Proxy Bidding On John Manship's Auctions

[Mick Holdsworth]

I was gonna ring John Manship but it's too late tonight, so I thought I'd ask Soulsource folks. (If you're around John, maybe you can put me on the right track).

Can anyone tell me how the proxy bidding set up works on John Manships auctions? - I've never noticed before but there's a few running at the moment with a top bid far in excess of a required increment above the second highest bidder.

For example, Kim Weston has a high bid of £78.00, and the second highest maximum bid was £9.00, yet the increment required is only £8.00 - So if I had put that bid in of £78.00 (or more), I would have thought I only had to top the £9.00 maximum of the second highest bidder, plus £8.00 increment, making £17.00, with £61 to play with.

The bidding help on John's site suggests that proxy bidding works, but the above example clearly doesn't.

Am I missing something - If so please let me know.

Cheers

Mick

https://northern-soul-records.com

[Martyn Pitt]

I was gonna ring John Manship but it's too late tonight, so I thought I'd ask Soulsource folks. (If you're around John, maybe you can put me on the right track).

Can anyone tell me how the proxy bidding set up works on John Manships auctions? - I've never noticed before but there's a few running at the moment with a top bid far in excess of a required increment above the second highest bidder.

For example, Kim Weston has a high bid of £78.00, and the second highest maximum bid was £9.00, yet the increment required is only £8.00 - So if I had put that bid in of £78.00 (or more), I would have thought I only had to top the £9.00 maximum of the second highest bidder, plus £8.00 increment, making £17.00, with £61 to play with.

The bidding help on John's site suggests that proxy bidding works, but the above example clearly doesn't.

Am I missing something - If so please let me know.

Cheers

Mick

https://northern-soul-records.com

The original bidder would have put a maximum bid of £70, as it was the first it showed the lowest possible amount £9. A bid of £100 by bidder 2 would take the amount to £78.

Martyn

[Mick Holdsworth]

The original bidder would have put a maximum bid of £70, as it was the first it showed the lowest possible amount £9. A bid of £100 by bidder 2 would take the amount to £78.

Martyn

Hi Martyn,

Thanks for that - Does it always show the second highest bid as the minimum required to out bid the third highest ?

Bidder A £157

Bidder B £ 83 --------- shows 83 but would really be 148 ??

Bidder C £ 75 etc

If that's the case it does make sense now.

Cheers

Mick

https://northern-soul-records.com

[Martyn Pitt]

Hi Martyn,

Thanks for that - Does it always show the second highest bid as the minimum required to out bid the third highest ?

Bidder A £157

Bidder B £ 83 --------- shows 83 but would really be 148 ??

Bidder C £ 75 etc

If that's the case it does make sense now.

Cheers

Mick

https://northern-soul-records.com

Assuming in your example we are still looking at £9 steps

C - Bids £75 max auction price will show as £9 as there are no other bids

B - Bids £100 max bid will go to 'C's £75 + £9 = £84 and is winning the item until a bid over £100 is placed

A - Bids £150 max bid will go to 'B's £100 + £9 = £109 and is now winning until a bid over £150

The increments are confusing as the auction always goes to the highest maximum then adds the increment, whatever it is for each item.

I am pretty good at maths, and must admit it confused me as to why every auction was not a perfect division of the value of the increment, until it was explained to me.

Martyn

[pikeys dog]

Confusing since the increments change as the item goes up in price....

Surely a min/max £5 bid increment would make more sense?

[Mark B]

Confusing since the increments change as the item goes up in price....

Surely a min/max £5 bid increment would make more sense?

sense and money there are two things that seldom go together

mark

[Martyn Pitt]

Confusing since the increments change as the item goes up in price....

Joe I am sure that the increments are constant, and set at the start of each individual records auction. The variable is each bidders maximum bid.

Confusing as I said earlier as it is a pure fluke if the finishing price can be divided by the increment.

As soon as a bidder puts a maximum bid, that beats a previous maximum bid, it will jump to that then add the increment.

Have you tried working out the increments on Ebay

Martyn

[Martyn Pitt]

sense and money there are two things that seldom go together

mark

sense, money and Soul records are three things that never go together

Martyn

[Mick Holdsworth]

Assuming in your example we are still looking at £9 steps

C - Bids £75 max auction price will show as £9 as there are no other bids

B - Bids £100 max bid will go to 'C's £75 + £9 = £84 and is winning the item until a bid over £100 is placed

A - Bids £150 max bid will go to 'B's £100 + £9 = £109 and is now winning until a bid over £150

The increments are confusing as the auction always goes to the highest maximum then adds the increment, whatever it is for each item.

I am pretty good at maths, and must admit it confused me as to why every auction was not a perfect division of the value of the increment, until it was explained to me.

Martyn

Martyn,

Assume that no one else bids on this, does that mean the Highest bidder will get it, not for £157 , but one increment above the next highest, in this case £109 ??

Cheers

Mick

[Martyn Pitt]

Martyn,

Assume that no one else bids on this, does that mean the Highest bidder will get it, not for £157 , but one increment above the next highest, in this case £109 ??

Cheers

Mick

Yes Mick that is correct, £109 would win the auction.

Martyn