Mallams auction, Oxford 12 Dec 2013

Been having a look at the online catalogue. Some nice studio pots, too rich for my blood sadly  

Question: We are all aware of the 'come and get me' prices profferd in the catalogue sometimes .... but what do I have to add to the online price?

Yes, I put in some low commission bids this time, but there is Buyers premium and VAT on that? Don't think I got anything but they were low bids.  

22 Crawford St. wrote:Question: We are all aware of the 'come and get me' prices profferd in the catalogue sometimes .... but what do I have to add to the online price?

The buyer's commission if you were at the sale was 20% plus VAT so if you bid £200 that would be £248 and if you bid £1000 that would be £1280, as there is 4% Artist Resale Rights to add on as well. If you bid online I think commission is higher.

Went along today and most things of interest went for considerably higher than the estimate and many for considerably more than I could every hope to get from any of my customers. Much auction fever in evidence. I did buy a nice pot though for a reasonable price.

Was it that nice John Bedding vase?

You're having a laugh.

Though for John Bedding that vase was impressive.

It could be said that I have a vested interest in people not buying at auction, leaving all the goodies for myself and fellow dealers to sell on to the public at higher prices but that is for the people who read this thread to decide.

These days I do by and large tend to sell pots by dead or ex-potters and so auction houses are in direct competition to me. That is something that I am not terribly proud of but in recent times efforts to sell current pots by contemporary makers has proved to be a struggle and a boy has to live.

Most of the old pots that I buy come from private individuals, who believe that selling to me is the best deal for them and in most cases it is. That does usually mean that I make some money in the future, although it can be many years down the line. However, I do take the risk of buying the item unlike auction houses and when it is offered for sale by me it is at a specific price and that is the maximum price any potential buyer is going to pay if they buy it from me. I do not add on buyer's premium, VAT or, if applicable, Artists' Resale Rights and will point this out whenever the opportunity arises. I do pay Artists' Resale Rights when applicable but that comes out of my profit not something that I stick on my customers bill like auction houses do.

The other main difference is that I do not give vague attributions to pots. I overheard a conversations at Mallams where one buyer told the other that he had done very well, having bought two Hamada pieces for much less than he was prepared to pay. In reality he had bought two Japanese plates that the auctioneer had suggest might be by Shoji Hamada.

Yes, there were a few bargains at Mallams but not as many as any buyer or potential buyer would have liked and, as I was there primarily with the intention of buying to resell, the Michael Buckland's were not something I considered.

If you really want to know, I bought a Bill Marshall, philpot, so are you going to tells us what you bought?

I think that I recall you flying in for the owl at the last minute but can't remember what you looked like.............. damn.

You did OK with what you bought and I would have expected you to have to pay more in a retail situation that sold those type of pots.

Bill Marshall's work did fetch more at auction before he died and just afterwards when speculators and people who wanted to have one of his pots were around. However, he still has his fans, me included, so I don't imagine having any trouble making a profit and, if I do, then I'm happy to keep it.

Unhappy.... WT??.

"A large Alan Wallwork-an obvious second with the angle grind cross though- not mentioned."

philpot wrote:Interesting how viewpoints can be different.
One would think that Studio Pots was trying to put people off bidding at auction!  

As someone who has no vested interest in these sales, I do agree with SP.

The "add on" fees are there to catch people out, auctions do everything possible to reach the highest price they can for their client, i.e. to get the most from commissions / premiums as they can.

Bidding off the wall, "attributions" and the use of other terms that are a bit misleading to unsuspecting buyers.

There can be good buys to be had, but for the less experienced buyers auctions can be pretty risky. Yet auctions have been attracting a lot of the latter in recent years, I suspect a lot of this is due to the way they are portrayed on TV shows.

philpot wrote:
    Did you perchance get the large Michael Buckland vase Studio Pots?
Nice piece.And a genuine bargain! 

One of his plates with the same pattern as the vase sold on ebay recently for a pittance. I don't think it's a name many collectors are aware of.

22 Crawford St. wrote:Unhappy.... WT??.

"A large Alan Wallwork-an obvious second with the angle grind cross though- not mentioned."

Alan spent many hours with angle grinder in hand to score through his signature in order that work that was damaged or had not been successful was clearly marked as a second before he sold them cheaply on Greenwich Market, as philpot states. He hoped that this would prevent unscrupulous people from reselling them as being his accepted work.

In the case of ones that aren't damaged the potter and potential customers aren't going to see eye to eye on every occasion.

I think I recall you having one that Alan has cut through which you are very happy with and JoetheHat, of Alan's website fame, persuaded me to sell him a small porcelain pot that Alan had treated in the same way, which Joe and I both thought was fine.

However, philpot and I were suggesting that it should have been pointed out by Mallams in their catalogue and online description, as at least one auction house recently has. It is then down to any potential customer to make their own decision, knowing that it is a pot that Alan has rejected as a second.

The vase in the Mallams auction didn't appear damaged, although I didn't look that closely, but I could see why Alan had given it the treatment.

If it is true that there was an AW was marked as a second (Lot 162) then it's very poor of Mallams not to mention it in the catalogue. They are not daft.

(Incidentally, I have recently seen two of these AW pieces on a stall, both marked with a line. Dealer wanted £175 and £200)