Scotch Whisky Auctions

[The Kas Man]

Hello all,

I may upset some of the "whisky mafia" on here with some of my comments, apologies in advance.

Am I the only person on here that is really disappointed with SWA.

The auction system they use is bit unfair I think and I quote,
"The auction will close between 6pm and 9pm on the last evening, usually the last Sunday of the month. If no bids are made on lots within five minutes, the hammer will fall.
Sniper software, which depends on last-second bids, will merely extend the length of the auction for another five minutes."

Not sure what sniper software you could use when you have not got an exact time that a lot finishes, not that I wish to use a sniper.

Why do they charge the buyer a 10% fee when ebay and another well known site do not, they both give you an end time which I think is better.

SWA have to make money which is fair enough but I think they could attract a lot more buyers by reducing the 10% or making it free or even charging sellers 15%.

Proper auction houses charge you between 15%-25% but they are live auctions, SWA do charge a smaller fee but not for the same kind of auction.

Also it would be nice to get a mail to say your item has been posted.

Yes I have bought from them and will use them again no doubt, but I am happy with them, no.

I look forward to any comments

[whiskystu]

I agree with some of your points, particularly the buyers premium. It really just makes the winning bids look artificially low, you got to remember to add 10% in your was before bidding.

I also find delivery slow and communication a bit rubbish (e.g. 3 emails all the same saying you have won or no response to emails (and no they're not in my junk folder!))

BUT you can find bargains and if I was ever to sell, alot of big name bottles fetch a pretty good price

There's also the added price of mind that your getting a good condition and 'real' product and not an opened bottle or water or worse in a re-sealed empty

[McKay]

The only comment i take offence to is the whisky mafia comment, what the hell is that supposed to mean.

I dont see how anyone would be upset by your other comments there are some valid points. The charges SWA makes will only now be starting to get noticed as many here may only have used the SWA in the past when it was starting up and these charges didnt exist and now when they return to use it they find a 10% buyer fee. I do believe it will influence what people bid. I also wonder why the auctions finish on a Sunday, it would make more sense to finish on a week day not a quiet Sunday night. It seems to me the Sunday finish must be convenient for SWA and not the buyer or seller.

Personally i think the seller should pay the charges for this type of auction set up

[Archer]

I havent used it myself but i was surprised at what the charges are now for the system and service provided.

Whiskystu makes a very good point

[The Kas Man]

"Whisky Mafia"

This being my first post and a newbee on this site, I was expecting the older and wiser members to disagree with my comments regarding SWA.

If I have offended anyone, can you please tell me who the "Don" is...?
I had heard that if I sell any of my whisky, he will make me an offer I can't refuse.

[eelbrook]

I've not bought anything from an SWA auction, but I have sold a few bottles that were surplus to requirements. So, the following is a seller's perspective.

Communication was poor in the early days, but I have no problem whatsoever with it now. Indeed, it is very, very good.

The 10% seller's commission is 'par for the course'.

The only additional seller's cost is P&P getting all the lots up to Glasgow, but (on the flip side) there is nothing like Paypal charges to worry about.

'Hammer prices' vary from item to item (as with any auction). Generally, 'blue chip' expressions make more than on other auction sites. But bottlings from lesser known distilleries flop a bit.

Perhaps my only noteworthy criticism is the length of time that the seller has to wait for net payment - sometimes a month after an auction has closed.


I'd offer a couple of comments regarding buying.

A 10% buying commission isn't uncommon at auction houses. Also, SWA's is clearly explained in its T&Cs. So, if you don't like it, don't bid. It didn't seem to put buyers off last weekend.

As to closing on a 'quiet' Sunday evening, you'd be surprised how much bidding goes on during the last day. Quiet it isn't.


To close, I think that the early success of SWA has genuinely taken its founders by surprise. There's been a very steep increase in lots per month in just 10 months. They're catching up!

[r900p]

Closing on a Sunday works for me, as during the week my mind is work orientated and Saturday i'm mostly out and drunk (thank God it doesn't finish then - drunken bidding!).

As for buyers premium becuase of it I don't buy here choosing ebay and WA as what I bid is what I pay. Having sold the communications is slow as is payment - you have to chase them for the money rather than them coming to you. A statement would be nice too if selling and statement of lot descriptions before they go in the auction. That's why I like WA as they almost ask for approval (we give you an option) before loading a lot. I sold the same bottle at WA and SWA, WA it got £278, and SWA £72 and I put that down to the description.

But generally very tasty bottles and quality assured.

[whisky_collector]

[eelbrook]

I don't think that it is appropriate to compare SWA with E-Bay.

E-Bay/Paypal takes 15%+ from the seller simply for: (a) allowing an item to be posted on its website and (b) effecting an automatic transfer of funds from a buyer to a seller and then (after a delay) into the seller's bank account. On an item per item basis, the cost of offering these two basic services must be minimal and the margin staggering.

SWA takes 20% (split fairly between buyer and seller) plus a £3 per item listing fee and a fixed £4 per item reserve fee. For this they: (a) professionally photograph the item (albeit that - wrongly in my opinion - they occasionally use a 'generic' photo); (b) research the bottling and write a description (albeit that some could be better); (c) deal with all queries from buyers; (d) host the auction of their website; (e) collect all monies; (f) pack all items and dispatch them to buyers, etc, etc. On an item per item basis, I be prepared to bet that their costs (especially staff time) are relatively high and the margin not that great.

However, there are two key points.

1. If you don't like SWA, simply don't buy/sell through it.
2. If you are prepared to use SWA, cut them a little more slack. After all, from nothing to 400 lots per month is quite daunting for an embryonic business

In closing, I agree completely with the last poster's key point. Whenever I buy a bottle of whisky online, I always think in terms of whether the overall price (inclusive of misc charges) is one that I consider fair and reasonable. If yes, I buy. If not, I don't

[Grant M]

I personally prefer the set up "what i bid is what i pay". I do think the buyers premiums will put bidders off (it does put me off) and may keep bidding lower than it could have been which cant be good for SWA or the sellers.

[eelbrook]

I don't mind the concept of a buyer's commission (as I'm used to it from attending live auctions).

However, I would set an upper cap on it. Paying a £5 buying commission on a £50 whisky is one thing, but a £150 commission on a £1500 whisky is quite another.

The counter argument is that anyone likely to part with £1500 for a bottle of malt will probably not 'bat an eye' at £150 on top.

Time will tell whether SWA has shot itself in the foot by moving from a fixed £4 buying fee to a 10% buying commission.

If it leads to a big fall away in buyers, a fall away in sellers will quickly follow.