Next GLCS Auction

Upcoming Events and Club News

Moderators: Jombi21, TheFishGuy, Don Danko, tankmates, LewC, Hilary, IThinkFast

Dan Woodland
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 3048
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Next GLCS Auction

Post by Dan Woodland » Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:28 am

LewC wrote:I don't know why I would want to mislead anyone, especially since I consider the OCA my primary club, not GLCS.
No, Lew I was not saying YOU were personally or purposely misleading people but the numbers you "quoted" do. I was simply trying to point out that you, meaning anyone, can't quote numbers without knowing the exact final figures especially when dealing with money from fish and goods people auction. A lot of fish keepers, you included (I think), need that income from fish and equipment sales to help pay for the hobby.
LewC wrote: The numbers in my 9/20 posting (that Dan quoted) were estimates, but the numbers in my 9/21 posting were related to me by the GLCS president after doing the "final tally".
Forgive me but you didn't say that in your 9-20 post. I was replying based on your wording which was:
LewC wrote: (from 09-20 post)
There were many high quality and rare (for auctions) offerings. I'd say less than a half dozen went for only $1, less than a dozen that went for only $2, and not a lot that went for only $3. Maybe around half went in the $10 to $20 range.
When I see, I'd say or less than, or not a lot I think estimate not real numbers like 9 or 11 or etc.. In an analyst's world, of which I am, estimation is along way from reality.

Your 09-21 post didn't address the previous post on 09-20 it simply stated the average bag price was $11 on a total of about 325 items.
LewC wrote: Also, while there were no explicit accusations, a close reading of at least one of the above posts reveals clear implications that the club was being greedy. There willingness to make less profit in order to have a better auction proves that nothing could be farther from the truth.
True but I don't do well with accusations and people are entitled to their opinions.
LewC wrote: Auctions are for buyers, too. I think many of the attendees (even "little guys") went home happy that they at least had a shot at a nice assortment of valuable Tangs (eg. Paracyps, Callochromis, and various sand sifters and feather fins, among others) and a few nice South Americans, without having to sit through lot after lot of common auction fish.
True, but I bet the "little guys" didn't auction much being only about 325 bags.
LewC wrote: Concerning Kyle's complaint that attendees at the summer auction weren't allowed to view the bags after the auction began: I agree. That was a poor solution to a problem. At this fall auction, the problem was solved by putting the auctioneer on the stage, and people were again allowed to look at the bags.

All auctions don't have to be the same, and talking to my friends in the club, GLCS continues to mull new ideas for auctions that will please area hobbyists.
Good I'm glad they are still working on it. That's what this and other forums are for, everyone ahs a chance to say something and to disagree making change happen.

Looking back to the small guy. Starting the auction $35 dollars (based on 15 items) in the hole is a bit surprising/intimidating especially if you don’t have the hot rare fish at the time.

You also mentioned in one of your posts the OCA did something similar and you are correct but we also discussed at length the “little guy”, “new kid” or “specialist” would get short changed. For example, rhetorically speaking, I’m curious how many rare Central Americans there were at the auction or maybe a kid auctioning Convicts or a common Mbuna?

Yes we, the OCA, spent a lot of time, especially me it seems, defending the position we took which was out of necessity as the Extravaganza auctions were getting way too big and we had the financial research to back up our decision which included bag and species limits.

The analysis showed the “sweet spot” for auctions was in the 800-840 item range not the 1100-1200 we were experiencing. We found items over 840 made no more for the seller or the club and actually cost the club more since we needed to rent rooms longer to cover the massive item counts with sellers being the only winners getting item after item for a single dollar. And yes with that reduction in numbers came higher quality fish and higher prices, A win-win-win where sellers make more, the club makes the same with less effort and cost and the buyer gets higher quality fishes to choose from.

TheFishGuy
Posts: 2359
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Next GLCS Auction

Post by TheFishGuy » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:20 pm

There seemed to be a TON of yellow labs in the auction that were going for more than what they were worth... So much that I wish I would have brought mine along to sell....

No convicts or HRPs though...

Some turquise severums (quite a few bags of 5 2" fish that all went for atleast $10)

Nothing else exciting in my opinion though... Just a bunch of africans...

LewC
Posts: 3080
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Norwalk, OH

Re: Next GLCS Auction

Post by LewC » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:30 am

Whoa.

This has taken a turn! I joined into this thread to defend a few people, not to be accusitive myself, and I apologize to anyone I may have accidentally offended. (Anyone reading this thread should know that all of us that have posted here so far are acquaintances and most are people I consider to be friends.)

I haven't recieved my check yet, but I know it's going to be small. However, I originally expected to get nothing after the deductions...I was just trying to support the auction a little and thin a few tanks. Everyone has to do their own calculations and figure for themselves whether or not to submit fish, which and how many. Even then, it's a crap shoot.

I think that MFR's comment that some of the fish were going too high is a good reminder that "worth" is in the eye of the beholder.

Peace :)

Dan Woodland
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 3048
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Next GLCS Auction

Post by Dan Woodland » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 am

Apologies Lew, I'm not offended nor am I trying to offend, just having a conversation.

My analyst training simply demands I be accurate and I was simply analyzing the auction results you provided.

I didn’t think I was being personal or attacking anything let alone a person or people. I guess the lack of verbal and non-verbal communications hurt the communication process as is why I usually don’t use this media for this type of subject.
LewC wrote:Whoa.

This has taken a turn! I joined into this thread to defend a few people, not to be accusitive myself, and I apologize to anyone I may have accidentally offended. (Anyone reading this thread should know that all of us that have posted here so far are acquaintances and most are people I consider to be friends.)

I haven't recieved my check yet, but I know it's going to be small. However, I originally expected to get nothing after the deductions...I was just trying to support the auction a little and thin a few tanks. Everyone has to do their own calculations and figure for themselves whether or not to submit fish, which and how many. Even then, it's a crap shoot.

I think that MFR's comment that some of the fish were going too high is a good reminder that "worth" is in the eye of the beholder.

Peace :)

User avatar
fmueller
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Next GLCS Auction

Post by fmueller » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:54 pm

Dan Woodland wrote:you, meaning anyone, can't quote numbers without knowing the exact final figures
There is a German saying: "Don't trust any numbers, unless you fabricated them yourself" :)

Frank

Post Reply

Return to “Announcements”