Goldin income verification

[Snapolit1]

Yes it’s 10k, I tried to bid a few ticks above that and was not able to.

I feel the same way about income verification as I do about workplace drug testing …. If you have no basis to suspect it’s a problem….. fuck off.

Realize we have zero privacy left in this country at this point but I will make believe we still do.

[Snapolit1]

And if you want to run a credit check on me, knock yourself out. That’s your issue, not mine.

My equifax statement doesn’t list my assets. It lists my credit history.

[Fred]

How does someone know if they hit their bid limit? I guess if you have to ask, you'll never know until you hit your limit, unless Goldin prevents you from bidding until "verifying your ability to pay" before an auction begins (assuming you haven't done it already).

Wouldn't it suck if you didn't know your bid limit and were bidding on an item and found out in the extended bidding that you reached your limit and could no longer bid on an item.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Fred

How does someone know if they hit their bid limit? I guess if you have to ask, you'll never know until you hit your limit, unless Goldin prevents you from bidding until "verifying your ability to pay" before an auction begins (assuming you haven't done it already).

Wouldn't it suck if you didn't know your bid limit and were bidding on an item and found out in the extended bidding that you reached your limit and could no longer bid on an item.

If you look under my account or the equivalent it shows you. If you haven't asked to raise it, it's 10.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Fred

Wouldn't it suck if you didn't know your bid limit and were bidding on an item and found out in the extended bidding that you reached your limit and could no longer bid on an item.

Several years ago, Christie's had an auction with some W600s I wanted, specifically and most importantly was a Type 1 Plank, but I also wanted the Type 2 Cy Young and the Type 3 Bender. I signed up for Christie's and they gave me an initial credit limit that was insufficient to buy all 3. I called there and explained that I wanted all 3, but hade to have the Plank, which, alone, certain to go for more than my initial limit. They had me provide some financial info, which I did, and I was told my limit was increased. I called 3 days before the auction to confirm my limit had been increased and I was told it was.

This auction was a traditional format where lots come up and close one by one after one another.

Auction day comes and first up is the Bender, which I win. Next up is the Cy Young, which I win. Then comes the Plank, and I am going back and forth until I get to $50k+/- at which point it says I have exceeded my credit limit. I flipped out!!! Not only had they not increased my limit, but now in the moment I am frozen out of the card I really wanted.

I ended up getting a Plank elsewhere. Needless to say, I do not bid in Christie's auctions anymore.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Yes it’s 10k, I tried to bid a few ticks above that and was not able to.

I feel the same way about income verification as I do about workplace drug testing …. If you have no basis to suspect it’s a problem….. fuck off.

Realize we have zero privacy left in this country at this point but I will make believe we still do.

It has nothing to do with having privacy. You can have all the privacy you want. But you can't expect anything from someone else and not have to give some of it up. THAT is unreasonable. You don't want to take a drug test? Not a problem. But a company also has the right not to employ you. They will survive without you. You don't want to verify income to bid with a particular auction house? Great, take your business elsewhere.

The problem isn't our losing our privacy, it's everyone's sense of entitlement thinking they get to make the rules in how others do business.

Verifying income for an auction house is one of the most reasonable things I can think of for them to remove one of the biggest problems an auction house faces. The fact that it literally offends people tells me all I need to know about how entitled our society has become. We no longer just take our business elsewhere, we think we should tell people what is reasonable for their business to do, as if they hired you for your opinion.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It has nothing to do with having privacy. You can have all the privacy you want. But you can't expect anything from someone else and not have to give some of it up. THAT is unreasonable. You don't want to take a drug test? Not a problem. But a company also has the right not to employ you. They will survive without you. You don't want to verify income to bid with a particular auction house? Great, take your business elsewhere.

The problem isn't our losing our privacy, it's everyone's sense of entitlement thinking they get to make the rules in how others do business.

Verifying income for an auction house is one of the most reasonable things I can think of for them to remove one of the biggest problems an auction house faces. The fact that it literally offends people tells me all I need to know about how entitled our society has become. We no longer just take our business elsewhere, we think we should tell people what is reasonable for their business to do, as if they hired you for your opinion.

+1 agree

[FrankWakefield]

I'd be annoyed with a business where I'd always paid in a timely manner, and then one day they want proof of financial wherewithal. But that's not what started this thread.

As a consignor, I recall waiting a few weeks for payment; which annoyed me. The high bidder hadn't paid yet, I got the feeling he was a whale and he didn't want to pay until his funds had stayed in some account until an interest payment had been paid. And the auction house didn't want to pressure him for payment because they didn't want to lose his as a future bidder.

And then there's the auction house that was taking bids on cards that had recently been stolen without timely disclosure about the cards being gone. So AH's can want financial disclosure on bidders, but bidders don't get proof that the AH really had the cards.

I can see that if I had a high value card out there, I'd be annoyed if they accepted a huge bid from an unknown bidder early in an auction driven up by another colluding bidder that discouraged other bidders from bidding, then the two colluders don't pay, and my card goes unsold.

All in all, I don't see a bright line rule that would protect buyers from AH's, AH's from buyers, consignors from buyers, consignors from AH's.... tis a mess.

[frankbmd]

Goldin, oh Goldin

He'll never know how much cash I'm holdin'.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Yes it’s 10k, I tried to bid a few ticks above that and was not able to.

I feel the same way about income verification as I do about workplace drug testing …. If you have no basis to suspect it’s a problem….. fuck off.

Realize we have zero privacy left in this country at this point but I will make believe we still do.

Should a mortgage lender inquire as to income and assets or is that insulting too?

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Should a mortgage lender inquire as to income and assets or is that insulting too?

I have purchased 4 homes. In not one case was I asked for a copy of my investment account reports.

And none of those homes cost $11,000.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I have purchased 4 homes. In not one case was I asked for a copy of my investment account reports.

And none of those homes cost $11,000.

Did you specifically ask for an $11k limit at Goldin? And if you truly did, did they specifically ask for your investment accounts?

I've purchased several homes as well. For non-residential houses( i.e. investment properties), I've absolutely had them verify total wealth. I think you are just complaining to complain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I have purchased 4 homes. In not one case was I asked for a copy of my investment account reports.

And none of those homes cost $11,000.

Would you have taken it personally and walked away if you had been asked?

In any case, surely you were asked for some financial information, no?

[gabrinus]

I agree with the guys on here who take this personal especially the ones who have bid on Goldin auctions many times before...it's like a bank you have done business with for many years suddenly wanting to put a hold on a deposit even though you have never written a bad check or deposited a bad one...of course it's personal if you conduct yourself with integrity...unfortunately it seems to be too common today...Jerry

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

I agree with the guys on here who take this personal especially the ones who have bid on Goldin auctions many times before...it's like a bank you have done business with for many years suddenly wanting to put a hold on a deposit even though you have never written a bad check or deposited a bad one...of course it's personal if you conduct yourself with integrity...unfortunately it seems to be too common today...Jerry

But up to 100K, the site specifically says you can get an increase based on bidding history.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

I agree with the guys on here who take this personal especially the ones who have bid on Goldin auctions many times before...it's like a bank you have done business with for many years suddenly wanting to put a hold on a deposit even though you have never written a bad check or deposited a bad one...of course it's personal if you conduct yourself with integrity...unfortunately it seems to be too common today...Jerry

No reason to take that situation personally either. You people are so sensitive. Things change, economic landscapes change, businesses change, as does their corporate risk tolerance. Life's too short to take it personally when policies change that affect everyone equally. That is, by definition, NOT personal. It's not like they are only asking a specific long-time customer for financial info. :doh:

[Leon]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No reason to take that situation personally either. You people are so sensitive. Things change, economic landscapes change, businesses change, as does their corporate risk tolerance. Life's too short to take it personally when policies change that affect everyone equally. That is, by definition, NOT personal. It's not like they are only asking a specific long-time customer for financial info. :doh:

All true, but I can see how it can be taken personally too. So I see Steve's (Hi Steve) point. Been there, done that many times. But it really isn't personal. Kind of like a guy cutting you off in traffic. Be pissed sure, but it wasn't personal.

I don't know if it's the case, but some of this could be that Ebay owns Goldin Auctions now, as of May 2024.

After maneuvering through many hours of trying to get set up as a vendor for them, I told them I didn't want to do it. I would rather lose a good customer, whom I enjoy dealing with, than take anymore of that pain. It was that crazy. The shit to equity ratio just wasn't worth it. Then they got someone in management and worked out a solution. But it was quite mentally painful.
And this was in the last 6 months. So, it could be that this is Ebay's norm? I don't know for a fact, by any means. It's just a guess base on what I just went through.

What a great first HUGE vintage auction they had. Can't wait for the next. one. How can they top it? (for a different thread)
.

[raulus]

Seems like there's a missing middle ground here.

I'm guessing that a big part of the issue is probably just the challenge of being flexible and specific for the AH as it assesses its buyers/bidders, rather than painting with a wide brush. I suspect some recent mandate came down from on high at this AH, possibly because the AH was burned by someone, it cost the AH in reputation and probably lost commission, and now it's time to tighten things up to avoid a similar problem going forward.

Certainly every AH can and should verify that their bidders are capable of honoring their bids. How they go about that process, however, doesn't have to require that they need access to everything about me.

In situations where we have an existing relationship, particularly one where I've been a solid customer for many years, it shouldn't be that difficult for the AH to get comfortable with my credit without the need for additional support. Unless, of course, I'm looking to substantially expand my bidding patterns from 4 figures to 6 figures, in which case the AH has every right to ask for some documentation showing that I can handle that new and substantially elevated level of bidding.

And if I don't like the process from the AH, then I have every right to walk away. As an added bonus, if I'm feeling particularly vexed by the entire situation, then I might just come here and broadcast to the world my utter dissatisfaction with the whole business.

[Peter_Spaeth]

AH to consignor: sorry, your card didn't get paid for, we can return it to you or run it again.

Consignor to AH: didn't you make sure the guy could afford to pay?

AH to consignor: Oh no, we're old school we would never insult someone by asking them for financial information.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

AH to consignor: sorry, your card didn't get paid for, we can return it to you or run it again.

Consignor to AH: didn't you make sure the guy could afford to pay?

AH to consignor: Oh no, we're old school we would never insult someone by asking them for financial information.

You'll be happy to hear that this happened to me a few times previously. Since it was with your favorite now-defunct AH, you'll be even more delighted.

Luckily, the last time it happened, the non-paying bidder got burned, because it was August 2020, and the item turned right back around and sold for 20% more in the next month's auction.

[samosa4u]

Just send Goldin a photo of yourself holding up an East Coast gang sign and a thick roll of Benjamins in the other hand while wearing thick gold chainz and you'll get approved immediately!

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by raulus

Seems like there's a missing middle ground here.

I'm guessing that a big part of the issue is probably just the challenge of being flexible and specific for the AH as it assesses its buyers/bidders, rather than painting with a wide brush. I suspect some recent mandate came down from on high at this AH, possibly because the AH was burned by someone, it cost the AH in reputation and probably lost commission, and now it's time to tighten things up to avoid a similar problem going forward.

Certainly every AH can and should verify that their bidders are capable of honoring their bids. How they go about that process, however, doesn't have to require that they need access to everything about me.

In situations where we have an existing relationship, particularly one where I've been a solid customer for many years, it shouldn't be that difficult for the AH to get comfortable with my credit without the need for additional support. Unless, of course, I'm looking to substantially expand my bidding patterns from 4 figures to 6 figures, in which case the AH has every right to ask for some documentation showing that I can handle that new and substantially elevated level of bidding.

And if I don't like the process from the AH, then I have every right to walk away. As an added bonus, if I'm feeling particularly vexed by the entire situation, then I might just come here and broadcast to the world my utter dissatisfaction with the whole business.

This times 100 percent. and I expect the other major auctions to follow suit in short order.

[calvindog]

As I said above, I was previously unaware until recently as to how many winning bidders pay for their winnings with cards they then consign for future auctions, after winning their lots. Getting basically interest-free loans from the auction houses. So I can better understand the houses' concern that winning bidders can't pay for their lots.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

This times 100 percent. and I expect the other major auctions to follow suit in short order.

I'm pretty sure it's already the norm with high-end art auctions. It's just new for the sports card crowd, so they take offense.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by raulus

I suspect some recent mandate came down from on high at this AH, possibly because the AH was burned by someone, it cost the AH in reputation and probably lost commission, and now it's time to tighten things up to avoid a similar problem going forward.

I hope the King of Collectibles has a show in Season 3 that digs deeper into the bidder who reneged, and how they went back to the consignor to tell them what happened. It might be the most interesting show yet in the series.

Insert "sarcasm" face here.