|
Author
|
Topic: Regency-Superior April 2009 auction
|
Penney Kols
Member Posts: 38
From: saint louis mo usa
Registered: Sep 2008
|
posted 03-06-2009 02:06 PM
  
Mark your calendars for another super Aviation and Space Memorabilia Auction, April 16th & 17th in Beverly Hills, California. Regency-Superior has put together one of the largest Space Memorabilia sales in our history. There is literally something for everyone. Items from early Aviation are complemented by items from all periods of Space exploration with many artifacts that have never been offered before.Highlighting the sale is an extraordinary Gemini Test Spacesuit (Lot 102). This complete G-2C Spacesuit including helmet, gloves & boots has been reconditioned and preserved by an aerospace museum, and is ready to take the central place in your collection or museum display. Wow! And, the consignor is donating a portion of the proceeds to the NASA College Scholarship Fund and the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation. Other Aviation & Space highlights include numerous major flown Zeppelin items including a large piece of Duralumin Box Girder from the Macon or Akron (Lot 17), and a spoon carried aboard the Hindenburg (Lot 28). In the Rocket Section, we have a Flown Aerobee Megacycle, one of the earliest flown artifacts from the United States Space program (Lot 48). In the same section, an original Saturn V Gyroscope from 1964 is being offered (Lot 52). The Mercury and Gemini sections are loaded with great autograph lots, as well as flown and unflown items; notable is the flown gold colored Fliteline Medallion originally from the James Lovell collection. The popular and seldom offered MOL program sports three separate lots signed by all eight Gemini MOL "Group 1" Astronauts (lots 151-153). We have not even seen one complete signed group of these Astronauts before - that is how rare these are! The Apollo section has numerous autographs, flown items, and historical memorabilia including a complete Apollo 1 crew signed photo (Lot 184), and Ed White's Congressional Space Medal of Honor Award Certificate (Lot 185). Flown to the Moon Orbital and Star charts from Apollo 11 (Lots 218-219) also highlight this section. For the Space/Music fan there is a set of audio tapes in original Beta cloth holder carried to the Moon by Astronaut Al Worden aboard Apollo 15 (Lot 299). In our "Models" section you will find several unique and desirable pieces suitable for a world class display collection (Lots 727, 728 & 743): A "LOFTI II" model that appears nicer than the "LOFTI I" model on display at the Smithsonian Institution (lot 727); an M2-F1 "Lifting Body" metal wind tunnel model from the 1960s (Lot 728); and, an exceedingly rare 1930s V-1 "Buzz Bomb" wind tunnel model from Germany (Lot 743). The entire auction is now available online for viewing and bidding. Collectors will be able to bid live as the auction is in progress via LiveAuctioneers. Free color catalogs are available by request by calling toll-free 1-800-782-0066. For specific questions regarding this space auction, please contact Alan Lipkin at alipkin@RegencySuperior.com. Good luck with your bidding!
Regency-Superior Auctions |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-06-2009 04:16 PM
Lot 52 is not described correctly - the AMAB-3 gyro being offered as a SATURN V Gyro would have been only flown on the Block II Saturn I (integral to the ST-124P).The ST-124-M3 inertial platform, which flew on Saturn V did not incorporate the AMAB-3 (it employed the more advanced AB5-K8 gas bearing Gyro instead)... I am amazed that Lot 380 is back!!!! |
DOX32
Member Posts: 242
From: Lakewood Ranch FL USA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 03-19-2009 08:41 PM
Comments please on Lot 241. Armstrong signature looks atypical on crew. Was supposed to be in person by Rockwell employee and may just be rushed. Alan: Who is checking these lots for Regency? |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 03-20-2009 11:59 AM
I personally don't like either Lot 240 or Lot 241 (for starters). In my opinion, the Armstrong on Lot 240 appears to match a known German-sourced forgery style. On Lot 241, I could believe that the Collins and Aldrin were possibly obtained in person. It's the rather poor-looking Armstrong that I don't like. In my opinion, it appears to be an amateurish-looking forgery. I don't see a single letter in that signature that appears to match Neil's authentic signature style. Even rushed, in-person signatures should exhibit some matching traits to authentic signatures. (And perhaps I'm just imagining it, but it almost appears as if Neil's first name is spelled "Niel.") A few of the other Armstrong's in this auction give me pause for concern. For example, I believe Lot 231 appears to be another forgery, with ample clues in both the signature and the inscription that cast doubt on authenticity. The description for Lot 226 says it is signed twice. While I agree the signature in the upper left hand corner is authentic, the other signature is easily identifiable as an autopen (pattern 7 from Chris Spain's excellent autopen website). If someone can't even ID an autopen correctly, how can they be expected to tell an authentic signature apart from a forgery? A few other signatures in this auction also bother me (such as Lot 113). It's sad to see these lots, because they bring down the overall quality of an auction that otherwise contains numerous excellent lots...such as the group-signed MOL photo (which is something I've never seen before). I was hoping R-S would be doing a better job of authentication this time around, especially since both Heritage and Lunar Legacies have recently proven that authentication isn't all that difficult if you hire the right pair of eyes to review the lots. |
NAAmodel#240
Member Posts: 312
From: Boston, Mass.
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 03-23-2009 12:30 PM
Let me suggest that lot 190 is in error. It says it has an official NASA black cachet. Ordinarily a KSC postmark and cachet from that date should sell for quite a sum. Unfortunately, the real cachet is blue and the postmark from CC may have been backdated. |
Bob M
Member Posts: 1746
From: Atlanta-area, GA USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-23-2009 02:51 PM
First, I agree with the comment above about lot 190. As I remember, at the time of the 10th anniversary of Apollo 1, this Apollo 1 cachet was privately created by a dealer and collectors were invited to send their covers to have this cachet applied. I have a few and they certainly aren't of any special significance or value. And the dealer was criticized for producing such an authentic-appearing collectible that could be accepted as real and cause problems in the hobby later - as we are now experiencing over 30 years later. And I support Mark's comments about the several lots he questioned. Lot 231 has been on R-S before and originally sold on eBay for $199 in 2003. The Armstrong WSS signature in lot 224 has a very unusual placement and possibly was the result of a signature obtained in person from a bothered Armstrong. There are many exceptional autographs in this auction and the two signed MOL lots (151 and 152) are extraordinary and of great rarity. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 03-23-2009 03:58 PM
I agree with Bob about Lot 224...the placement here is strange (not to mention the signature itself), in my opinion. I don't doubt that it could possibly be real if the provenance is truly there to support it (since certain collectors were known to chase Armstrong around at these events). But the apparent odd nature and placement of the signature make it something I personally wouldn't want to own...since it would be a hard item to re-sell someday, if that necessity ever came. Perhaps, as Bob hints, an annoyed Armstrong pulled as Anders-like trick and purposely laid down an ugly signature in an atypical location after being bugged one too many times for his autograph. Lot 225, said to be signed at the very same event, looks more convincingly authentic...albeit a bit rushed (especially the last name). |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 03-24-2009 11:47 AM
Bob and I had a discussion off-list about the fake Apollo 1 cachets and Bob sent me this example from his collection that he asked me to post here on his behalf. It shows the fake cachet applied to a cover cancelled on the 10th anniversary (which Bob later had signed by Chaffee's parents). |
Bob M
Member Posts: 1746
From: Atlanta-area, GA USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-24-2009 12:12 PM
Thanks, Mark. The person who created the Apollo 1 facsimile cachet and used it to apply black cachets to collectors' covers never intended to deceive or cheat anyone. He publicized the cachet and invited collectors to send him their covers to be cacheted with his fake, facsimile Apollo 1 cachet. This was done around the time of the Apollo 1 tenth anniversary and probably most of the covers he cacheted were for this anniversary, as my example above was.But when applied to covers canceled for the actual date of the loss of the Apollo 1 crew, the resulting cacheted covers easily can be accepted as genuine and considered rarities. Evidently, the owner of the Cape Canaveral Apollo 1 cover had his cover cacheted with the black Apollo 1 facsimile cachet years ago and now over 30 years later, it's surfaced and is promoted as genuine and with a $500 estimated value. In checking the three Apollo 1 facsimile cacheted covers I have, I note that two have the "John F. Kennedy Space Center - NASA" wording below the cachet, like the actual official Apollo 1 KSC cachet has and the one on R-S has, but the one I had signed by Roger Chaffee's parents back in 1979, doesn't have this wording at the bottom. Looks like the originator had at least two slightly different facsimile cachets made. |
machbusterman
Member Posts: 1778
From: Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland
Registered: May 2004
|
posted 03-24-2009 03:13 PM
Talking of this auction. Does anyone have any comments to make about the "flown" Bell X-2 cover signed by Iven Kincheloe (lot 565). The cancel on this cover is a full month after Kincheloe's last flight in the X-2 and 8 days after the X-2 was destroyed in the fatal crash involving Captain Milburn "Mel" Apt. The fact that the date/flight number sections of the cover have been left blank leads me to believe this cover may possibly NOT be flown... There is also an issue with the Pete Everest "flown" X-2 cover (lot 564)... this cover has a hand-written date on the cover (in Everests hand I believe) but the cover itself does not have a cancel stamp at all.Any opinions from our resident rocket-mail cover collector Dennis Dillman? |
micropooz
Member Posts: 1512
From: Washington, DC, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-24-2009 09:13 PM
Well, thanks for the kudos, Derek.I have never seen a Kincheloe "flown" cover that was postmarked before Apt's fatal crash. Most of the Kincheloe "flown" covers that I have seen were postmarked September 30, 1956, three days after Apt's crash. Lot 565 is the first one I have seen that was postmarked even later than Sept 30. Were they flown? Unfortunately there is no way of telling since Kincheloe died just a couple of years later, so there is nobody else to ask. Bear in-mind that Kincheloe was in the process of moving off the program at the time of the crash, and that move probably accelerated afterward. So on Sept. 30 he probably cleared out whatever collector covers he had at hand. Some are annotated as being flown in "Sept 56" and signed, some just signed with no flight annotation. Maybe he found a straggler on Oct. 5 (the postmark date on lot 565) and put it into the mail. The circumstances are permuted enough that you can make a case for these not being flown, but we will never know for sure. You be the judge. But even if it is not flown, how many chances do you get to bid on a Kincheloe autographed cover of the era? On lot 564, the Everest cover from 11/18/55, the postmarker missed the cover (you can see just a fraction of the postmark date hub on the far right side of the cover), and someone used a rubber stamped date to cancel the stamp. I do believe that this cover was flown, it just got misaligned in the postmark machine. It is paired with another cover flown on March 24, 1956 and postmarked on April 3 that has a good postmark. I have seen both of the lot 564 covers live, and believe they are legit. |
spaceflori
Member Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 03-25-2009 02:25 AM
There's a long discussion going on about the Apollo 1 covers here in Germany.
The late Peter Wilhelm considered the one in the auction as legit and without too much speculation I believe these were done then by space dealer Coelle. This wasn't done to cheat collectors, so the postmarks etc. are real (unlike the Riser covers). I have a good selection of unusual NASA cachets which are real but not applied to KSC covers - bottom line is that according to letters and other information Coelle was close to the postmaster at that time and they certainly did "their own thing" aside from the mainstream cover business at that time.
Some of these covers lately realize phenomenal prices on ebay and are considered authentic and unusual by many (not all!).Obviously there will never be an ultimate reply whether most of the covers are what they are believed to be - my personal opinion still is that how can covers from Apollo 1 exist at all if the fire happened at 6:31 PM?
My personal opinion is that the US and Russian covers are more often backdated than we believe. A date on a postmarker doesn't say it was actually cancelled that day. We need to separate the real fakes (such as Riser covers) from privately made covers with real postmarkers. Not everything was done to harm collectors! Funny thing I recently came across - it's a form letter saying that no covers were cancelled on the recovery day of Apollo 17 onboard the USS Ticonderoga. Now there are thousands of these on the market (and this is certainly not an expensive cover)?  What I'm trying to say is that if you collect according to official FIP rules, you better stop collecting at all otherwise you get paranoid. A flown Apollo cover is crap, nonsense, nothing according to FIP rules, yet it's one of the most desirable cover to own for most collectors. Same with the Apollo 1 cover - technically it's impossible that this cover was cancelled on the day of the fire, but it's a real postmark in any case with a rare cachet. |
Ross
Member Posts: 472
From: Australia
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 03-25-2009 07:45 AM
Just a quick comment on Florian's brief note regarding Apollo 17 covers. He is, of course, completely correct in noting that the PO aboard the USS Ticonderoga was closed on the 19th which was the recovery date. However, reading Florian's note one might wonder about all the covers with a USS Ticonderoga postmark from the 19th. These are not backdated and are completely legitimate covers. As per regulations they were postmarked on shore using the USS Ticonderoga's postmarker. This occurred for several missions and causes many questions. Although they were never aboard the PRS, they are the closest most collectors will get to a PRS cover for that mission. Covers postmarked aboard the PRS on 20th are far rarer but very desirable. |
albatron
Member Posts: 2732
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 03-25-2009 08:23 AM
Thanks for the cover history lesson Dennis, you are definately THE "go to guy". |
machbusterman
Member Posts: 1778
From: Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland
Registered: May 2004
|
posted 03-25-2009 02:56 PM
Thanks for a superb history lesson Dennis... I knew you'd be the guy in the know! I do agree about the rarity of Kincheloe signed items.... but because this cover is marked (and being listed as) flown it rules me out from any further bidding. There are some collectors out there who are less than 100% with their history and I fear that it could end up with someone who will "forget" the true story behind the cover and it will likely re-surface in a number of years time as a "flown" cover. I'll hang on a bit for something more appropriate.Thanks for pointing out the cancel on the Everest cover... I missed that completely! |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 03-25-2009 03:01 PM
I would go along with the previous comments - especially regarding lot #241. The forgeries and 'dodgy' Armstrong autographs are definitely spoiling the experience.Surprisingly, I'm not sure about Al Bean's signature either on lot #265? Just an obvious comment about lot #221 - The Kapton foil is from the CM, so is not lunar surface flown as in the description. |
Alan Lipkin
Member Posts: 78
From: Beverly Hills, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 03-25-2009 05:12 PM
First, I would like to thank everone on this list for their constructive criticism. We here at Regency-Superior are working on emproving everything we do so we do like to get feedback.We will withdraw a few lots from the catalog, amend a few of our descriptions on-line and in our errata sheet at the sale. Most importantly, we are getting opinions of several experts before the sale and try to have all autographed lots looked at by them beforehand. A few items still get in without second opinions though. We have many more autographs and covers than any other auction, so far as we can tell, so a few mistakes are a price we pay. This is not inevitable, we keep trying to improve. In any event, we will definitely have any item purchased in our auction expertised after the sale upon request & will refund if it turns out to be not genuine. If an item is, in our opinion and in the opinion of experts "atypical" please bid on it only if you are willing to have that type of item in your collection. Normally they go for a somewhat lower price than the "normal" signatures & some collectors will accept that, others will not. We will place on this list our errata & withdrawals within a few days, about the same time we put that info on our website. There is still plenty of time left to bid in the sale, so please look carefully. If you have any specific questions for me contact me off-list at alipkin@regencysuperior.com Thank you again for your comments. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 03-31-2009 03:07 PM
Lots # 227 and 577.These look o.k to me, any comments to the contrary would be welcome. Thanks. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-05-2009 08:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Lipkin:
We will withdraw a few lots from the catalog, amend a few of our descriptions on-line and in our errata sheet at the sale.
Alan, have these changes been made? Lot 52 is still wrongly described as a SATURN V artifact both in the online catalog and on the Live Auction site... |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-05-2009 03:02 PM
Lots 83 and 84. As a matter of interest, does anyone know how much these items were when first released by the Kansas Cosmosphere? Also the flown film strip in lucite which appears from time-to-time? |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 04-05-2009 03:18 PM
If my memory serves me right the lucite film strips originally sold $150 each but the last few were sold off at $50 a piece. The Liberty Bell hardware lucites were in 3 prices depending upon the size of the artifact; $150 for the smallest, $250 and $400 for the larger items. |
Alan Lipkin
Member Posts: 78
From: Beverly Hills, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 04-06-2009 01:45 PM
Please note the following corrections for our April 16-17 Space Memorabilia auction. - Lot # 113 has been witdrawn.
- Lot # 52 is not Saturn 5, This AMAB-3 Gyroscope was flown on a Block II Saturn I.
- Lot # 226, upper signature is genuine, lower signature is an autopen.
- Lot # 224 & 231 were consigned by a well known Texas collector who is known to have gotten many signatures from notables at golf courses and other venues where the signor often is rushed.
- Lot # 240 & 265, though "Atypical" in some respects will remain in the sale at the insistence of their consignors. We will be happy to submit these to a 3rd party expertiser after the auction if requested by the buyer.
Please look at the sale for revised opening bids. Material should be arriving in Beverly Hills from our St. Louis office for viewing by early next week. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 04-06-2009 05:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Lipkin:
Lot # 224 & 231 were consigned by a well known Texas collector who is known to have gotten many signatures from notables at golf courses and other venues where the signor often is rushed.
I would check more closely into the provenance of Lot 231 if I were you. This item changed hands on eBay in 2003 for $199 (note Bob's previous post about this item)...therefore it's somewhat unlikely the present owner had it signed in person at a golf course by a rushed Armstrong. Besides, I can't help but question whether a rushed Armstrong would then take the extra time to add an unpersonalized inscription ("All the best") to his autograph. quote:
Originally posted by Alan Lipkin:
Lot # 240 & 265, though "Atypical" in some respects will remain in the sale at the insistence of their consignors. We will be happy to submit these to a 3rd party expertiser after the auction if requested by the buyer.
Since all of your bidders probably don't read collectSPACE, I strongly suggest should note that these lots are "atypical" directly in the auction descriptions and mention your offer to authenticate these items post-sale. That way, everyone will have a chance to hear your stance on these items before they bid. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-14-2009 01:51 AM
Has anyone had confirmation from Liveauctioneers regarding their registration for the auction?I hear rumors of no responses one week after registration, making my Sunday registration for the auction a bit academic. Will they clear the backlog in time for the auction? |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-14-2009 06:40 AM
It certainly appears the ESA issued Flown Hubble Solar Cell Lucite (LOT 7) will do well, having already blown by its pre-auction estimate of $750 and currently has an opening bid of $1700... |
Paul125a
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-14-2009 12:46 PM
The Wired story says that one of the Apollo 11 orbit charts has a "Smithsonian Inventory tag" on the back. Does anyone know what number is on the tag? I would like to check it against National Air and Space Museum records. Thanks. |
cosmos-walter
Member Posts: 691
From: Salzburg, Austria
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 04-14-2009 02:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by spaceflori:
There's a long discussion going on about the Apollo 1 covers here in Germany.
The examination of small changes of KSC machine cancellations proofed that this cancellation on the JFK stamps were applied "in the night of the fire" - either in the evening after possible reopening of KSC post office or in the morning of the next day.Obviously more plain envelopes than stamps were available. Thus some plain covers were treated with KSC machine cancellation at that time. JFK stamps and KSC hand cancellation were added later. 1/27/1967 Cape Canaveral cancellations were always regarded as backdated. quote:
A flown Apollo cover is crap, nonsense, nothing according to FIP rules.
The guidelines prepared by FIP Section for Astrophilately define: "Space Mail is philatelic material that was flown aboard a spacecraft." Thus flown Apollo "moon covers" are very desirable items for both collectors and FIP. By the side: FIP rules ignore signatures similarly as they ignore private cachets. Whereas Space Mail can be examined and attested by specialised stamp experts, this would be impossible for signatures. |
Alan Lipkin
Member Posts: 78
From: Beverly Hills, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 04-14-2009 04:29 PM
Concerning Liveauctioneers.com, we believe we have the glitch fixed. One bit of advice: Please do not include any eBay numbers or usernames. Neither Regency-Superior nor Live Auctioneers recognize or has access to eBay codes. If you are still having any problems registering to bid live, please call Cathy Skinner in Regency's St. Louis office at 1-800-782-0066 or 314-361-5699 |
Alan Lipkin
Member Posts: 78
From: Beverly Hills, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 04-14-2009 04:33 PM
Wired: For Sale: Slightly Used Spacesuit, $500K OBO Now there is a bustling business in the detritus of space flight. Several auctioneers host major sales during the spring where hundreds of pieces can be sold for between a few hundred bucks and a few hundred thousand. Starting April 16, Regency-Superior will host a four-day auction featuring an ultra-rare spacesuit used for testing in the Gemini program along with dozens of other rare items, photographs and space hardware. A great little blog on space collecting, the Regency-Superior auction, the Gemini Spacesuit, etc. with comments by Robert Pearlman, Ken Kavecotte and myself. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-14-2009 04:43 PM
Good article in general but starts off with factually incorrect information. The first object in Space was not Sputnik (the V2 achieved suborbital access to Space many years preceding Sputnik). |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1933
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 04-15-2009 02:40 PM
I wasn't going to comment on what I think is the most interesting autograph, because it's not easy to spot and I didn't want to ruin someone's lucky find (and possibly low winning bid) by alerting other bidders. But now that the opening bid is $2700, I think the cat's out of the bag.So: take a look at lot 569, a Neil Armstrong handwritten letter. It's in the High Altitude Program section, since he added "X-15" under his name. (It was possibly written in 1962 or 1963, since a similar John Young letter to the same person was dated in that period.) The letter reads, "I certainly hope that you will see the first American return from the Moon, and also hope our work will contribute to that national goal." Yeah, he chipped in a little on that. Wow. |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1933
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 04-15-2009 10:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
Just an obvious comment about lot #221 - The Kapton foil is from the CM, so is not lunar surface flown as in the description.
I notice that this lot's description still reads "lunar surface" and "Eagle" even though the presentation pretty clearly reads "Command Module." There might be an annoyed high bidder (admittedly one who didn't look very carefully at the photo) if this isn't fixed before the auction. |
spaceflori
Member Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-16-2009 02:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cosmos-walter:
The guidelines prepared by FIP Section for Astrophilately define: "Space Mail is philatelic material that was flown aboard a spacecraft." Thus flown Apollo "moon covers" are very desirable items for both collectors and FIP.
Then the FIP needs to educate their judges better, that's a comment a judge once told me at an international exhibition.The problem still remains - there was no need to carry mail on the Apollo flights - philatelically seen! I personally think that's all crap with the FIP rules and one of the reasons the whole exhibition system needs to be revised. It's just that some folks (particularly in Germany) don't realize it yet that their whole system already lies in a coffin to be buried soon. |
MadSci
Member Posts: 226
From: Maryland, USA
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-16-2009 02:50 PM
I must say the Regencey auction today is a bit of a mess for Internet bidders, at least if my experience is typical.I have had no problem with on-line bidding before, at Regency and others. The Heritage auction a few weeks ago was fine. I'm at the same computer and the same set up as all my previous auctions, yet I was unable to install the required software for Regency using Internet Explorer 8. Their on-line help folks were earnest, but had a mixed understanding of the technology. We finally got it going using Firefox - but only after 100 items, including some I had bid on before the auction, had come and gone (I have no idea yet if I won anything).
As the auction is proceeding it's apparent that the LiveAuctioneers plug in is lagging badly. Most of the time the bidding window is static, then jumps ahead - usually to 'No Sale', without any chance to bid! Also the bidding window, and lot description/photo are frequently not synchronized - a bit disconcerting as you're not sure exactly which lot is currently being offered. If you try to dig through the text in the bidding window to figure it out - you will be too late. I know the auctioneer needs to move things along briskly, but when you combine the fast pace he's/she's keeping, with the lags/bugs in LiveAuctioneers internet presentation, and you're going to see a lot of "No Sales". I still think tax time is a lousy time to be doing an auction - not everybody is getting a refund. And I must say that I think the LiveAuctioneers site needs work. I suspect it's performance has a lot to do with the large number of "No Sales" in this auction. Hopefully Regency will address this for the next auction. Hmm, I wonder if I won anything? |
spaceflori
Member Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-16-2009 03:21 PM
I made the same experience, the interface (I used it for the first time) is lousy to say at least - nothing, absolutely nothing compared to the wonderful Heritage online bidding system!I'm disappointed with the stone-age looking interface. Is there any way to see the prices realized anywhere? |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 04-16-2009 03:24 PM
I don't believe most of those "no sale" notices actually indicate the lack of a sale. I believe the starting bid shown on the site takes into account all of the absentee bids first. If no additional bids are registered with Live Auctioneers or on the floor, then it appears to show "no sale" even if there was a sale.Granted, I do think several lots have actually gone unsold. Overall, the bidding window seems to be working fine for me. But the performance of the bidding system might depend on the speed of your internet connection too. I agree, however, the Heritage system of live bidding is much nicer than the format used by Live Auctioneers. The thing I really like about Heritage is that proxy bids for future lots can be placed while the auction is taking place. That makes it easier to not get passed over if there is a hiccup in the bidding software when the item you want comes up for bid. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-16-2009 03:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
I don't believe most of those "no sale" notices actually indicate the lack of a sale.
Good spot, Mark.I did wonder when Lot 86 Grissom at $2200 "didn't sell" as didn't most of the Apollo 11 lots and the Apollo 13 flown PPK. It will be interesting to see what actually did sell. One bargain so far is lot 170 which included a Swigert WSS and went for well under $1k. Overall I'm happy with the interface and have no problem making my bids even though I'm using a 3G card in my laptop from the frozen north of Sweden! |
liebeek
Member Posts: 247
From: the netherlands
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 04-16-2009 04:02 PM
I am probably getting to old to understand computers properly.I was accepted as a bidder, received a message: you can now bid during the live auction. I was ready to bid. Final moment came and I did. Pop-up in my screen: sorry, you can only watch, not bid. What on earth did I do wrong? I decided to quit. Never had this problem before. Used live-auctioneer before. Used eBay when I bid in Regency-Superior auctions before. No problems. Well, disappointed but money stays in the pocket.Not nice for the consignors. |
spaceflori
Member Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-16-2009 04:11 PM
When looking at the Regency Superior site and their bidding system I noticed that the "opening bids" reflect the bids from as of 4/15/09 5:06 PM. Not very up to date...I put in a few bids, but didn't get any reply whether they were accepted or not. Nor did I get outbid notices etc. Sorry folks, but this is not state of the art anymore - hopefully they switch to a more convenient system next time. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-16-2009 04:15 PM
Would be nice to know what "sold to on-site bidder" means, as opposed to "sold to 54321" which I assume is a live bidder. If the former means a bidder on the RS site then there were a lot of unsold items. |
advertisement