never existed. Bromptons is not that big on transparency...

When you click to see the lot, there is the following message:

"The information for this lot has been removed at the request of the owner"

[martin swan]

10 minutes ago, tradfiddle said:

Yes,.... immediately deleted from the auction listing (along with the ex-Alard Vuillaume)  and into internet oblivion a few minutes after they closed - as if lots 237 and 238 had never existed. Bromptons is not that big on transparency...

 

Do you feel they owe you some kind of transparency?

I find it slightly disturbing that the high bidder's wish not to have the sale price bandied about the web forever isn't respected here.

[tradfiddle]

The auction takes place in a public forum, anyone who wishes to can watch it and observe the prices paid. But we must all shut up afterwards? For whose benefit? Do we owe someone that silence?

To be clear: two lots were entirely deleted, not just the prices achieved. Because they are at the bottom of the list there is not even a gap to show that something was once there.

[Shelbow]

44 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

When you click to see the lot, there is the following message:

"The information for this lot has been removed at the request of the owner"

This statement interests me because I bought something from Bromptons at the last auction and this came up for that item too. Do they mean the seller rather than the person that bought it? (because I didn't request that) or do they just do that automatically anyway.

[WartimeConsigliere]

I am curious about the JBV sale price before it got memory-holed. Kindly PM if you saw.

[martin swan]

1 minute ago, Shelbow said:

This statement interests me because I bought something from Bromptons at the last auction and this came up for that item too. Do they mean the seller rather than the person that bought it? (because I didn't request that) or do they just do that automatically anyway.

You probably accidentally ticked the box that asks you if you would prefer the information to be removed. 

 

[tradfiddle]

Shelbow - No, its not automatic as many of their lots remain completely viewable and are archived. They have special arrangements with some bidders to immediately list there lots as 'sold' rather than showing the achieved  price. I suppose they might also have special arrangements with some sellers. Or as Martin Swan says, you might have accidentally ticked a box when paying.

[martin swan]

43 minutes ago, tradfiddle said:

The auction takes place in a public forum, anyone who wishes to can watch it and observe the prices paid. But we must all shut up afterwards? For whose benefit? Do we owe someone that silence?

To be clear: two lots were entirely deleted, not just the prices achieved. Because they are at the bottom of the list there is not even a gap to show that something was once there.

This isn't some kind of conspiracy - a buyer has a perfect right to wish this information to be confidential. You don't know their reasons (nor do I), but it seems fair enough and not something to be indignant about ... after all, it belongs to them now. So if they choose to make the sale information confidential, why not respect that?

I think if you look closely you'll find quite a few lot numbers missing - maybe you think that information should be put back?

I'm not being challenging, I'm genuinely interested. When we sell items, we list them as sold and we don't disclose the exact sale price. That seems reasonable to me.

My own opinion is that auction results are worse than useless unless you have seen the item for yourself. Very funky stuff can go for crazy amounts, and the market has become very distorted as a result ...

[martin swan]

3 minutes ago, tradfiddle said:

Shelbow - No, its not automatic as many of their lots remain completely viewable and are archived. They have special arrangements with some bidders to immediately list there lots as 'sold' rather than showing the achieved  price. I suppose they might also have special arrangements with some sellers. Or as Martin Swan says, you might have accidentally ticked a box when paying.

It's entirely at the request of the buyer.

[tradfiddle]

26 minutes ago, martin swan said:

This isn't some kind of conspiracy - a buyer has a perfect right to wish this information to be confidential. You don't know their reasons (nor do I), but it seems fair enough and not something to be indignant about ... after all, it belongs to them now. So if they choose to make the sale information confidential, why not respect that?

I think if you look closely you'll find quite a few lot numbers missing - maybe you think that information should be put back?

I'm not being challenging, I'm genuinely interested. When we sell items, we list them as sold and we don't disclose the exact sale price. That seems reasonable to me.

My own opinion is that auction results are worse than useless unless you have seen the item for yourself. Very funky stuff can go for crazy amounts, and the market has become very distorted as a result ...

And yet Ingles & Hayday and Tarisio do not follow this practice of private/confidential results... Deleting results makes it more difficult for non-dealers to follow the market. Those who care - such as ourselves - will have all the results anyway. It is important to distinguish between public auctions, private auctions and private sales. It is a bit of a nonsense to give people the opportunity to see the result, but then not only delete the price, but the item along with it. Such things were not possible in the era of the printed catalogue! Its a bit like rubbing people out of photographs - but in the name of capitalism rather than for Big Brother. Note that my major problem is not some people choosing to hide prices - but the complete effacement that something has come to market. Do any of your clients ask you to not show their purchase (even without price) on your website?

[Shelbow]

I don't recall ever seeing or ticking a box, but it's possible it is somewhere in the settings and I didn't notice. I will have a look at the situation next time I look to buy something from them. Either way I am not overly concerned.

[martin swan]

49 minutes ago, tradfiddle said:

. Such things were not possible in the era of the printed catalogue! 

In the era of the printed catalogue you had to be at the sale with a pencil. Most likely you had also had a good look at the item, had made some notes about the condition, saw who had bought the thing (whether a dealer or a known collector or a lamb to the slaughter musician), and could make sense of the sale price ...

Anyway it's not a matter of grave concern to me. I just feel that if a buyer expresses a preference to hide information, it's good manners to respect that. An interesting point of comparison might be house prices. When you come to sell your house, do you really want everyone to know what you paid for it 10 years ago, given that when you bought it it was totally dilapidated, unmortageable, and in need of urgent treatment for rising damp.

There is a sense that the internet is or should be a transparent fount of unmediated knowledge. In fact every element of it is curated for monetary gain.

[PhilipKT]

I think it’s irrelevant if you only know half of the transaction. You may know the buyer but not the price, the seller but not the price, or the price but neither the buyer nor the seller. Either way, the price is certainly a matter of record, because it’s going to show up eventually in result listings.

I have no problem with confidentiality, but I don’t see any particular need to remove the listing entirely.

[tradfiddle]

I've never had a problem with my past house prices being on the internet (despite having a tendency to restore and sell-on period properties). The added value has always spoken for itself and the current market does much of the setting of the price.

My main concern is the historical aspect of charting information on instruments and makers. And yes, I was one of those people viewing every London sale over the years, catalogue in hand.  I have high stacks in my study and boxes full of them in my loft, all annotated (and still used)...

[rudall]

1 hour ago, martin swan said:

When you come to sell your house, do you really want everyone to know what you paid for it 10 years ago

Whether you want to or not is irrelevant, at least in the UK. All the information is available on the land registry website. 

[Michael Appleman]

Did anyone get a look at that Rogerini, lot 232?

[bungling_amateur]

I remember reading the quarterly "Auction review" by the late Jeremy Montague in Early Music magazine, he would tell you what had been up and how much it sold for. Presumably by going to each auction and writing the prices into his copy of the catalogue.

[martin swan]

3 hours ago, Michael Appleman said:

Did anyone get a look at that Rogerini, lot 232?

Yes - cut down but otherwise splendid.