Buyer's and seller's premiums

MADAM – I read with great interest your ‘The price is right’ report of the recent ATG round table, debating how to charge for expertise (ATG No 2358). I would like to respond to a question you posed as to whether dealers should have to justify their mark-up.

MADAM – I read with great interest your round table report (ATG No 2358). You asked us to continue the debate, so I write to you to make some observations.

MADAM – In your round table report on charging for expertise (ATG No 2358), you identified topics raised in the discussion and asked us to give our views them. So here goes:

In an increasingly complex marketplace, how should auctioneers and dealers charge for their services?

MADAM – Like David Carter (ATG No 2345) I can remember the time when we auctioneers could make a living with only seller’s commission of 10%.

MADAM – In response to letters on credit card fees and buyer’s premium at auction houses in ATG No 2345, I would argue the assumptions made are misplaced – certainly in the case of how our auction house works.

Sotheby’s has made a u-turn on its pledge to scrap fees for purchasers at its online-only auctions.

Christie’s has reacted quickly to rival Sotheby’s announcement of a new premium structure (ATG No 2306) by increasing its own buyer’s premium.

MADAM – I write regarding the ban on passing on the cost of credit card transaction fees in our credit (debt)-obsessed society (ATG No 2302).

In the debate about transparency of auctioneer fees, sparked by the Advertising Standards Authority December 2016 ruling that buyer's premium needs clearer promotion, the point of view of vendors needs to be heard too, three letter writers argue.