More Prices at Russo Steele
 

1970 GTO Convertible 455 Ram Air auto, burgandy, red interior, MINT FRAME OFF RESTORED, # matching all the way around

no reserve sold for $65,000 plus 10% = $72,000


1971 Chevelle Convertible LS5 4spd MINT Concourse restored, Blue over black interior

no reserve sold for $77,500 plus 10% = $85,000

actually the 454 car only bid to 50k Then the owner starting bidding on it with the only other bidder. The owner got it back at 77k price. I was right next to him . Everybody was pissed he was not aloud to keep bidding on his own car. They didn't know until after the fact that the owner was bidding on his own car. The high bidder at 50k was screaming in the office when he found out. I actually am the one that told him.

So Scott then the owner of the car had to pay the 10% commission to Russo Steele? If he did then he should be able to bid on his own car. If not, then that's not right.

What do you think?

I LOVED your car Scott. Great restoration.

so the owner was or was not bidding on his own car?

Sounds like scot said he WAS bidding on it ... and that Scot is the one who told the previous high bidder of $50,000.

I'm not sure there is anything wrong with this IF the owner paid the 10% fee (which would have been $7,700!) That's a lot of coin for a sales 'technique' or 'strategy' but it seems legitimate.

What do you guys think?

for it to be considered legitimate, at a minimum, buyers should be told that bidders may be owners...if the owner / bidder should also be labeled is another level of debate.

if the owner got it back at 77k, doesn't that mean the other bidder went as high as 76K? if so, why is the high bid considered only 50k? it seems like the owner should have let the other bidder have it at 76k vs eating the 10%, unless based on that theory, the owner must have had a hopeful predetermined value of of at least approximately 84k (76k + 10% ($7600)) or higher.

I think the way Scot said it was that the 2nd high bidder had the car at 50K (it was no reserve) and then the car's owner started bidding and he 'won back' the car at 77k ... so the second highest bidder was around that number.

As long as the owner paid the 10% I don't see a problem ... do you guys? As slimy as it may seem on the face of it ... it was an expensive sales technique that cost him big-bucks assuming he had to pay the commission (plus the 6% sellers commission putting his total investment at almost $12,000!!!)

If the owner did NOT pay the commission(s) then if I was the second high bidder I'd be ticked ....

the bidding stopped and stalled at 50k the owner of the car bid up only with the 50k bidder to 77k. The guy who was bidding also bought my car so I was with him. I had option to buy my car back at 65k not bid. I said no and the hammer dropped. The guy and wife who owned the car did not drive it in and the auctioneer did not know they were the owners. They were not aloud to bid.

also the owners of that 454 car were expecting 130k to 150k, they bought the car last year at auction but didn't say what they paid. The whole thing is crazy in my opinion it is way better to be a buyer then seller at auction. Go through the auction results and be shocked at how cheap the exotics sold for also.

mrgoats I'm confused. You state that you had the option to buy your car back at 65ki but the owners of the 454 car were not allowed to bid on thier own vehicle.

yes thats what I was told

Again, it seems to me that I have no issue with owners bidding on their cars ... in no reserve auctions ... IF THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PAY the 10% buyers fee AND the 6% sellers fee. If someone wants to pay 16% as a 'gamble' then it's fair in my book.

The buyers ALWAYS have the option to stop bidding ... and stick the "competition" with the car and the costs.

It's no different than a seller from a newspaper telling you "I've already got offers on the car if you don't buy it for more money." Then you just walk away OR you pay more money ... the BUYER is always in control. He/she has the $$$ in pocket.

Not sure anyone wins except for house, but "gamble" is the key word.

Whenever you deal with brokers you get broker.....

Judge you know the "house" is supposed to win no matter what happens to the buyers/sellers. It's their "house" and their "game" and they incur the "gamble" by supplying the million dollar (plus) investment for the weekend. Nevermind that they have their day-to-day costs as well.

If people didn't want to use them they would go out of business. It's a very fair and capitalistic enterprise in my opinion. We could always go back to the old days of advertising your car in a local newspaper but I'm thinking that the hobby would be hurt dramatically in that case.

So as far as dealing with a broker goes ... I'm thinking that it's the broker and his/her investment that allows you to get your rare car exposed to a wider audience of people with money. Try selling your $250,000 rare Shelby Convertible on Ebay for the same amount or go through the headaches ... etc etc. Believe this; if brokers become a losing proposition for sellers and buyers then brokers will go out of business.

JMO ...

I also do not have an issue with someone buying back their own vehicle as long as they pay the buyer and seller premium. That being said why not put a reserve on the car and pay the slightly higher seller's fee if it in fact reaches the reserve.

"1971 Chevelle Convertible LS5 4spd MINT Concourse restored, Blue over black interior
no reserve sold for $77,500 plus 10% = $85,000"


What's interesting is GM's 1971's used to be looked down on, with the lower compression and regular gas, now they are $$ collectible!

that was the buy back it never sold i was there live 2 feet from the bidder. The owner of car won the bidding on his own car.

TigerGTO ... I agree ... it's not a gamble I would take. But for each his own.

I would love to know whether he is 1) allowed to bid 2) has to pay either / both the buyer's and seller's premiums

Anyone?