What? $60,000?

Skipitgirl · Postby **Skipitgirl** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:09 pm

The white colt out of Patchen Beauty by Devil his Due sold for $60,000. What? Im a little flabbergasted esp seeing the better bred and winning mares in foal going for NOTHING.

reedhill · Postby **reedhill** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:19 pm

OK IN MY BOOK! :lol:

CS · Postby CS » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:48 pm

Turns out is was a turn-back for lack of $$$ on buyer's part

http://auctions.bloodhorse.com/article/48839.htm

reedhill · Postby **reedhill** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:50 pm

Yeah saw that, I'd be mad if I was the other bidder! But I guess, they will find out soon enough.

dray33 · Postby **dray33** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:58 pm

Pardon my stupidity, but how does this happen? Aren't the buyers supposed to be vetted before the sale? I mean, that's what a sales company does... all the forms and data and information, the presentation, the reputation. If they cant assure that the person is a real buyer, what is it that they do? If it were me, I would be upset... not just at the fake buyer, but the sales company too.Maybe it's not their responsibility, I just don't know.

madelyn · Postby **madelyn** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:03 pm

That is not what the article says. It just says that the buyer is a pinhooker who plans to resell the colt at OBS this summer.

LB · Postby LB » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:08 pm

As Madelyn said, the article merely said that the new owner is planning to pinhook (resell) him. Nothing unusual about that, even if the headline is misleading.

dray33 wrote:Pardon my stupidity, but how does this happen? Aren't the buyers supposed to be vetted before the sale? I mean, that's what a sales company does... all the forms and data and information, the presentation, the reputation. If they cant assure that the person is a real buyer, what is it that they do? If it were me, I would be upset... not just at the fake buyer, but the sales company too.Maybe it's not their responsibility, I just don't know.

Yes, Keeneland vets everyone ahead of time--but they can't prevent the occasional idiot from raising his or her hand. Nevertheless, if a horse does get turned back and need to be resold--and it sells for a lesser amount--Keeneland makes up the difference to the seller.

pokeyman · Postby **pokeyman** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:16 pm

No, this is link:

http://auctions.bloodhorse.com/article/48844.htm

dray33 · Postby **dray33** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:43 pm

LB wrote:Yes, Keeneland vets everyone ahead of time--but they can't prevent the occasional idiot from raising his or her hand. Nevertheless, if a horse does get turned back and need to be resold--and it sells for a lesser amount--Keeneland makes up the difference to the seller.

Well that's fair. They should publish the names of the people who scam. In the NY Times. Bold print.

madelyn · Postby **madelyn** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:44 am

But there was no opportunity for that in this case, the sale is over. Does that mean the seller takes home the horse AND $60,000?

Dave C · Postby **Dave C** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:31 am

I believe from the article it implies (by the term gracious) that the seller takes home the horse but not the 60k. I believe the seller could have forced Keeneland to give him the 60k (minus commission) and Keeneland would have been the proud owner of the horse. I suspect that Keeneland, after several very weak sales, is probably not bringing in the commission revenue in line with its' expenses and therefore really does not have the resources to take on that type of liability. You can expect that they are preparing to put buyers under much more scrutiny for all the 2009 sales as they can not afford this happening again.

Hold Your Peace · Postby **Hold Your Peace** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:28 am

I knew these people (the buyers) were knuckledheads when they thought they'd make out on this $60,000 purchase by pinhooking it to OBS August so the fact they didn't have credit authorized for their purchase fits.

With the very nature of these sales with (hopefully) large numbers of people there constantly entering and leaving the pavillion it would be impossible for bid spotters to verify bidders. The sale would take forever if they had to do that. You could maybe go to a system where all authorized bidders had paddles and maybe color code them by the range of the credit they had established but there's still chances for problems there. A bidder with a colored paddle showing they're approved for up to $50,000 total credit might use it to buy six $50,000 horses which would put them way beyond their limit.

It would be a sad statement on people today if they had to go to a paddle system.

But we have had a fair number of incidents like this in recent years:

Dr, Karen Sanderson of England and trainer Paul D'Arcy

$1.1 million filly, a $75,000 colt, and a $120,000 filly purchased at Keeneland September 2008.

No credit. All resold.

xxx

Susan Blais

2008 New York Breeders Sale in Ocotber 9 horses = $171,000

No credit.

xxx

Then a few years ago Brett St. Amand bought $341,000 worth of yearlings at the WA Tbred Breeders sale for Cecil Underwood and all
of those sales were voided.

xxx

summerhorse · Postby **summerhorse** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:31 pm

They ought to go to electronic bidding. The computer would automatically cap your bid.

AscotStud · Postby **AscotStud** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:53 pm

They ought to go to electronic bidding. The computer would automatically cap your bid

You are able to pay with cash after the hammer drops so that would knock out those people. It would also cut out partnerships or agents who are buying for 5-10 different clients. The logistics make it way more of a pain than having to deal with the occasional slip up.

Tonno100 · Postby **Tonno100** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:35 am

There was also a very nasty one involving Charlie Gordon-Watson at Tattersalls in England.