Soapy Smith's Soap Box: Doc Baggs Mock Auction House, Denver Republican, Feb. 12, 1882

April 2, 2021

Doc Baggs Mock Auction House, Denver Republican, Feb. 12, 1882

MOCK AUCTION WATCHES
Denver Republican
February 12, 1882

(Click image to enlarge)

ore on the snide watch, mock auction house

This is the second, and more detailed article from the Denver Republican's expose on a Larimer street mock auction house, beginning on February 11, 1882. I do not recognize the names of H. E. Myers or H. Simon, the operator of the mock auction house, and though the operation is near identical to Soapy's auction houses he ran in the late 1880s-90s, I am pretty certain this is not Soapy's operation, as Soapy is still a nomad, roaming the western states, looking for a permanent location for his operations. It appears that Charles L. "Doc" Baggs is still the king-pin bunko man of Denver. Below is the transcribed article.

AUCTION WATCHES.
—
Myers, the Auctioneer, Declares That He Is Above Suspicion.
—
A Watch-Man Ventures a Few Queries and Suggestions Regarding the Matter.
—

A Publication was made in yesterday's REPUBLICAN regarding the purchase of a 3-karat gold watch by a man named H. A. Taylor, from H. Simon an auctioneer doing business at 371 Larimer street.① The article stated that Taylor bought the watch at auction, for $24, on the representation that the cases were of solid gold and the watch was in good running order for two years. After he had made the purchase, Taylor says he began to suspicion that he had been swindled, and consequently took the watch to a well-known jeweler to have it tested. The jeweler tested the cases with acid, and the result was that the gold was eaten away, and several black spots appeared, which could not be [?]. The jeweler informed Taylor that it was a snide auction watch, worth at the utmost $15 or $18. Taylor returned to the auction house and endeavored to get his money back, failing in which he publicly proclaimed that he had been swindled, he came to THE REPUBLICAN office and made a statement in regard to the matter.

MR. MYERS' STATEMENT.

Mr. H. E. Myers is the auctioneer in Simon's establishment. He came around to THE REPUBLICAN office yesterday, in high dudgeon, contending, in a very forcible language, that the statement of Taylor in regard to his being swindled was totally wrong, and that the watch was just what it was represented to be when Taylor bid it in at $24. A reporter called around at the auction house last night and heard Myers' statement. It was substantially as follows: He held a watch in his hand, which he claimed to be an exact facsimile of the one sold to Baker. "This," said he, "is a solid gold case, with a National movement, Elgin Illinois. We guarantee these watches, and I gave Taylor a guarantee. He took the watch to a jeweler and had it tested, and then he brought it back to me very much disfigured, and wanted me to give him his money back. I told him if the watch was not just as I guaranteed it I would refund him his money. I sold him the watch with the guarantee that the cases were of solid gold-but I did not say how fine the cases were. They might be 4-karat, or 6 or 8, or anywhere up to 18-karat, and still be solid gold. I did not guarantee the fineness, but if he had asked me to do so I would have put in the guarantee that the cases were 10-karat, which they were. There is no such thing as a 3-karat watch. The lowest grade is 4-karat. Now, the acid used by the jeweler in testing these cases was 18-karat acid, with salt in it. You probably know that acids are of different strength. An 18-karat acid will eat into a 10-karat case and a 10-karat acid will eat into a 4-karat case. Of course the 10-karat case on Taylor's watch could not withstand 18-karat acid-and any jeweler will tell you that this is true. I can take the strongest quality of acid, put salt in it, and eat up a twenty-dollar gold piece. The watch sold to Taylor is strictly in conformity with the guarantee, and there was no misrepresentation in making the sale. In fact, the profit on the watch was so small that I would readily have taken it back and refunded the money, if the watch had not been defaced and disfigured. There was no snide in the matter, and we are willing to stand by our guarantee."

—

The Other Side of the Case.

Denver, Colorado, February 11, 1882.

To the editor of the Republican.
      An article in this morning's REPUBLICAN, and headed "A Three-Karat Watch," hits the nail square on the head, and as this question has been opened for discussion, allow me a small space in your independent paper to make a few remarks on it.
     The jewelry and watch auctions are carried to such an extent in this city and the bidding is so palpably fraudulent that it seems as though a man with ordinary intellect could not help but discover the humbug at once, but it appears that as soon as one victim retires to meditate upon the demerits of his bargain another will surely take his place. If people would only watch the auctioneer closely they would surely discover that nearly all the bidding is done by the auctioneer himself, as for instance: He starts a watch that cost him $5 at $7; then he commences to bid it up to say $9.50, and keeps crying that bid until some "sucker" bites by bidding $10. Of course the watch is surely his, and it don't take him long to find out that he is sold. People often wonder when they hear one of these mock auctions who does all the bidding, lots of them never dreaming that the auctioneer is the "many bidders."
      There is a distinct difference between the jewelry and watches sold at auction and those sold by the regular jeweler. The watches sold at auction are usually of the poorest kind. The watches they sell for gold are from 4 to 8 karat. The cases are extremely light, so that usually the engraving on the outside shows through on the inside of the case. The movements are the poorest and cheapest to be had, and, although it may be an Elgin or Waltham watch, let me inform the reader that these companies make watches that cost only $3.50. Add to this a gold case that costs $12 and you have a total of $15.50, and these watches are sold at auction from $25 to $45. Now do you see how auction stores can pay big rents and employ expensive auctioneers?
      With jewelry it is just the same. An article may be gold and very poor; in fact, not half as good as a good rolled plate article, while a rolled plate article may wear as good as solid gold, and it may not wear as well as good common gilding. The same difference exists in watches and jewelry as in clothing, hats, dry goods or other merchandise. Lots of men who will not buy anything snide in other goods, will go to auctions and buy the snidest kind of jewelry and watches, and when they find out that they have been sold, they will take good care not to let anyone else know it, because they fear that someone will laugh at them, and that would be terrible. The auctioneer knows this, and that's why he keeps on with the same old cry.