Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by michelle on June 20, 2025 at 4:39am

I think its also partly to do with over saturation

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruce Juice on June 20, 2025 at 9:42am

I saw alot of items that did very well. What results are you referring to? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on June 20, 2025 at 10:38am

Hi Bruce, early this morning I was looking at the results before the unsold lots were removed and before buyer's premium (BP) was added.

Without the unsold lots and with BP added the results do give a much better impression but the hammer price of a large proportion of lots sold was under or just around the "$ +" estimate  (e.g. most fully-signed Beatles items). Also, some estimates looked low in the first place (e.g. the Marley "Kaya" album that has sold for way more than the $3,000+ estimate).

I agree that some lots, especially the more unusual and difficult to estimate ones (e.g. the Woodstock lot and the Ramones' case), did make far above the estimate and some estimate were also sky-high (e.g the Macca National Trust cheque).

By the way, I assume the estimates do not take account of the BP to be added and are supposed to represent a low base estimate (being "$x +").

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Findbooks on June 20, 2025 at 10:44am

Are you kidding?! $1464 for an unsigned Dusty Springfield programme because The Who are listed as The High Numbers? That's insane, i.m.h.o.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on June 20, 2025 at 11:08am

I did already mention that there were some exceptions and I must admit that I only scrolled to around page 5 of the results sorted by high to low price. Perhaps there were a lot more exceptions further on.

• ▶ Reply