Maine Antique Digest April 2015

37 / 229

Maine Antique Digest, April 2015 5-A
would produce a good result
when one and only one person
bids the highest price, but when
two people in the room want to
bid the same amount, the per-
son in the front row will always
get the item because he got per-
mission from the auctioneer to
make his bid first. The results
are skewed. In the same way, on-
line absentee bidding appears to
skew the results in favor of its
clients because it allows them
to get to a tie bid first. (Remem-
ber, I’m talking about only tie
or equal bids. When one bid is
higher than all the rest, the proc-
ess works fine.)
Getting there first has always
been a factor in a traditional auc-
tion, and the same is true with
or without Internet bidding and
with or without absentee bid-
ding. Traditionally, I’m in the
same room bidding against an-
other human being with a pad-
dle. If he gets his paddle in the
air faster than I do, he’s won the
race fair and square. Or if the
auctioneer happens to be look-
ing in his direction, he might
accept his bid before mine. Or if
the auctioneer has cataracts and
can’t see my paddle, or if he’s
hard of hearing and can’t hear
me…too bad. That’s the way the
cookie crumbles. The auctioneer
can accept only one bid at a time,
and no process is perfect. How-
ever, if another bidder can raise
his paddle instantaneously, with
the speed of a planet-destroying
cyborg, I the mere human being
am at a distinct disadvantage.
The second unfair advantage
for Internet absentee bidders lies
in the priority system for iden-
tical bids. Let me construct a
hypothetical example. Let’s say
I make an absentee bid of $50
via the auctioneer on June 1, and
let’s say that a bevy of Internet
bidders make identical absentee
bids of $50 on June 4, 5, 7, and
10 with LiveAuctioneers. Let’s
assume that these are the only
bids made on the item. Obvi-
ously it will sell for $50 because
that’s the highest bid. But which
$50 bid will get it? The Internet
service invokes its own priority
standards and cancels the June 5,
7, and 10 bids because the first
$50 bid it received was made on
June 4. The June 4 bid has prior-
ity. He got there first and the oth-
ers are canceled. But what about
my $50 bid with the auctioneer
on June 1? My absentee bid was
placed before the June 4 absen-
tee bid, but I still have to com-
pete against it. Consider this: if
I had made the exact same bid
of $50 with LiveAuctioneers
on June 1, rather than through
the auctioneer, then all the other
identical bids would have been
canceled, including the June 4
bid. Instead, the June 4 bid is
still valid, and the auctioneer has
to compete against it with my
bid. Maybe the auctioneer can
get my absentee bid in first, but
maybe not. It’s time to roll some
digital dice.
Now, it seems to me that my
hypothetical June 1 absentee
bid shouldn’t have to compete
against that identical June 4
absentee bid made on the Inter-
net. If temporal priority is to be
applied to equal absentee bids,
the standard should be applied
across the board. My absentee
bid was earliest, and it should
cancel all other absentee bids of
equal amounts. Obviously that’s
not what happens. Maybe it can’t
happen because that kind of con-
tact between an auction house
and an Internet bidding service
might be considered collusion
and thus illegal. I don’t know.
There’s also the very inter-
esting question of who will win
when one bidder places a $50
bid via Invaluable on June 1,
and a second bidder bids $50
via LiveAuctioneers on June 2,
and a third bidder bids $50 via
Proxibid on June 4, etc. When
the auction happens on June
15, who will win? Who will get
there first? Worse yet, what if
all these bidders are unfortunate
enough to place their identical
bids on the same day, at the same
second? I have no answer to this
question, but I’ll guess it really
involves hundredths of a sec-
ond. I also have no answer to the
question of how absentee bids
are ranked when the auctioneer
files them in his own electronic
system instead of having a live
human making absentee bids
from the floor. Someone should
look into this. I don’t have the
guts.
If I’ve understood the elec-
tronics of this process correctly,
Internet absentee bids do have
an unfair advantage over absen-
tee bids placed with the auction-
eer when the bids are equal.
What’s the solution? I think
there’s a fairly simple one for
the first problem. The automat-
ic flurry of lightning-quick bids
should stop with the underbid,
then pause two or three seconds,
allowing the auctioneer a chance
to exercise his legal responsi-
bility of accepting bids. He or
she then has a few seconds to
accept an absentee bid from the
staff (if placing an absentee bid
for me), from a phone bidder, or
from a bidder on the floor. In my
highly constructed example, the
flurry of bids would rise to the
underbid amount ($45) and then
stop for three seconds, allowing
someone other than the Inter-
net a chance to get to $50 first.
Maybe some tie bidder on the
floor will get there first, or may-
be a phone bidder will get there
first, or maybe the staff person
making my absentee bid will get
there first. Or maybe not, but at
least there’s a chance someone’s
bid will get to the tie point be-
fore the Internet bid does. Cur-
rently there seems to be little
chance at all. The auctioneer has
lost control of the action, and
someone (something) else is ac-
cepting bids.
The chess program on my
computer does things this way.
When I make a move, the pro-
gram politely (I grimace at the
use of this word in this context)
waits several seconds before
making its move. Now, I know
that it already decided in hun-
dredths of a second what its best
move was going to be against
my feeble human efforts, but
the programmers knew it would
be daunting and demoralizing
to compete against an opponent
making moves so fast. Daunting
and demoralizing—Internet bid-
ding services, take note! Daunt-
ing and demoralizing—auction-
eers, take note!
Right now I can’t think of any
solution to the second problem,
the time-priority situation for
equal absentee bids coming from
different sources. Perhaps some-
one will think of something.
Right now I’m daunted and de-
moralized from all this thinking.
Tom Noe
via e-mail
DENNIS CHRISTOPHER
WHITTLE
Dennis Christopher Whittle of
Ithaca, New York, 86, died on
December 28, 2014, after a long
battle with Parkinson’s disease.
Whittle was the son of the Rt.
Reverend Dennis Christopher
and Maude Pettingale Whittle of
Alexandria, Virginia.
While nationally recognized
as a leader in the field of ad-
vertising and public relations,
he was best known in Ithaca as
an antiques dealer and owner of
The Collection Antiques, which
operated at various times in Co-
vert and Trumansburg. This was
his retirement business, which
he owned with his wife, Pat, for
nearly 40 years. As an avid stu-
dent of social history, Whittle
became a specialist in pre-1820
antiques, especially 18th-centu-
ry artifacts.
The Whittles moved to Ithaca
in 1975 with six of their seven
children: Peter, Lauren, Sean,
Linda, Sara, and Tom. When he
was asked to join Cornell Uni-
versity as director of media ser-
vices, he combined various com-
munications operations in the
College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Human Ecology, and
Cooperative Extension into an
83-person communications ser-
vice. He headed the department
for ten years until he switched to
teaching for ten additional years.
Whittle’s leading course in public
relations and advertising attract-
ed more than 300 students each
semester. He also developed an
internship program that helped to
place many students in jobs.
Prior to coming to Cornell,
Whittle was the director of com-
munications for the American
Bar Association (ABA) in Chi-
cago and head of the ABA Press,
which published 34 professional
journals. He was the legal pro-
fession’s chief press spokesman
during the Watergate years and
served as communications ad-
visor to the Chief Justice of the
United States Supreme Court,
Warren E. Burger.
Before joining ABA, Whittle
was manager of corporate ad-
vertising and public relations for
Marathon Oil Company. Prior
to Marathon, he worked in New
York City with N.W. Ayer Ad-
vertising and Public Relations
agency in charge of sales pro-
motion for its client, AT&T. Pre-
viously he was the northeastern
sales coordinator for Ford Motor
Company.
He graduated from Ohio Wes-
leyan University at age 19 with
two majors, journalism and edu-
cation. He then enrolled at Bos-
ton University’s School of Com-
munications where he finished
his coursework in one year.
Whittle then headed in 1951
for Germany where he worked
for three years as assistant public
information officer, headquar-
ters for the U.S. Army in Europe,
in Heidelberg, Germany. During
this time, he served as chief pub-
lic information officer and head
historian for the Army Ordnance
Corps in Europe.
On his way to Germany, he
met Pat Healy on board the ship.
Their shipboard romance led to
marriage in Heidelberg, Germa-
ny where they both worked as
Army civilian employees. They
traveled extensively throughout
Europe before returning to the
U.S. with the first of seven chil-
dren, Candace.
Whittle was preceded in death
by his wife, Patricia Healy Whit-
tle. He is survived by his sister,
Virginia (Wendy) Whittle Hoge
of Alexandria, Virginia; daugh-
ters Candace Fraser (Jim) of
Clarendon Hills, Illinois, Lauren
Whittle of San Carlos, California,
Linda Whittle of Boston, Massa-
chusetts, Sara Whittle of Ithaca,
New York; sons Peter Whittle
(Lucienne Aubert) of St. David’s,
Pennsylvania, Sean Whittle (Ei-
leen Lowry) of Manchester, New
Hampshire, Tom Whittle (Jodie
Lee Stearns) of Ithaca, New
York, and Claud Young of Se-
ville, Spain (fondly referred to as
his “eighth” child); six grandchil-
dren; two great-grandchildren;
and two nieces.
In lieu of flowers, please send
contributions to University of
Rochester Medicine, Neurology,
Office of Gift and Donor Rec-
ords, P.O. Box 270032, Roches-
ter, NY 14627.
DAVID M. BLOWERS
David M. Blowers of Hing-
ham, Massachusetts, died on
February 11. Blowers was born
and raised in Quincy, Massachu-
setts, a son of Robert and Edythe
(Williams) Blowers. He later
moved to Hingham, where he
raised his family and remained
for 36 years.
A graduate of Quincy High
School and Bridgewater State
College, Blowers began his ca-
reer as a history teacher inAbing-
ton. Blowers’s love of history
led him to discover fine art and
antiques, which became his life’s
work. His business grew, and in
1975 he left teaching to deal in
fine art full time. He spent years
exhibiting at antiques shows
in Boston, New York City, and
Florida. Each May, July, and
September he could be found
at the Brimfield shows. For a
time he operated his own shop in
downtown Hingham, and in later
years he partnered with a friend
to operate Downer Auction Gal-
lery in Wellesley. His auctions
were highly regarded and drew
an international following.
Blowers’s love of the arts ex-
tended well beyond antiques. He
loved to treat his family to trips
to New York City to see the lat-
est Broadway shows, and he was
passionate about all music, par-
ticularly opera.
A close second to the arts was
his love of sports and games. He
was an avid golfer, Boston sports
CAROLE “KITTY”
DEAN MACKAY
Carole “Kitty” Dean Mac-
Kay, 72, of Sonoma, California,
passed away peacefully on Jan-
uary 15 with her husband at her
bedside. She was born in Albu-
querque, New Mexico, the sec-
ond daughter of Delos and Pre-
cious Warner. MacKay graduat-
ed from Richmond High School
where she was a member of the
band and a song girl. She attend-
ed San Jose State University,
majoring in sociology and mu-
sic while being a cheerleader for
the Spartans football team. She
joined Fairchild Semiconductor
in Mountain View and held posi-
tions in personnel and technical
support. She was a fashion mod-
el for Macy’s and was fashion
model of the year in 1968.
MacKay developed a passion-
ate interest in early American
antiques and became an antiques
dealer, making regular buying
trips to New England and Penn-
sylvania and selling at shows
from Santa Monica to Seattle.
She was recognized as an expert
in American pewter, quilts, and
early folk art and developed a
strong friendship with antiques
dealers throughout the U.S.
She is survived by her hus-
band, Bruce; sons Jason of San-
ta Rosa, California, and Sean
of San Leandro, California;
grandson, Jalil of San Leandro,
California; brothers Eric of El
Cerrito, California, and Alatra
of Las Vegas, Nevada; nephews
Marque of Berkeley, California,
Evan of Palo Alto, California,
Eric Jr. of Vallejo, California;
and numerous relatives from
Richmond, California, to Rich-
land, Mississippi.
A celebration of her life was
heldonValentine’sDay, February
14, at Trinity Episcopal Church.
In lieu of flowers the family re-
quests donations to Hospice by
the Bay, 190 West Napa Street,
Sonoma, CA 95476 and Council
on Aging, 30 Kawana Springs
Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95404.
fan, and an unrivaled trivia play-
er. His proudest moments were
those spent with his family. His
hallmark was to always wear a
hat or sweatshirt with the logo
of one of his daughters’ colleges,
which usually led to long con-
versations about his girls.
He was predeceased by his
parents, Robert and Edythe
Blowers, and brother-in-law Dan
Potter. Blowers is survived by
his wife, Lois (Hannon) Blow-
ers; his daughters Sarah Melia
(Steve), Alyssa Scordo (George),
and Hilary Jenison (Lee), all
of Hingham; brother, Robert
(Carol) of Harwich; sister, Janis
Potter of Forest Grove, Oregon;
grandchildren Jane, Charlie, and
Annie Melia, Georgie and Drew
Scordo, and Eloise Jenison.
Donations may be made
in Blowers’s name to Harbor
House Rehabilitation & Nursing
Center, 11 Condito Rd., Hing-
ham, MA 02043.
Obituaries