New lawsuit accuses PWCC of massive shill bidding

[Section103]

There are few things in life I can count on, but a legal discussion on Net54 ~always~ has that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

9:22 is too early to start drinking bourbon and Im mad as hell about it.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Section103

There are few things in life I can count on, but a legal discussion on Net54 ~always~ has that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

9:22 is too early to start drinking bourbon and Im mad as hell about it.

How about 9:23?

[raulus]

Maybe to tie some of these disparate discussions together a little bit, it seems like there have long been allegations against PWCC for various bad acts. Everything from consorting with/facilitating card doctors to shill bidding. While there were some prior investigations that appear to have fizzled out, to my knowledge, nothing has been proven in court, although some among us seem pretty convinced of PWCC's guilt on some of these counts, with a few of us being full-throated defenders of PWCC. Not sure I fully follow the reasons for this strong defense from Snowman and BobbyVCP, except that they seem to be more focused on extolling the virtues of the legitimate aspects of PWCC's business.

Certainly I have nothing personally to go on in terms of PWCC's guilt, although the chorus of allegations and a lot of the details provided in other threads is definitely troubling, to the point where it's not hard to imagine that at least some of the allegations could be true. But to BalticFox's point, PWCC has the right to presumed innocence, and at the moment the claims in this suit don't have much support introduced into the record, although that could change as the process unfolds.

Just like Peter, I am eager to see what evidence is presented in connection with the case. With any luck, it will help to shed a little more light on what was happening at PWCC. Hopefully any sources and testimony provided will be high quality, rather than mere conjecture or innuendo. And hopefully we're not just left to keep guessing if it gets settled before any additional evidence can be introduced.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Section103

There are few things in life I can count on, but a legal discussion on Net54 ~always~ has that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

9:22 is too early to start drinking bourbon and Im mad as hell about it.

It's always noon somewhere

[raulus]

Bloody double post.

[raulus]

Circling back to something in this complaint that I'm still not sure that I follow. In terms of the damages side, the notion that the entire market was inflated based on an army of shills has always been an argument that I've struggled to really get behind. I understand the concept behind the market being inflated. I just don't understand why there would be damages.

It's not like someone forced you to buy these cards, or that you were somehow under any obligation to buy them at the offered price. You chose to buy them, and you chose to buy them at a specific price. Whether that price was X or 2X or 10X is kinda your decision to make. Each of us makes a bucketload of decisions at every auction or show to decide when we're ready to tap out, and let something go to someone who's willing to bid more irresponsibly than we are.

Setting aside the shilling aspect, which I agree is wrong for any auctions or items that were indeed shilled, the fact that someone chose to keep bidding until they won, and their level of bidding was based on what they thought the item was worth, which may also in part have been based on what others were paying, the whole thing just seems very contrived to me to suggest that you were harmed by your own decision to keep bidding.

Maybe just to emphasize again, I completely get the idea that shilling destroys the integrity of the auction process, and should never be allowed. But that's a different issue than your experience suffering damages, unless an auction item that you bought was specifically shilled, and therefore the price for that specific item was artificially inflated.

Setting aside the specific shilling issue, either you choose to buy the stuff at the going rate, or you sit it out until you're ready to buy, or you wait patiently (perhaps indefinitely) until the prices come to you. Complaining that you got ripped off seems really bizarre after you made your own independent decision to buy.

And if I'm being honest, it seems a little bit self-indulgent to suggest that you have a right to buy cardboard at a price that you like better than the actual price that you paid.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not endorsing it, but the theory is that if shill bidding inflates the price for an auction, it gets reported as a comp which then influences the price of the next sale of the same or similar item.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not endorsing it, but the theory is that if shill bidding inflates the price for an auction, it gets reported as a comp which then influences the price of the next sale of the same or similar item.

Fair enough. Maybe to clarify, I get the general theory. I just don’t get the fiction where you ignore that you had a choice to bid at that price and proceeded of your own volition.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Fair enough. Maybe to clarify, I get the general theory. I just don’t get the fiction where you ignore that you had a choice to bid at that price and proceeded of your own volition.

Nearly all purchases are voluntary. How does that negate whether the price was driven by fraud? In my example I was "willing" to pay the higher price because I assumed the prior sale honestly reflected the market.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nearly all purchases are voluntary. How does that negate whether the price was driven by fraud? In my example I was "willing" to pay the higher price because I assumed the prior sale honestly reflected the market.

I guess that gets back to the role of comps and just how much stock we should put in them. Just because someone else made a stupid decision about how much they were willing to pay doesn't mean that I should be similarly inclined.

But it also gets to trying to shift blame for your own stupid decisions. I tend to take a dim view when it comes to shifting the responsibility for our own actions, particularly when the demand is to be compensated for it.

Edited to add: To some extent, I'll also suggest that viewing cardboard as an investment is a large part of the problem. If you view the cards as something you enjoy, that maybe will hold its value if you're lucky, then your approach to setting a price that works for you is more about what it's worth to you, and less about what you think it will be worth in the future.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not endorsing it, but the theory is that if shill bidding inflates the price for an auction, it gets reported as a comp which then influences the price of the next sale of the same or similar item.

But the complainant would also benefit from that as a seller, so that seems a weird argument.