Why is the quantity not shown whole?

[jdaw1]

I’m puzzled by two lot descriptions from an auction held in Yorkshire in autumn 1924:


In lots 250 and 251, why is the quantity not shown whole? Why 2 dozen and 2â…™ dozens, rather than 4â…™ dozens? Why 3 and 3 and 2 and 3 and 3 dozens, rather than 14 dozens?

[DRT]

A Dutch Auction?

[g-man]

I’m puzzled by two lot descriptions from an auction held in Yorkshire in autumn 1924:


In lots 250 and 251, why is the quantity not shown whole? Why 2 dozen and 2â…™ dozens, rather than 4â…™ dozens? Why 3 and 3 and 2 and 3 and 3 dozens, rather than 14 dozens?

When hart davis does that with large lots.

it usually means that 1 portion of the lot is XXX condition while the other portion of the lot is in YYY condition.

[jdaw1]

When hart davis does that with large lots.

it usually means that 1 portion of the lot is XXX condition while the other portion of the lot is in YYY condition.

In which case the various conditions would be specified, which isn’t obviously happening here.

A Dutch Auction?

If this was meant seriously, more information is needed.

[DRT]

A Dutch Auction?

If this was meant seriously, more information is needed.

My understanding of a Dutch Auction is that multiple identical or very similar lots are listed. The first of those is auctioned in the normal way, thus setting the price for that and all subsequent lots. The winner has the option of buying the first lot or as many of the lots as he/she wishes to buy at that price. If there are any left they are offered to the other bidders at the same price. I have no idea what happens if they are not all taken.

[jdaw1]

You appear to be suggesting that these are really a sequence of lots, rather than being a single lot, with the usual time-saving ‘parcel’ convention. That makes sense.

[DRT]

You appear to be suggesting that these are really a sequence of lots, rather than being a single lot, with the usual time-saving ‘parcel’ convention. That makes sense.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I think DRT is correct. My interpretation of the lotting would be that you bid for the first lot and, if you win, get the option at a pro-rated price on the balance of the bottles in the lot. If you choose not to buy the remaining bottles in the lot then they are re-offered.

[Glenn E.]

A Dutch Auction?

That would also be my guess, though it makes less sense for lot 251 since the parcels aren't all similar in size. Another possibility is that the various lots came from different places and so are separated out for sale by source. Since there's no mention of condition I would expect them all to be the same (or very close) but I might still prefer to bid on one parcel over another based on its provenance, which might be too verbose to detail in that document.

[DRT]

A Dutch Auction?

That would also be my guess, though it makes less sense for lot 251 since the parcels aren't all similar in size. Another possibility is that the various lots came from different places and so are separated out for sale by source. Since there's no mention of condition I would expect them all to be the same (or very close) but I might still prefer to bid on one parcel over another based on its provenance, which might be too verbose to detail in that document.

I haven't checked, but I think jdaw1 will probably confirm that this was the auction of the contents of one house, these lots being from the "Wine Cellar". And each Lot is described as coming from one wine merchant.

[DRT]

A Dutch Auction?

That would also be my guess, though it makes less sense for lot 251 since the parcels aren't all similar in size.

3 3 3 3 3 and 2 are similar. 3 3 3 3 and 45 would be not similar.

[Glenn E.]

A Dutch Auction?

That would also be my guess, though it makes less sense for lot 251 since the parcels aren't all similar in size.

3 3 3 3 3 and 2 are similar. 3 3 3 3 and 45 would be not similar.

2 and 2 1/6 are similar as there is only an 8% difference in the quantity of Port involved. If your glass contains 8% more Port than mine at a tasting, I might pout but I probably wouldn't make a fuss about it. There is even a chance that I wouldn't notice. Slim, but a chance nevertheless.

3 3 3 3 3 2 are not similar as the 3's contain 50% more Port than the 2. If your glass contains 50% more Port than mine at a tasting, there will be a fuss.

[DRT]

A Dutch Auction?

That would also be my guess, though it makes less sense for lot 251 since the parcels aren't all similar in size.

3 3 3 3 3 and 2 are similar. 3 3 3 3 and 45 would be not similar.

2 and 2 1/6 are similar as there is only an 8% difference in the quantity of Port involved. If your glass contains 8% more Port than mine at a tasting, I might pout but I probably wouldn't make a fuss about it. There is even a chance that I wouldn't notice. Slim, but a chance nevertheless.

3 3 3 3 3 2 are not similar as the 3's contain 50% more Port than the 2. If your glass contains 50% more Port than mine at a tasting, there will be a fuss.

I must disagree on the basis that 3 and 2, in an auction context, are almost exactly the same.

[jdaw1]

If your glass contains 8% more Port than mine at a tasting, I might pout but I probably wouldn't make a fuss about it. There is even a chance that I wouldn't notice.

Noted, perhaps greatly to my advantage.

[jdaw1]

I haven't checked, but I think jdaw1 will probably confirm that this was the auction of the contents of one house, these lots being from the "Wine Cellar". And each Lot is described as coming from one wine merchant.

Current draft of the text, the wording still needing a little re-arranging, says:

• â—‹ Auction catalogue at the Courtauld: ‟Catalogue of the Valuable Appointments of the Residence and other Effects”, Oldside, East Morton, Near Bingley, sold by ‟Hollis & Webb, Auctioneers, Leeds”, ‟Price Two Shillings”, on 30 September to 4 October 1924. Lot 251 was described as ‟1920 Vintage Port, bottled 1922, shipped by Taylor, Fladgate, supplied by Lupton & Son, Bradford”, and appears to be divided into five sub-lots of 3 dozens, 3 dozens, 3 dozens, 3 dozens and 2 dozens.

[uncle tom]

I think this is an old way of offering a parcel lot.

Many moons ago, whilst at a bit of a loose end, I went along for the ride to an agricultural auction in Wisbech (which, I recall, took place at about 4 a.m.)

Across the auction floor were pallets of carrots, onions etc - mostly in 50Kg sacks. The auctioneer moved from pallet to pallet, conducting the auction at a pace that was hard to follow.

At each pallet, the first successful bidder was asked how many sacks he wanted, and after noting that, the auctioneer then started again for the remaining sacks, sometimes running the bidding half a dozen times before all the sacks on a pallet had been sold.

- so one lot could have half a dozen or more buyers

Tom

[Glenn E.]

almost exactly

Didn't we just have a thread on this topic?

[jdaw1]

almost exactly

Didn't we just have a thread on this topic?

The full quotation shows that DRT was being facetious.

I must disagree on the basis that 3 and 2, in an auction context, are almost exactly the same.

[Glenn E.]

almost exactly

Didn't we just have a thread on this topic?

The full quotation shows that DRT was being facetious.

I must disagree on the basis that 3 and 2, in an auction context, are almost exactly the same.

Further proof that Scots should stick to whisky.

[DRT]

almost exactly

Didn't we just have a thread on this topic?

The full quotation shows that DRT was being facetious.

I must disagree on the basis that 3 and 2, in an auction context, are almost exactly the same.

Further proof that Scots should stick to whisky.

And Americans should avoid humour

[Glenn E.]

almost exactly

Didn't we just have a thread on this topic?

The full quotation shows that DRT was being facetious.

I must disagree on the basis that 3 and 2, in an auction context, are almost exactly the same.

Further proof that Scots should stick to whisky.

And Americans should avoid humour

I can't decide whether your precision was intentional or accidental.

[Andy Velebil]

It's obvious, the period key on their typewriter broke after typing the title. Thus, they could not list the lot as 2.1666 cases