It's just... I mean... so many questions, but here's the most pertinent one, to me: why were you bidding in the first place? How much did it jump? You are presenting this as if the number magically doubled at the click of your button... but were you not planning on driving out there anyway, as a requirement of bidding? If your story is true, and the system put you way over what you had budgeted to bid, then why not present the facts as such from the get and ask for advice on resolving the problem? Cdsilva is right... they cannot force you to pay if you don't want to pay and it actually was an error. Also... I'm assuming your plan was to essentially sell the rights to pick the chairs up?
The alleged auction site glitch is a red herring in the narrative. The OP has already laid out reasoning for $3k as a reasonable asking price for the chairs, and the intention was admittedly just to flip them, so it really can't matter very much whether the expected profit was a few hundred more or less. Therefore the alleged auction site glitch that caused the discrepancy in investment can not matter very much.
Hey what happened to the rule about this forum not being an evaluation service?
Where is Niceguy when you need him?
It's funny… when there is enough red meat floating in the water, everyone forgets the rules and gravitates towards the larger offense. (In this case possible deception and/or greed/ and the mystery of the motive)
This is a great example why there should be no rules or categories on this board.
The best and most fun threads always wind their way through several major aspects of collecting and transcend categorization.
I think we all demonstrate a double standard quite regularly, (and as it should be)
Academic rules and structures go by the wayside when content is interesting enough.
This is how art happens (sometimes).
Technically I don't think the rules were violated in regards to asking for a valuation. The request was for information about comps (the basis of an evaluation, but not, critically, an evaluation proper) and rarity of the color.
And there is nothing in the rules against _giving_ a valuation, so technically that is acceptable too.
I think it is actually entertaining how this post has flirted with the "not a free valuation service" edge.
Me too Reamie. Very entertaining thread!
And I agree with Leif. Technically. I was just sayin'...
Patrick and Alix, I know you have explained that you never meant the categories to be too rigid, and went out of your way to invite "cross-over" comments.
My comment was mostly in jest.
Nice chairs, I must say. And the price strikes me as fair enough on the surface. OOPS.
And just for the record, CDSilva,
"After 1955 the DKR was available with standard wire seat and back, with a single seat cushion, a full-seat and backrest cushion or two-part upholstery all designed by Alexander Girard, head of Fabrics and Textiles at Herman Miller at the time. Chairs upholstered in the two-piece harlequin shape are sometimes referred to as a 'bikini chair'!"
But then again, you know everything...
http://www.miniaturechairman.com/eames-miniatures/archives/04-2013
re: criticism of the "designed by" Alexander Girard bit, or selection vs. design:
I think a point there is that selection of elements is part of the design process but individual selections may not be "new" designs in themselves... e.g. Girard did not "design" the color blue, nor did he design the Naugahyde, though he may have specified the use of the stuff for the upholstery of the chair. In this case, the product was pre-existing and not "designed" by Girard.
I always think it's funny when I see old Herman Miller swatches of plain old natural linen or something that with the "DESIGNED BY..." label, and they sell for a hundred freaking dollars on ebay or whatever
I suppose that's a common complaint about "designer" shit though
Girard didn't design the checkerboard pattern either!
re alexander girard "non designs" …..
While what you say is true OW, even when things appear fairly straightforward, they are very often chosen and coordinated in such a way as to still be considered a valid "design".
For instance, a PARTICULAR blue, combined with a particular texture, in a particular proportion, or combined with a particular metal, are all variables that could indeed be ROYALLY SCREWED UP by a lesser designer.
Girard did not design the color blue-- but he selected a particular blue, at a particular point in time. Using that blue might well have constituted a risk in its day, or at least pushed the edge of what was acceptable.
I would venture to say this applies even more when we are talking about highly reductive pieces.
Simplicity well done is often mistaken for a non-choice.
(I think back a year or so ago to when one of our posters was doing his own versions of the Eames LTRs, and was thinking about doing the Eames Surfboard table in a dark wood veneer top… there is a reason that Eames chose not to do that, on that particular scale and shape. But Eame's restraint doesn't "show" because it was a choice NOT to do something.)
But I get your point about some of the most generic choices. I have thought the same thing myself on some of those ebay listings.
Looks like Ruben decided to bail on this lot after all. I wonder if he'll bid again in the upcoming auction . . .
http://www.wright20.com/auctions/2016/02/american-design/105
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com