PWCC Part Deux

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

He did not ask someone to bid on their own card. The card belonged to another member here.
James

So it's OK to ask someone to bid on someone else's card?

[jfkheat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So it's OK to ask someone to bid on someone else's card?

Where the hell did you see me say that?
James

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

Where the hell did you see me say that?
James

I was asking, because you seemed to be making the distinction.

[Arazi4442]

I don't really care who owned the card, who was the bidder or who put the card up for auction. If a person who is consigning an auction asks a 3rd party to bid up the auction, that is unethical and a serious problem for the hobby.

[nrm1977]

Originally Posted by Arazi4442

I don't really care who owned the card, who was the bidder or who put the card up for auction. If a person who is consigning an auction asks a 3rd party to bid up the auction, that is unethical and a serious problem for the hobby.

I concur 100%! I'm sure we're just grazing the tip of the ice-berg. Hopefully big brother is "watching".

[jfkheat]

I was correcting what BruinsFan said about PWCC asking someone to bid on their own card. How you came up with this meaning that I thought it was ok for someone to bid on their own card is beyond me.
James

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

I was correcting what BruinsFan said about PWCC asking someone to bid on their own card. How you came up with this meaning that I thought it was ok for someone to bid on their own card is beyond me.
James

Now I am confused, because my question concerned bidding at the request of the auction house on someone ELSE's card not one's own.

[jfkheat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now I am confused, because my question concerned bidding at the request of the auction house on someone ELSE's card not one's own.

No, you were confused when you responded to my first comment. I mis-read the part about someone else's card but I still don't see how you thought I was condoning any auction house asking anyone to bid on any card they have listed. Let's see if this confuses you, I'M DONE WITH THIS CONVERSATION.
James

[Arazi4442]

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, James. My only point is that NO ONE who profits off an auction should be speaking to any 3rd party to bid up that auction.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

where the hell did you see me say that?
James

lol.

[PhillipAbbott79]

You do not ask someone to change their bidding habits and ask them to bid higher on a card because it will be overtaken by the next bid. You explain to them that you will block them if they continue what they are doing.

They warn for bid retractions. Why wouldn't they warn him? To me the request from Brent is not open to interpretation based on how they handle other warnings and other bidders. Warn and Block. This is not warn and block. Period.

[brob28]

Exactly Phillip, my memory may not be exact here and I'm not going to search the previous thread again, but as I recall Betsy indicated they had bidding issues with Courtney in the past had discussed them with him and he reverted back to his old ways on this auction. So why not ban him and restart the auction? He had already been warned and if we can believe the text messages they clearly knew he did not want to win the auction. Had they done that they would have shown a real commitment to cleaning up the bidding in their auctions, they also might get more bidders into the next auction that were staying away due to the "strange" bidding in the current auction. Win -win for PWCC - but nope, makes more sense to start texting a bidder in your auctions whom you know has been a problem in the past.

Courtney appears to be no saint, but PWCC appears to have known the card was doctored and said nothing and appears to have been shown to contact bidders and tell them to bid while assuring them they wont win the auction while the auction is live.

[Rich Falvo]

I went back and read the whole original thread. To a relative newcomer, it was very educational and very scary. Mostly, it made me glad I'm not involved in big-ticket cards.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So it's OK to ask someone to bid on someone else's card?

Wouldn't that be called an auctions "mailing list"?

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Wouldn't that be called an auctions "mailing list"?

In an ideal world, yes.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

wouldn't that be called an auctions "mailing list"?

LOL. No. There will be no bidding anywhere on anything.

[Brent Huigens]

It is unfortunate that the previous thread was locked because, in our opinion, there is no reason to limit honest and thoughtful dialogue. We truly value the unbiased nature of the discussion boards, so intentionally try to only chime in when needed. This will be our only post on this thread.

Many of you have raised concerns about the request that Brent made to Cortney that he place another bid to become the high bidder. The honest truth is that the request was made because had he not taken a place as the high bidder we would have blocked him for string bidding. It was a request simply to enable Cortney to remain allowed to bid with PWCC. It was an ill-advised in hindsight, hasn't happened before, and won't happen again. It is absolutely not a normal request, because Cortney is not a normal bidder.

Cortney has since been blocked completely from participating in PWCC auctions, yet we are closely working with him to close a balance from previous purchases and consignments. Additionally, we are working to ensure that he is properly refunded for a recent purchase that unfortunately had a compromised PSA case and a counterfeit card. After this refund is complete, and balance is closed, our business dealings with him will be complete.

Betsy Huigens

[x2drich2000]

Betsy,

Out of curiosity, how do you know Cortney would have been able to become the top bidder at a reason amount? How do you know the high bidder at the time you made that request had not already put in an atomic top all type of bid? Would you have required him to pay even if he ended up winning at that high bid?

I understand that string bidding can be a sign of shill bidding so what is everyone's thoughts on a legitimate bidder using string bidding in an attempt to scare other users away from an auction?

DJ

[midmo]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Betsy,

I understand that string bidding can be a sign of shill bidding so what is everyone's thoughts on a legitimate bidder using string bidding in an attempt to scare other users away from an auction?

DJ

I string bid all the time. Not because I'm shilling, but because I'm on the phone a lot for work and have several monitors going. When I'm multitasking and on autopilot I tend to just click on the bid button several times rather than type in a number. I never even thought of it as being an issue until I saw a couple of these threads.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by midmo

I string bid all the time. Not because I'm shilling, but because I'm on the phone a lot for work and have several monitors going. When I'm multitasking and on autopilot I tend to just click on the bid button several times rather than type in a number. I never even thought of it as being an issue until I saw a couple of these threads.

Why would you click on it several times?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Betsy,

Out of curiosity, how do you know Cortney would have been able to become the top bidder at a reason amount? How do you know the high bidder at the time you made that request had not already put in an atomic top all type of bid? Would you have required him to pay even if he ended up winning at that high bid?

I understand that string bidding can be a sign of shill bidding so what is everyone's thoughts on a legitimate bidder using string bidding in an attempt to scare other users away from an auction?

DJ

Because he "Found" the top bid by string bidding. The next bid was less than the minium bid so you in essence have found the top bid. If he bids one more time then he would have become the high bidder. Cortney knew exactly what he was doing when he did that, he'd been warned not to do it. No matter what you think of PWCC I don't know how anyone can come to any other conclusion as to what was being discussed in those two text shots that Cortney posted. PWCC should have cancelled his bids instead of asking him to take the top bid.

And once again the focus is being shifted from the real issue here. A card was purchased, doctored and somehow got into a PSA 7 slab when you or I would never have gotten that grade if we'd presented it to PSA.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

It is unfortunate that the previous thread was locked because, in our opinion, there is no reason to limit honest and thoughtful dialogue. We truly value the unbiased nature of the discussion boards, so intentionally try to only chime in when needed. This will be our only post on this thread.

Many of you have raised concerns about the request that Brent made to Cortney that he place another bid to become the high bidder. The honest truth is that the request was made because had he not taken a place as the high bidder we would have blocked him for string bidding. It was a request simply to enable Cortney to remain allowed to bid with PWCC. It was an ill-advised in hindsight, hasn't happened before, and won't happen again. It is absolutely not a normal request, because Cortney is not a normal bidder.

Cortney has since been blocked completely from participating in PWCC auctions, yet we are closely working with him to close a balance from previous purchases and consignments. Additionally, we are working to ensure that he is properly refunded for a recent purchase that unfortunately had a compromised PSA case and a counterfeit card. After this refund is complete, and balance is closed, our business dealings with him will be complete.

Betsy Huigens

Just had to quote that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In the name of honest dialogue who did the work on the wwg dimaggio?

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the name of honest dialogue who did the work on the wwg dimaggio?

"...there is no reason to limit honest and thoughtful dialogue. This will be our only post on this thread." Betsy and Brent must think everyone is not as smart as they are. No other POSSIBLE explanation for any of their responses.

For their sake they had better hope they are never cross examined. If their posts are any reflection of their testimony it would not work out too well for them. We all know there be no consequences for the BS that has been going on in their auctions and now the links to card doctoring but they really should have made it a policy to not reply at all.

[slipk1068]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

It is unfortunate that the previous thread was locked because, in our opinion, there is no reason to limit honest and thoughtful dialogue. We truly value the unbiased nature of the discussion boards, so intentionally try to only chime in when needed. This will be our only post on this thread. Betsy Huigens

"there is no reason to limit honest and thoughtful dialogue" and you "truly value the unbiased nature of discussion boards" yet you are not interested in participating in said dialogue and you pick and choose which questions to answer.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Exactly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In the name of thoughtful dialogue you sell many very high end cards and obviously are aware of the huge issue with compromised or fake slabs in that market segment. How did cortney,s card get through your screening process and what went wrong? How do you know if it is an isolated incident?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slipk1068

"there is no reason to limit honest and thoughtful dialogue" and you "truly value the unbiased nature of discussion boards" yet you are not interested in participating in said dialogue and you pick and choose which questions to answer.

Bs meter go off? Lol.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

It is unfortunate that the previous thread was locked because, in our opinion, there is no reason to limit honest and thoughtful dialogue. We truly value the unbiased nature of the discussion boards, so intentionally try to only chime in when needed. This will be our only post on this thread.

Many of you have raised concerns about the request that Brent made to Cortney that he place another bid to become the high bidder. The honest truth is that the request was made because had he not taken a place as the high bidder we would have blocked him for string bidding. It was a request simply to enable Cortney to remain allowed to bid with PWCC. It was an ill-advised in hindsight, hasn't happened before, and won't happen again. It is absolutely not a normal request, because Cortney is not a normal bidder.

Cortney has since been blocked completely from participating in PWCC auctions, yet we are closely working with him to close a balance from previous purchases and consignments. Additionally, we are working to ensure that he is properly refunded for a recent purchase that unfortunately had a compromised PSA case and a counterfeit card. After this refund is complete, and balance is closed, our business dealings with him will be complete.

Betsy Huigens

First off, I want to thank the one who enlightened me on this post by PWCC (Brent)........

Now Brent, I promised to keep quiet about a few things that I know you don't want on here, as long as there was no more "mud slinging or trash talk" about me, but if you keep this up, I'll be back. The drama that comes with these forums is not for me, which is why I backed away; and is highly unprofessional. You're working closely with me BECAUSE YOU'RE BEING FORCED TO and are only taking action BECAUSE YOU'RE BEING FORCED TO.

Also, after TODAY, (with the help of a very high ranking authority figure), our debt is settled once you send me my cards. It only took getting them involved to work out in 2 days what you wouldn't invoice in 4 months, yet wanted to slam me on as a "very large unpaid debt".

Would you like me to enlighten these people about "the recent purchase" and what else is entailed? Piss me off. I think it's clear who WON this war by how THIS DAY ended!!!!! I will not mention names, b/c that was an ill advised choice in the only other thread that I've EVER been involved in, but I absolutely will enlighten them on other "recent purchases". Keep it up hoss. I'm trying to play nice, but I will fight back and throw a lot more into this fire.

[nsaddict]

Heck, I smell round 3

[Peter_Spaeth]

If brent just acknowledged selling a counterfeit card in a compromised holder i sure would think it would be appropriate to hear more detail and to hear from pwcc about it, instead of the this is our last post noise. People need to understand this as much as possible.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

First off, I want to thank the one who enlightened me on this post by PWCC (Brent)........

Now Brent, I promised to keep quiet about a few things that I know you don't want on here, as long as there was no more "mud slinging or trash talk" about me, but if you keep this up, I'll be back. The drama that comes with these forums is not for me, which is why I backed away; and is highly unprofessional. You're working closely with me BECAUSE YOU'RE BEING FORCED TO and are only taking action BECAUSE YOU'RE BEING FORCED TO.

Also, after TODAY, (with the help of a very high ranking authority figure), our debt is settled once you send me my cards. It only took getting them involved to work out in 2 days what you wouldn't invoice in 4 months, yet wanted to slam me on as a "very large unpaid debt".

Would you like me to enlighten these people about "the recent purchase" and what else is entailed? Piss me off. I think it's clear who WON this war by how THIS DAY ended!!!!! I will not mention names, b/c that was an ill advised choice in the only other thread that I've EVER been involved in, but I absolutely will enlighten them on other "recent purchases". Keep it up hoss. I'm trying to play nice, but I will fight back and throw a lot more into this fire.

Mmm,,, as the plot thickens.
I honestly think Brent/PWCC need to really come clean here if they hope to save face, if it's not too late already?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If brent just acknowledged selling a counterfeit card in a compromised holder i sure would think it would be appropriate to hear more detail and to hear from pwcc about it, instead of the this is our last post noise. People need to understand this as much as possible.

I agree, and as I alluded to in the other thread, there are 3 players in this fiasco, not just 2, and so far, we are only getting tidbits and not the details we need to piece this together once and for all.

[midmo]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

Why would you click on it several times?

If it's a higher dollar card or something I'm seriously after I'll snipe it, but when I'm impulse bidding I'll typically just click until I'm the high bid. There's no strategy or malice behind it, it's more out of laziness when I'm on the phone or watching tv or whatever.

Originally Posted by jefferyepayne

Sorry PWCC but between string bidding and bid retractions, bid retractions are way, way, way more important to stop than string bidding. Yet you continue to focus on the former.

Get serious about banning anyone with >1 bid retraction in the past 6 months and maybe we'll take your comments seriously. Compared to banning those who retract bids, worrying about string bidding is a waste of time.

jeff

I agree with this 100%. I was outbid on a card this morning then the guy retracted. I clicked on his history for the heck of it and he has 43 retractions in the past 6 months. Ebay obviously doesn't care about that.