54 30th June 2012 letters to the editor


SIR – Reading the fair-minded defence of the buyer’s premium from Thomas Jenner-Fust of Chorley’s (In defence of the auctioneers: quality service costs time and money, Letters, ATG No 2045) prompts me to attempt a reply in kind. I have no wish to be part of what may


seem to him to be an “open season on auctioneers”. The only auctioneers directly


responsible for the premium are those who introduced it back in the 1970s, Christie’s and Sotheby’s. Other auction houses have simply been drawn along in their wake, as Mr Jenner-Fust points out, in order to remain competitive, for only with the buyer’s premium in place can an auctioneer afford to discount the stated vendor’s commission. And here we begin to unfold the


unsavoury reality of the premium. It is in the fi rst place a deceit: the buyer is paying a top-up vendor’s commission.


Championntiques A


BLOGGERS spotting celebs at the Olympia fair homed in on Jemima Khan, who is a regular visitor at antiques events. One said they failed to


see Mick Jagger this year (seen at the 2011 event), but Jemima was “eyeing up the same pair of panels that I saw on Peter Petrou’s stand of the circulatory and nervous systems”. Another wrote: “Just spotted Jemima Khan looking at two gorgeous Mori plaques.” It certainly doesn’t seem


to be a one-off visit. The Daily Mail said she was seen at the Decorative Arts Fair in Battersea earlier this year, supposedly buying a “10ft- long, zinc-covered table from the stall of Lincolnshire-based dealer Matthew Cox”. Another star spotted at


the Olympia fair was Eddie Redmayne, the Old Etonian actor who shot to fame in Birdsong and will appear in a fi lm version of Les Misérables.  If you know of any public


fi gures championing the cause of antiques like this, please let us know. You can email us at editorial@atgmedia.com


Yet in defence of the premium Mr Jenner-Fust refers to all the help to prospective buyers that has to be paid for – condition reports, supplementary images, illustrated online catalogues, online bidding etc. So which is it – a vendor’s commission


or a charge to the buyer for services? It is one and pretends to be the other. The pretence is empty. It cannot be


a charge for services, because all such services, as Mr Jenner-Fust says, are to prospective buyers, whereas the only payer is the solitary successful bidder, who may not have made use of those services. Besides, those services are discretionary: the auctioneer has no contractual obligation to prospective buyers. How could he or she? The only


proper way would be to charge separately for each condition report, each supplementary image etc. Not on, obviously. Also, when Mr Jenner-Fust


ivan macquisten email: editorial@atgmedia.com


That was a fair-minded defence of the buyer’s premium... but you surely must agree that dealers have a valid grievance


says in regard to the help to buyers that “...we want to attract buyers to our sales... in order to obtain a good price for our vendors” he is admitting all that help is provided ultimately on the vendors’ behalf. Well, then the vendors should be paying the bill. But to present that bill straightforwardly as, say, a 30% negotiable commission... well, that is hardly attractive to prospective vendors. When ‘Christebys’ fi rst introduced


the premium it did appear, re-using Mr Jenner-Fust’s phrase, that they had declared an open season on the trade.


“So which is it – a vendor’s commission or a charge to the buyer for services? It is one and pretends to be the other”


Most vendors baffl ed by the fee structure


SIR – As Mr Jenner-Fust confi rms, auctioneers act solely on behalf of vendors. Should auctioneers not therefore advise vendors of the purchase price of their goods? For, as things stand, the vendor is only ever advised of the ‘pretend’ price, aka the hammer price, and the true costs of the transaction are thereby concealed. In London, vendors’ costs are 32%, yet the vendor is not


told. Most vendors, moreover, are completely baffl ed by the fee structure. Auctioneers base their fees on the ‘hammer’ fi gure, pretending this is the purchase price. It isn’t. The purchase price is the sum for which a thing is


purchased. This sum includes both auction fees. Sellers’ costs are a percentage of the purchase price, not of the lesser ‘hammer’


This was confi rmed when later they began promoting themselves as retailers. And that’s when the premium began to soar to cover the new costs involved – big advertising and public relations campaigns, special previews, receptions, glossier catalogues etc. By the way, the move into retailing


also appears to be in defi ance of statute. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s.12, states “...on a sale by auction... the buyer is not in any circumstances to be regarded as dealing as a consumer”. Mr Jenner-Fust deserves applause


for trying to resist the steady rise of the premium, and I am pleased that has helped his business. Yet, he surely must agree that dealers have a valid grievance. And as long as the premium remains, so will the grievance.


Frank Dux Bath


fi gure. Sellers thus incur hidden costs thanks to the ‘premium’. It is an auctioneer’s legal duty to disclose such costs. Failure


to do so breaches section 3 of the Fraud Act. Moreover, misleading the seller or causing loss breaches section 2. And fi nally, a procedure which acts against the seller, such as a confusing fee structure, also breaches section 4 of the Act. Sellers’ representatives who consign goods to auction


must also advise their principals as to costs. Failure to do so correctly puts them in breach of the Act. Should representatives receive an introductory auction fee, failure to inform principals constitutes a further breach. Auctioneers have hoodwinked a generation of vendors. Fees


used to be 10%. Today, a third of proceeds can vanish in fees without the vendor realising. Is it not time action was brought to reinstate full disclosure of selling costs?


Andrew Fenton Walden, Felbridge, Sussex


How can an auctioneer also act for a lbuyer?


SIR – Of course, David Mason is absolutely right to criticise the thoroughly unprofessional, and now extortionate levy: the buyer’s premium – and stress, for the benefi t of those hoodwinked into believing that the charge is not borne by the vendor, that it most defi nitely is (see Buyer’s premium is a confl ict of interest, Letters, ATG No 2043). But writing as a retired chartered


surveyor, I was thoroughly disgusted that the Royal Institute did not condemn it, but actually allowed its members to adopt a practice, which refl ects what we have been forced to witness more and more in our society: integrity being downtrodden by avaricious skulduggery.


Whether the shabby cloak – to mix


metaphors – is worn by politicians, police, journalists, or auctioneers behind grand facades, those basic ethical rules which were once held so high have, to the country’s shame, been derided. As long ago as October 1988 it was


reported in your paper that the major London auction houses would be subject to licensing control by Westminster City Council. Condition 10 read “...the registrant... shall ensure that any relevant sale is conducted fairly and with due regard to the interests of both buyer and seller”. How in heaven’s name can an


auctioneer, who must essentially be an agent fi rst and foremost for the vendor, act also for the buyer?


It is inexcusable and should never


have been allowed to be given the sham imprimatur of respectability.


Michael Bolongaro Kendal


We welcome your correspondence. Please email the Editor at: editorial@atgmedia.com


The Editor reserves the right to amend correspondence where necessary for publication.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56