[meteorite-list] Tucson Auction

From: Darryl Pitt <darryl_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:54:34 -0500
Message-ID: <888F12BD-0A9D-4CCD-9DAE-A74430C18DC3_at_dof3.com>

Hi,

Thanks for the props, Kevin, but the story of your Zagami acquisition was...a touch too colorful. With only one exception, I was the consignor of every meteorite in the first three Phillips Auctions---including the Zagami specimen which you've described as being consigned by Bob Haag.

I suppose my taking pride in having introduced meteorites in the traditional auction environment is part of my problem---I'm probably oversensitive as it regards this topic. Actually---strike the "probably" ;-) But I would like to take a moment to share a few of the things I've learned in my years of doing this.

Cribbing from a private email I sent to a fellow list member earlier today....

The nature of Michael's auctions skew to lower results. Why? First, there is no constraint on the number of lots...and there are too many similar lots to create a more competitive auction environment....there is no strategic sequencing of lots, the quality of the imaging of the specimens is uneven...and I could go on. The bottom line is that when I've assembled the meteorite sections at various auction houses, I was concerned about such issues---and it's of benefit to buyers/collectors that Michael chooses not to be.

As Geoff described earlier, Michael's auctions have their own special vibe....their own flavor...and that's what makes them unique (and as a supportive member of the meteorite community, I will continue to consign to Michael's auctions). At the same time I believe that information---to be useful and valid---benefits greatly from "context" to help clarify messages as....information or misinformation. In this instance, even if we completely forget the aforementioned deviations from the auctioneering norm, Michael's auction occurs at a wholesale marketplace loaded with similar merchandise---and so of course the results will necessarily be skewed. To my mind the issue then becomes, is this information worth sharing or clarifying?

Simultaneously, I totally hear the criticism of appearing to advocate the withholding of information---and I'm troubled by that perception. For me this kind of evokes the debate whether WikiLeaks should publish all the memos---but as there are no sensitive diplomatic issues before us, I'm now convinced...

....post the results. ;-)





On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Kevin Kichinka wrote:

> Team Meteorite:
>
> Here's my take on the future vibes from Michael's posting of sales
> prices from his annual Tucson auction.
>
> First, is there a non-dealer among us who prefers these results remain
> "secret"?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> Second, were the prices realized uniformly HIGHER than expected, would
> dealers not trumpet these as comparisons? Would dealer's not
> consequently raise their prices?
>
> Of course not :>)
>
> Case in point.
>
> The first meteorite I ever purchased was Zagami in 1995. I followed
> the Philip's Auction, one of the first ever, and it sold for $500/gm.
> I called the consignor, a guy named Robert Haag, and asked if he had
> more for sale.
>
> "Did you see what it just sold for at the auction? Dude, $500/gm! I'm
> rich! And you are the last person I will ever sell it to for my old
> price."
>
> My good friend Darryl, a meteorite dealer along with many other fine
> talents, today voiced concerned with the impact of posting some low
> realized prices at the Blood auction:
>
> "The last thing needed is more confusion for the growing legion of new
> buyers who are exasperated in their efforts to navigate the murky
> waters of meteorite valuation. " He added, "I am all for
> transparency, but transparency can frequently result in disinformation
> if there is no context."
>
> "And to be clear, I did not state this (Blood auction) was a wholesale
> event. I suggested that (it) be stated that the auction occurred at a
> wholesale marketplace."
>
> I would define the Blood auction as an auction "just like all
> auctions", with final prices realized being wholesale, retail and in
> between.
>
> But there is some history to consider in this issue, let's examine the
> entire "context" of meteorite auctions.
>
> No one rushed to publish disclaimers, as Darryl suggests is desirable
> now, associated with the auction prices back in the 1990's, when
> dealers found a willing and able public wanting to own - for the first
> time- "rare" meteorites at seemingly high prices at NY auctions. The
> prices for many specimens were so remarkably high they appeared in
> newspapers all over the world. No one consigning or profiting from
> mets in those first Natural History auctions voiced concern about the
> public being confused by "the context" of the setting.
>
> The context was this, prior to the Philips Natural History auctions,
> the market for meteorites was skinnier then a thin section, and these
> auctions opened established dealers to an extremely windfallish
> worldwide clientele of generous, happily naive bidders. Darryl can be
> proud of his work with that auction house in making it all happen.
> Philips was the "first mover" into offering natural history
> collectibles and they did quite well for awhile.
>
> But there were no disclaimers offered about context. Just happy people
> buying things that made them happier. No harm, no foul. Just as it
> should be today.
>
> As for Darryl's feelings that "new buyers... are exasperated in their
> efforts to navigate the murky waters of meteorite valuation," I can
> speak from personal experience.
>
> I was a frequent "winner" at those early auctions and had never bid on
> anything before in my life, let alone a...... meteorite (?). Somehow I
> navigated through those high-priced "murky waters" without a life vest
> "disclaimer" being thrown to me. I am glad for the specimens I won,
> the prices paid were pertinent that day. No worries. We're not talking
> about spending the money budgeted for the baby's milk, meteorite
> purchases come under the category of "discretionary income".
>
> We were all "new buyers" at some point (and some of us were "new
> sellers" the next day) and I can't today picture, following any review
> of auction prices realized, anyone mumbling/grumbling over their
> morning coffee after losing sleep trying to calculate the "real" price
> of NWA 5717.
>
> I say publish the Blood auction results without disclaimer. People are
> smart enough to figure out the game. Transparency in public auctions
> accrues trust which grows auction participation.
>
> Who will argue against that?
>
> Kevin Kichinka
> Tambor de Alajuela
> www.theartofcollectingmeteorites.com
> www.LaQ-CostaRica.com
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 24 Feb 2011 09:54:34 PM PST