Am I missing something here?

[joejoeshooter]

To be quite frank - I've bought 2 Items from Gunbroker.

A hat and 4 magazines. I actually bought a Sabre Defence stripped lower from a seller on Gunbroker. I found his email address on the contact info page - googled him - found out he has a pawn shop - looked at his website - ordered the lower directly form him - save $62 from the average selling price on Broker.

Now my beef - This is a copied quote from a listing for a 10/22 on Gunbroker -

NOT A RESERVE AUCTION, 'CUZ I HATE 'EM!!!!!!

The item has no bids on it and has a minimum bid of $260 and says NO RESERVE.

What am I missing here? What's the difference between NO RESERVE and them sticking a minimum bid in there.

What ever happened to letting the free market set the price?

I have sold over 250 items on eBay with a 100% rating. I had never listed an item with a reserve or minimum bid. The market will pay exactly what it's worth at that moment. I have rarely been surprised about what an item has brought. If fact, I don't even try to guess anymore.

With millions of people looking at the sights - I am one that believes you're not gonna have something "slip through".

By the way - I use Gunbroker as a research tool - and figure anything I see on there, I can get for about a third less - see lower example from above.

Also - I remember the cigar industry did this back in the mid 1990s. They got greedy and they pissed off their customers and now they are paying for it and begging for customers to come back. I see a lot of similarity here.

Your thoughts?

JJS

 

[Trebor]

The difference between setting a minimum bid and having a reserve is that the minimum bid is posted openly. You know that you have to bid *at least* that much and, if no one else bids, you have won the auction.

With an auction with a reserve the minium bid might be as low as a penny, but you won't know that the reserve is reached until someone places a bid that hits the reserve price.

Having a low minimum but a hidden reserve is a psychological thing that is to the seller's advantage. The buyer feels they have a good chance to get a deal with that minimum bid listed, even though the actual reserve may price the item so high that it is no longer a good deal. But, by the time the auction reaches the reserve, the bidders have gotten sucked into "auction fever" and "winning" the auction can be just as important to them as getting a good price.

Personally, I prefer an aution where the minimum bid is clearly stated then one with a low "minimum bid" but where the actual reserve is much higher then that.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I neglected to put a minimum bid or a reserve on one auction, and wound up selling a set of grips for one cent plus postage. :banghead:

I prefer not to play the "reserve" game when auctioning.

 

[joejoeshooter]

Well - I personally prefer a straight out auction.

Put it out there and sell - if you want to sell it. Don't stick your toe in the water.

As far as your grips - sometime folks get great deals on an true auction item. I still believe that they'll bring exactly what their worth. At that exact moment in time maybe there was a flood of grips or nobody wanted the grips. You did the right thing.

I bet you're glad the grips are gone.

 

[MAKster]

Making the minumum bid the lowest you'll take or close is the most efficient way to list. The people who list items for $1 and then have a $600 hidden reserve are just wasting people's time. These are usually relisted again and again. A no minimum/no reserve listing is too risky because most listings have only one or two bidders so you're unlikely to reach the fair market price.

 

[Hikingman]

Adding options like reserve, or buy-it-now add to the cost of the listing. This is one way for sellers to say, this is the minimum I will accept, and when you think about it, it's more transparent than starting at $1 and setting $150 as reserve-unknown to the bidder unless they reach that amount.

 

[ridata]

I bet you're glad the grips are gone.

I wouldn't be. If he wanted to give them away he could've done a trade, or some sort of giveaway, or just give away to a friend instead of some stranger.

 

[VegasGeorge]

I think setting a minimum opening bid is both sensible polite. If you don't want to participate in an auction starting at that figure, then don't. I think undisclosed reserves are stupid and emotionally difficult for the bidders.

Here is my auction strategy which has worked well for me in the past. I set a minimum opening bid equal to the least amount I would be willing to take for the item. Then I set a buy now price that I think would look like a reasonable deal to an interested buyer. In the auctions I participate in, the buy now price goes away as soon as someone places a bid on the item. That puts an interested buyer in a "use it or lose it" position as regards the buy now price. A little pressure never hurts. But like I said, I'm not greedy, and always set a reasonable buy now price. That way, everyone wins, I'm happy, the buyer's happy, what could be better?

 

[joejoeshooter]

I appreciate and respect the comments.

But -

I still say that the open community will set the correct price. Some days - maybe a bit more and some - maybe less.

I believe if you want a predetermined amount - you should just put it in your local gun shop and let them take their fee to sell it. Should be about 15% mine charges 20%.

I just sold a GSG-5 with about 2500 rounds through it for $1100. I cleared $880. The gun did have a few extras on it. I think it was a good deal for all 3 of us. (buyer, seller and merchant) And the gun shop has no hard dollars tied up in these deals - they like moving these kind of deals.

 

[22-rimfire]

I much prefer a minimum bid price on an auction even if it is "high". At least you have a feel for what the seller wants out of the item for sale and it is your choice whether or not to bid. Ultimately, the buyer sets the price one way or the other, and it is up to the seller to be willing to sell for that price or not.

 

[Kind of Blued]

A free market doesn't mean forcing sellers to give their stuff away if nobody wants to pay for it either.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Doesn't waste the time of people who think they'll get a 10/22 for $30.
A minimum bid like that takes the place of a reserve, but saying no reserve is pretty redundant, and irritating.
If you won't take less than $XXX you are just letting everyone know up front. Either way, if their starting bid, or reserve, is too high, they pay for the auction and are stuck with the gun. Not many people are big enough gamblers to do a no-reserve, no minimum price auction. You may come out ok, but if not you can get seriously hosed, and for the price of a reserve or minimum bid it's not worth saving the buck or so to take that kind of risk.
By the way if anyone wants a G23 I'll open the bidding at $900, no reserve! haha.

 

[APBT82]

What am I missing here? What's the difference between NO RESERVE and them sticking a minimum bid in there.

What ever happened to letting the free market set the price?

Thats what happened here. The seller set his price and if the buyer does not like it he can pass up on it. If enough buyers pass it up then he will lower the price or take it off the market.

The free market at work.

 

[7.62Surgeon]

I still say that the open community will set the correct price. Some days - maybe a bit more and some - maybe less.
QUOTE]

I once sold a 4-12x50 scope that i had picked up for $100. Because I didn't set a minimum price, I had to let it go for $15 plus S&h.
If you're trying to make money, don't reley on the open community...if they can get away with it, they'll pay as little as possible

 

[BBQLS1]

Minimum bid? Somethings are worth me keeping instead of selling for 1 cent.