FYI here's an e-mail I just received from an eBay seller:

"Thanks for your purchases during my Sid Sackson Game Auction. The
Family Auctioned off the reminants of his collection May 3rd and I will
be selling over 2000 of them over the next month or so, thought you
might be interested in a few more."

the Mav

--

"Never give up -- never surrender!"  Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

What the huh?  The person bought nearly a third of the games that were
up for auction there this last time?

- Richard Hutnik

In rec.games.board Richard Hutnik <richardhut...@hotmail.com> wrote:

There was a couple there who bought a gigantic number of lots.  I wouldn't
have said it was a third of them (and I don't know if they sent the e-mail),
but I also don't know how accurate the estimate (of 8000 or so games) was.

--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum                                                 t...@panix.com      
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."

Yep, and they are now appearing on eBay.  Once again, I submit that the
auction house was the wrong one for the job, and did a poor job both
times around.

This whole thing should have been done online, and should have been
better promoted.

the Mav

--

"Never give up -- never surrender!"  Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

There's a piece in the last issue of Counter on the first sale written
by Ian Livingstone.  Makes for interesting, if slightly depressing, reading.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch                    University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk  http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

news:37bc9e37.0305070943.725b8a99@posting.google.com...
<news:3EB7CFC9.3090803@volcano.net>...

FWIW, I contacted this seller about the Bazaar prototype they had on eBay,
informing them that the family did not intend to sell the prototypes and
that I bleieve there was an announcement made to that effect at the auction.

This was the response I got:

"Thanks, For the concern but I already have cotion that his daughter in law
said it was ok."

First off, I don't know what "cotion" means, but here was what I wrote in
response:

"I know that she had said that they didn't want unpublished prototypes after
the first auction, but they did want to keep prototypes of published games.
Also, between the first and second auctions, Sackson's family found out that
someone was interested in publishing some of Sackson's unpublished material.
This meant that they did not intend to sell any prototypes at all in the
second auction.

"Did you have a specific conversation with Sackson's daughter-in-law and get
the OK to sell this prototype? Or are you going by an interpretation of the
statement she made after the first auction?

"There is already some negative buzz in the gaming community (on several
mailing lists and newsgroups) about your auctioning off this Bazaar
prototype, given what was related by Sackson's family at the auction about
their desire to keep prototypes.

"If you have specifially cleared the sale with Sackson's family, you might
want to get the word out. If you haven't, you might want to try and contact
them to see if they intended to sell that prototype. If you don't, it will
probably have a negative impact on your other auctions. I can tell you that
a prime potential customer base for your auctions is not particularly happy.

"Just wanted to give you a heads up."

I got a response on the first e-mail within a matter of hours. This one was
sent early yesterday morning and I have not yet received a response. I
thought I would give the seller the benefit of the doubt, given the glowing
tribute to Sackson included in the item descriptions. I was not going to
draw a conclusion that this seller was the same bottom feeder overheard
saying "Bazaar is still there" by someone at the auction. However, until
this situation is cleared up, I know that I will not be bidding on any games
by this seller, despite the fact that several of them interest me.

Paul Sauberer

You could add to that, "An explicit announcement was made prior to the
second auction stating that Sid's prototypes were not for sale."

I really wish that Paul Friedman, Sid's son in law, had stayed to make that
announcement himself. When I spoke with him, he left no doubt in my mind
that the Sackson family wanted to retain Sid's prototypes and personal
papers. However, it seemed that he stayed only long enough to pick up the
prototypes that had already been found.

As far as prototypes go, I fear that the Sackson family may never be allowed
to live down Mary Ellen's open letter in this area.

I won't argue the point any more about poor handling by the auction house.
Stories of isolated prototypes and rare games aside, I did feel on the first
sale that much of the box lot material went well over reasonable
expectations. I did *not* have that feeling this time around.

While the staff was friendly and helpful, the necessary advertising simply
wasn't in place. The sheer volume of material in each auction made
previewing in depth impossible. And, of course, the announcement that the
first auction had the best stuff really did seem like the kiss of death for
this round.

However, while selected items could have been sold online (well, on eBay)
with the necessary exposure to fetch better prices, I would still submit
that live auctions were the only way to clear the entire collection in a
reasonable time.

I have personally gone thru the exercise of cataloguing what was at the time
a 1600+ game collection -- picture, game name, maker, year, and
*exceedingly* brief notes on condition. This took me several months, working
part time each morning and evening. Having seen the volume of material in
both sessions, I think the member(s) of the Sackson family who thought that
the whole collection could be written up for auction on Boardgamegeek in
"two summers" were deliriously optimistic at best. Packing 10,000-15,000
games for shipping would have been a full-time Herculean chore as well.

Why blame the seller?  If the auction house screwed up and sold
something they weren't supposed to, then they should pay whatever it
takes to win the game back....  the current owner won it fair and square
and can do what they wish with it.

the Mav

--

"Never give up -- never surrender!"  Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

news:3EBBB2CF.1020202@volcano.net...

Not really. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" may be the rule on the
playground, but it is not the law of the land.

If the auction house (aka the "agent") mistakenly sells something, and with
the announcements that were made it was clear that selling a prototype was a
mistake, then the sale contract is not valid. The buyer has the obligation
to return the item in exchange for a refund of what they paid.

If the buyer knows that a certain item should not be in the lot and still
bids anyway with the intention of keeping it, then that could arguably cross
the line into theft.

Paul Sauberer

news:3EBB707D.AB3D98D5@myrealbox.com...

I have sent another e-mail to the seller letting them know this. I will
still give them the benefit of the doubt but I know that I still will not be
making any bids. If this become a major controversy and on the very slight
chance that some legal action could happen, I don't want to get involved in
any way.

I know if I was in the seller's shoes and had 2000 auctions coming up, I
wouldn't want to damage all of them because of this one item, even if it is
likely to bring in several hundred dollars. If the average price of the
others goes down by just a buck, I lose.

Paul Sauberer

Paul,

As I learned it, "buyers keepers" is the law of the land according to the
Uniform Commercial Code (Article 2 Part 4).  The UCC entitles buyers to rely
on merchants to have clean title to the goods they sell.  Under the UCC, the
aucton house is a merchant to whom the owner entrusted the goods.  (The
terms buyer, merchant, goods, and entrust are all defined in the UCC).
Even fraud or theft on the part of the auction house doesn't void transfer
of title.

As for "bad faith" buyers, the family gave inconsistent statements regarding
the sale of prototypes.  The family members are at the auction, goods are at
the auction.  To assume that the family didn't intend to sell the goods is a
stretch.  Ultimately, if the family didn't want those particular items sold,
they should not have given them to the auction house.  This sounds harsh,
but to paraphrase my professor in law school (one of those that drafted the
current UCC Article 2), the purpose of the UCC is to enable commerce, not to
protect the lazy or the stupid.

Mike H.

I couldn't believe this could be right, so I looked up the above UCC code. It
took a few minutes of feeling like I was pushing my head through rather viscous
mush. But if you assume "acquiescence in possession" translates to "failure to
physically constrain the transferor from taking materials in a disorderly or
larcenous manner", then paragraphs 2 and 3 do show this to be absolutely
correct... and pretty scary. Basically, if you hire someone to dispose of any of
your property, you need to be vigilant that *only* the property to be disposed
of leaves your possession.

One could argue, however, that by announcing the fact that the prototypes were
not for sale, the auctioneer renounced his power to "transfer all rights of the
entruster to a buyer" for these items. I am not yet convinced that the phrase
"gives him power" in paragraph 2 equates to "compels him to exercise the power".

Actually, I think Phil was the only Sackson family member in attendance on May
3rd, and I believe he left before the auction started.

While the Sackson family's statements have been inconsistent over time, the
auctioneer did state the family's latest position regarding prototypes and
personal papers clearly and at a moment of greatest attention prior to the sale.

So if there was a buyer who knowingly purchased a lot containing one of Sid's
prototypes, I believe the term "bad faith" buyer could apply. However, to be
fair, Phil (or some other member of the family) should have been on hand to join
in the announcement that prototypes were not to be considered a part of the
sale, and that all prior statements to the contrary were rescinded. This would
have removed any possible perception that the auctioneer was unaware of the
family's intent.

Really?  Never???  Try again...

And this is based on what legal authority . . . "losers keepers, finders
weepers"?  ;-)

Didn't the bidders have to sign a written agreement (aka contract) in
order to be eligible to bid?  Did this agreement allow for any verbal
terms, or say anything about prototypes, or require anything to be
returned if the auction company sold something in open bidding that it
wasn't supposed to?  Doubt it...

I see.  So the *bidders* are supposed to advise the auction house on
what should and should not be sold?  Right...

the Mav

--

"Never give up -- never surrender!"  Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

It's not scary if you go about it the right way...  When you hire
someone to auction off stuff for you, you should make sure to get
someone who knows what the hell they are dealing with.

the Mav

--

"Never give up -- never surrender!"  Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

The seller also feels that they are legally in the clear. I received the
following response from an e-mail:

"Paul, Just to update you, I've checked with an attorney and he has advised
me that being that I never actually signed anything before the auction,
stating that I would return anything, that the Sackson family and the
auction house as there representative did knowingly and willfully sell me
everything that I purchased from that auction house. And furthermore I have
the rights to do with what I please anything that I purchased, including
publishing non released games. I'm not stupid I checked with the same
attorney last time before I sold the Executive Decision prototype and
Contigo. Did you see the auction houses web page before the auction , they
were advertising that Prototypes would be sold. There is no stolen property
as you stated the Sackson family knew that the boxes contained prototypes
and nobody wanted to sort through them.  It will not affect my sales at all.
Selling the proto' s last time tripled them. If you don't want to bid on my
items that's your loss."

Of course, even if their attorney is correct (and assuming that the
attorney's opinion was given knowing about the announcement) a legal right
does not equate with a moral right.

Given the tribute to Sackson on this seller's descriptions, their actions
smack of insincerity.

I choose not to do business with someone who exhibits this type of behavior.
What anyone else does is up to them.

Paul Sauberer

And this is perhaps the biggest gaffe by the auction house. They had already
been through this exercise once. Even if they were unable to access the actual
games, they had MONTHS before the second auction to prepare a simple "conditions
of bidding" sheet protecting the prototypes and personal papers.

Searching through 8,000 games may have been a difficult task, but getting 20-40
people to sign such a sheet during registration would not have been difficult at
all.

news:3EBCF5C2.F89B7874@myrealbox.com...

True. The auction house did not properly protect the interests of their
clients.

In a separate observation, a person who uses the "I'm not doing anything
illegal" statement almost always knows that what they are doing is wrong.

Paul Sauberer

I think I need to chime in since I was at both auctions.  FWIW, my
perspective is as a gamer first, a collector second.
Please read my notes below.

news:3EBCA1F6.4010203@volcano.net...

I got to the auction a little bit after it started.  So I cannot comment on
whether or not anything was said ON THE DAY OF the auction.  I think that
something may have been said by the auction house or a relative the day
before, but that was during the preview, which technically shouldn't count.
There was a fraction of the people browsing on Friday compared to the people
buying games on Saturday.  I can double check this with a friend who was
there.

On the day of the auction when I went to get my bidder card, I was surprised
and a little delighted at the process of signing in.  They had me on file
from last time.  I mentioned my name, and they handed me my bidder card.
That simple.  At first I thought this was very efficient.  On second thought
later on, I figured that any loopholes that required closing would not be
closed.  Nothing had to be signed on that day, and I don't recall ever
signing for anything back at the first auction.  All they wanted was a
driver's license and a tax id # if I was a reseller.

It's not so much the buyer trying to "get away with something."  For me, I
didn't get a chance to preview the box lots and took my chances as each one
came up.  I won over 3 boxes worth of stuff on different auctions, sometimes
in order to get at 1-3 games apiece.  I had little clue what else was in
those boxes.  When I started going through the boxes, I was pleasantly
surprised at some of the neat games I had found.  Not all of it was filler
family games.  In other words, if I had found a prototype in a box, I
probably wouldn't have even realized it was a prototype until after I got
home.  I may have figured that they were loose parts that Sid kept onhand in
order to pull out at a moment's notice to play or test something.
Prototypes weren't as obvious as people make them out to be.

Another example is the Bazaar prototype that is up for auction.  If I had
casually glanced through the boxes, I would have thought "Oh, another copy
of 3M Bazaar" and would have kept on going.  It was in a regular 3m box.  I
have collected many of these titles in the past and am very familiar with
them.  However, I wouldn't have known it was a prototype unless someone had
tipped me off.

My point is the auction house should not be responsible for any prototypes
that were in those boxes, unless they were being contracted out as such and
this is in writing in the contract.  If there were 1,000 or less items for
auction, then yes, I could understand them having the time to go through
them, and would have expected that of them.  But we are talking about
thousands and thousands.  Their business is to conduct a smooth running
auction that would sell off these games as quickly as possible.  They
accomplished this, for better or worse.  As a game collector, I don't expect
the auction house to understand or know which pieces are prototypes, let
alone super rare and expensive items that may have received better attention
and a higher final bid.  They are used to selling antiques, curios, etc.
Have you ever bumped into someone that understood that there was such a
market for boardgames?  If you mentioned that you collect old stamps, comic
books, baseball cards, then it makes sense to the average person.  If you
tell them that you collect boardgames, people have no clue what you're
talking about.

The bottom line is, what responsibility should the auction house have?  Are
they supposed to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, and guess at
something that is a prototype?  In some cases, only Sid himself could have
possibly confirmed it or not because I doubt all of the prototype material
said on it "Prototype, not for resale."  Going back to the bazaar auction
that is currently taking place, if you look in the description, even the
seller isn't positive that it is a prototype.  He/she is merely speculating
that it is.

I feel that it was the family's responsibility to ID prototypes.  Personally
speaking, if I had accidentally come across a proto from one of my box lots,
I would have mailed it back to the family no questions asked.  For the
winning bidders of these auctions, all I can hope for is that they give them
a loving home.

I don't want to tread on anyone's toes here.  I am not calling the family
irresponsible, and I am not calling the reseller a greedy person.  I just
think (like most other people) that perhaps more time should have been
invested to cover all the bases.

chris

I can. Announcements were made regarding Sackson prototypes for both auctions at
11 am -- technically the starting time for the events.

That said, it sounds like the person handling registration dropped the ball by
not repeating the announcements to late registrants. A new announcement was made
regarding prototypes by Alan Newman and/or Creative Dynamics, so anyone who
attended the first auction could not be expected to know this a priori.

(A side note: if my take on the UCC is correct, anyone trying to sell the Newman
prototypes will find less protection under the law than for a Sackson prototype.
The relevant sections only confer those rights of ownership held by the Sackson
family -- and apparently Alan never conferred the right of ownership of his
prototypes to Sid.)

news:0TadnXzfYOSmryCjXTWcpQ@comcast.com...

There are a couple of things that put me off on this particular auction.

First, it was reported that someone at the Sackson auction, while volunteers
were sorting out the prototypes was overheard to say "Bazaar is still
there." This indicates that whoever it was (either the current person
selling or some other bidder) knew the prototype was there, knew the family
did not want to sell it, and still wanted it anyway and evidently did not
tip anyone off as to where it was. This definitely smacks of tryong to get
away with something to me.

Second, the current seller now is very aware that the family did not want to
sell the prototypes. This seller also attaches some glowing copy about Sid
Sackson to their auctions. Yet, they are still keeping the auction going
because of the money they anticipate bringing in. This means that the
tribute they give to Sackson is a crock. They really don't give a damn about
him at all. They just want to rake in the bucks and don't care how they do
it. This lack of integrity puts me off dealing with this person. After all,
if they have no integrity in regards to how they acquire the goods they
sell, why should I trust them in buying anything from them? If they are
willing to screw over Sackson's family for a few bucks, they certainly would
do the same to any buyer in a heartbeat.

As I said, I will nto be touching any of their auctions, no matter how
appealing the item. It is not worth the risk to me to knowingly deal with
someone who, in my opinion, is of dubious character.

Paul Sauberer