ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Not my rules

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I've read it. Multiple times. It's not damning at all. This is another classic example of internet trolls passing around a nothing burger while painting it with a scarlet letter and proclaiming fraud. Then perpetuating this supposed "fraud" later as evidence of further claims.

The response given by PWCC in regards to this conversation is perfectly reasonable. The card in question didn't even belong to the person doing the bidding per PWCC. The conversation was had because PWCC had received complaints regarding Cortney DeLorme's "string bidding" activity. This is where someone places a string of minimum bids over and over, increasing the bid count with no intention of actually becoming the high bidder on an item. The card in question was worth many thousands of dollars, yet Cortney DeLorme was just string bidding it for who knows what reason. Brent communicated to DeLorme that he had received complaints about what looked like fishy behavior or shill bidding. This is also evident by Brent's comment in the screen shot where he says "Let's not play games here", implying that DeLorme knew exactly what he was doing. Brent was effectively telling him to just take the high bid rather than string bidding. Could he have worded it better? Could he have just banned DeLorme outright instead? Sure. But it wasn't DeLorme's card and it's quite clear from the screenshot itself that Brent was not happy about this bidder's behavior. Telling him to "take the high bid" on a card that was currently sitting at less than half of it's value has zero effect on the selling price.

This is clearly not a conversation where Brent is encouraging someone to shill bid on their own card. You simply cannot explain the "let's not play games here" line if it were. PWCC's response makes perfect sense here (https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=14599705). Yet everyone seems to want to ignore it and continues propogating this screenshot for years to come pretending as though it were something else. I don't play that game though, and neither should you.

You don't by any chance own a pillow company, do you?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.



If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Seem to know an awful lot, about an awful lot.

Different rules for different fools I guess. This is news to me

Just sayin'

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by conor912

You don't by any chance own a pillow company, do you?

No, definitely not. And since I don't think I can speak about pillow companies without having to put my name at the bottom of that post, I'll refrain from commenting further on that topic.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Interesting that you would rather not give your name than continue to contribute.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Seem to know an awful lot, about an awful lot.

I know a fair amount about a handful of topics. Beyond that, I think you'll find that I'm rather ignorant.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Different rules for different fools I guess. This is news to me

Just sayin'

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I don't have any reason to believe the rules are any different for me than they would be for anyone else. Perhaps Leon could clarify them if needed? But I've specifically spoken to him in private about this topic as I wanted to avoid pushing the envelope after having violated the rule in a thread I previously started regarding shill bidding. My understanding is that as long as we're not disparaging specific individuals or companies, or casting accusations at them, then we are free to discuss these topics without sharing our personal info.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well, it's up to Leon, but in this day and age of social media and searches I can understand why some people wouldn't want their employer to know what they were doing in their out of work lives. That said, I think it's easily prevented by disguising your name with extra punctuation or using symbols to replace a letter or two etc.

I see less reason not to want the people here to know who you are.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The single DeLorme screenshot I agree can be explained, but I knew DeLorme and you presumably didn't and I can tell you from what he told and showed me that lots of stuff was going on with Brent's knowledge. If you're defending Brent you're barking up the wrong tree, IMO. And don't even get me started about his knowledge of selling whacked cards, or stuff he did himself.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by conor912

Interesting that you would rather not give your name than continue to contribute.

Leon knows who I am. He has my name and phone number. I have nothing to hide. But that is different from wanting to post content on a public forum with my personal info attached to it in the year 2021. A lot has changed over the past 10 years with respect to people posting online. Most employers in Silicon Valley these days do not want their employees to engage in public discussions under their own names, as any random comment taken out of context today can, and often does, get brought back to HR departments by people trying to "dox" someone or get them "canceled".

I have no intention of disparaging individuals or companies here, or of saying anything stupid that might get me "canceled" for something. I care more about my career than I do about launching accusations at others. I do enjoy discussing current events and developments in the hobby like this eBay/PWCC email today, but if you go back and read my comments on this topic, I don't think you'll see me accusing any of the parties involved of anything untoward. If anything, I'm pushing back against those who are.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You're obviously highly knowledgeable about computers and technology. If you substitute @, $, and 1 for a, s, and i, is it still going to show up on any search engine?

[dealme]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Trust us moving forward? You can even trust us in reverse!

I’m a bit late and working my way through this thread, but holy sh*t Joe Isuzu just showed up in a Net54 post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The single DeLorme screenshot I agree can be explained, but I knew DeLorme and you presumably didn't and I can tell you from what he told and showed me that lots of stuff was going on with Brent's knowledge. If you're defending Brent you're barking up the wrong tree, IMO. And don't even get me started about his knowledge of selling whacked cards, or stuff he did himself.

No, I did not know DeLorme. Nor do I know Brent. I am not well connected in this hobby. I accept that there are all sorts of shenanigans going on that I know little to nothing about. Usually, where there's smoke, there's fire. But I've also encountered what comes across to me as a whole lot of fog that people in this hobby seem to want to call smoke for some reason. It just seems to build and build and the next thing you know, there's this avalanche being built from logical fallacies and rampant speculation. This is the stuff I keep finding myself combatting. It's the conclusions that people draw from the "evidence" that I struggle with.

This screenshot topic is a prime example. It keeps getting passed around as though it were evidence of PWCC instructing their buyers to shill bid on their auctions. This doesn't appear to be true though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

No, I did not know DeLorme. Nor do I know Brent. I am not well connected in this hobby. I accept that there are all sorts of shenanigans going on that I know little to nothing about. Usually, where there's smoke, there's fire. But I've also encountered what comes across to me as a whole lot of fog that people in this hobby seem to want to call smoke for some reason. It just seems to build and build and the next thing you know, there's this avalanche being built from logical fallacies and rampant speculation. This is the stuff I keep finding myself combatting. It's the conclusions that people draw from the "evidence" that I struggle with.

This screenshot topic is a prime example. It keeps getting passed around as though it were evidence of PWCC instructing their buyers to shill bid on their auctions. This doesn't appear to be true though.

Well when I post something and include an implicit or explicit conclusion, I can't at the same time post or cross-link 20 years' worth of knowledge that supports what I am saying, can I? A lot of other people who post have lots of context behind them too. What you're doing may make sense in some cases but not in others. Every post can't be freestanding. Most readers are regulars and have the context too.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

Good luck. Solid strategy.....lmao. Yeah, those big auction house auctions really have nothing in them for anyone it appears..... Why even subscribe if you feel that way?

Peace, Mike Papariello

PS Honestly....when you say this "Meanwhile I end up recycling dozens of catalogs every year from all the auction houses that don't have anything to add to my collection."
then people kinda just stop listening to you. Just sayin'

Here's my view:

The big auction houses seldom have any cards that I could actually afford. If they do, they're usually inserted into a lot with a bunch of other cards I may or may not need/want, bringing the total lot price up to a level I can't afford. I still look at the auctions to see what's there, in the hope that just maybe, they have something I could shoot for.

PWCC on the other hand (and other companies like them), have all levels of cards.....high value/low value; the full spectrum. They also allow you to combine your winnings each month, paying for all of them once each month's auction is done. This works out great for me, as payments for PWCC auction winnings are due the first week of each month, right after payday. They make it very quick and easy. I've been buying from them for several years, and have never had any reason to complain.

Regarding the allegations against them over the last three or so years, I do not discount them; they are serious and need to be looked at, but for me, I try to "buy the card, not the holder"; meaning I look carefully at the card before bidding, and I absolutely do not bid an amount I am uncomfortable with. If I win it, great; if not, I'll just keep looking. Sure, I might get shilled (that's a danger in any auction in any hobby/category, not just card collecting), but as long as I'm not paying more than I'm comfortable with, I consider it good.

Steve

[Johnny630]

I don’t think Pwcc will do as well on this new platform for the following reasons

On eBay when PWCC was listing buyers have the option of using a credit card with a money-back guarantee/time frame, also CC charge backs. In many major auction houses there are no credit cards, no money back guarantee, with all sales final terms of sale, how comfortable will you be buying from them under those terms?? Especially considering their past numerous sales of cards ousted as trimmed by BODA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I don’t think Pwcc will do as well on this new platform for the following reasons

On eBay when PWCC was listing buyers have the option of using a credit card with a money-back guarantee/time frame, also CC charge backs. In many major auction houses there are no credit cards, no money back guarantee, with all sales final terms of sale, how comfortable will you be buying from them under those terms?? Especially considering their past numerous sales of cards ousted as trimmed by BODA.

The inevitable short term run on the Vault will not help. That said, he is very innovative and very hard-working, and nobody is going to care about the shill bidding accusations, so I wouldn't bet against him yet.

[japhi]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This screenshot topic is a prime example. It keeps getting passed around as though it were evidence of PWCC instructing their buyers to shill bid on their auctions. This doesn't appear to be true though.

In the screenshot he basically demands the guy places the high bid. And they reference previous discussions they have had around bid increments.

Not evidence of shill bidding, but does raise a number of questions. First, why is an auction house discussing bidding strategy with a potential buyer? If the bidder is a problem, block his access. This is simple stuff. And how does Brent know the high bid will get beat?

Lots to unpack in that exchange and none of it screams integrity from either side.

[japhi]

For the folks that say they simply pay the price they are comfortable with, and therefore can't be had by a shill bidder....I'm curious to understand where that pricing decision comes from? Do you folks have some magical trading card evaluation logic? Or do you use previous sales history? If the latter, you are absolutely exposed to all these bidding schemes.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by japhi

For the folks that say they simply pay the price they are comfortable with, and therefore can't be had by a shill bidder....I'm curious to understand where that pricing decision comes from? Do you folks have some magical trading card evaluation logic? Or do you use previous sales history? If the latter, you are absolutely exposed to all these bidding schemes.

Throw out PWCC as a comparable sale number valuation, I’ve been doing that for years.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Leon knows who I am. He has my name and phone number. I have nothing to hide. But that is different from wanting to post content on a public forum with my personal info attached to it in the year 2021. A lot has changed over the past 10 years with respect to people posting online. Most employers in Silicon Valley these days do not want their employees to engage in public discussions under their own names, as any random comment taken out of context today can, and often does, get brought back to HR departments by people trying to "dox" someone or get them "canceled".

I have no intention of disparaging individuals or companies here, or of saying anything stupid that might get me "canceled" for something. I care more about my career than I do about launching accusations at others. I do enjoy discussing current events and developments in the hobby like this eBay/PWCC email today, but if you go back and read my comments on this topic, I don't think you'll see me accusing any of the parties involved of anything untoward. If anything, I'm pushing back against those who are.

Carry on and don't worry what others think about you for not having your name out there.
In their frustration for not knowing who you are or wondering if they do, they are simply trying to coerce you into revealing it.

Like you have clearly stated, you have broken no rules in that requirement so there is no need.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Throw out PWCC as a comparable sale number valuation, I’ve been doing that for years.

Like the old Russian judge thing in gymnastics.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

except that the numbers you AREN'T throwing out have still been influenced by PWCC numbers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

except that the numbers you AREN'T throwing out have still been influenced by PWCC numbers.

It's a giant cluster fork.

[japhi]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Throw out PWCC as a comparable sale number valuation, I’ve been doing that for years.

Doesn’t work that way unless you can convince the rest of the market to do same.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by japhi

Doesn’t work that way unless you can convince the rest of the market to do same.

Hopefully the rest will wake up and smell the garbage for what it is,’it’s
Caca.

[Yoda]

There was an interesting post this afternoon from one of the talking heads on U Tube offering a different scenario about this whole mess: Now that Ken Goldin is part of the CU family and about to launch his new platform, what better way to cripple one of your chief competitors, in this case PWCC, than to present to Ebay irrefutable evidence that PWCC has been shill bidding. Plausible, who knows.
The only character to complete the picture is Gary Moser.

[Peter_Spaeth]

From the new PWCC FAQ apologies if duplicate post. As I say presented without comment.

Shill bidding is a bid placed without the intention to honor it - regardless of who placed the bid. As outlined in our Marketplace Tenets PWCC has clear rules that no one may place a bid unless that bid is intended to win the item - not consignors, friends of consigners, people who own other versions of the card, etc. PWCC has never engaged in nor condoned the practice of shill bidding or manipulating the card market. PWCC is proud of our work to ensure a trusted marketplace and unequivocally deny eBay's claims regarding shill bidding.

PWCC prides itself on creating a culture of integrity and trust. We understand its importance to our company, the industry, and collectors.

[Leon]

You have easily crossed the line a bit. I told you that one post could stay. I didn't give you carte blanche to not follow the rules. To continue saying who you know and what you know and anything else, is going to require your name. Nothing personal.
I just went back and read the PM. I did say you could call out absolute fraud as you did in that one thread, without having your name...as it was such a good job. But in retrospect no exceptions should probably be made. I do like people who root out fraud in the hobby. Quite the conundrum.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Now for a comment, Brent himself posted here that he knew in 2016 that a handful of people were "pushing" the market. That obviously entailed bidding intended to push the price higher, not intended to win the item. Now you could say that's OK as long as you do pay if you miscalculate, but that's not the issue, the issue is he just misspoke again. Geez.

The man needs a good lawyer. He should have kept the one he had.

Incidentally I can't find it quickly but there was a thread on Blowout listing an astonishing number of high dollar cards "won" in PWCC that apparently were not recognized by ebay as completed sales.

[Buythatcard]

One thing you have to remember there are 183 million buyers on eBay. Don't think that PWCC will get the same coverage selling on their own platform.

Now that some of these eyes will no longer be looking at PWCC, they will search for other places to seek out their cards.

It's a win-win situation for other Sellers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

One thing you have to remember there are 183 million buyers on eBay. Don't think that PWCC will get the same coverage selling on their own platform.

Now that some of these eyes will no longer be looking at PWCC, they will search for other places to seek out their cards.

It's a win-win situation for other Sellers.

But why, Howard? Not being on ebay hasn't hurt Heritage or REA or Goldin.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now for a comment, Brent himself posted here that he knew in 2016 that a handful of people were "pushing" the market. That obviously entailed bidding intended to push the price higher, not intended to win the item. Now you could say that's OK as long as you do pay if you miscalculate, but that's not the issue, the issue is he just misspoke again. Geez.

The man needs a good lawyer. He should have kept the one he had.

Incidentally I can't find it quickly but there was a thread on Blowout listing an astonishing number of high dollar cards "won" in PWCC that apparently were not recognized by ebay as completed sales.

I guess it's safe to say it is Jeff you are referring to?
Sorry I missed it, if it was spoke about in here, but what happened there?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

I guess it's safe to say it is Jeff you are referring to?
Sorry I missed it, if it was spoke about in here, but what happened there?

I don't know the details. I speculate that Brent changed his mind and decided he didn't want to cooperate and plead to a charge, but instead wanted to fight. But that's just a guess. That deep into the representation there had to be some fundamental rift, IMO.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

One thing you have to remember there are 183 million buyers on eBay. Don't think that PWCC will get the same coverage selling on their own platform.

Now that some of these eyes will no longer be looking at PWCC, they will search for other places to seek out their cards.

It's a win-win situation for other Sellers.

Yes Howard, but I'd guess only a small percentage of that total are looking at cards.

[Buythatcard]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But why, Howard? Not being on ebay hasn't hurt Heritage or REA or Goldin.

Well, REA has built up their customer base outside of eBay. They have never been accused of shilling.

I think that many ebay buyers are not even aware of PWCC's shilling practices. Not all buyers belong to Forums where the topic is discussed. They will receive the eMail that eBay has sent out and now they will hear about it thru word of mouth. I think many of them will no longer bid over at PWCC after hearing about this. Many buyers are not comfortable bidding outside the comforts of eBay.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know the details. I speculate that Brent changed his mind and decided he didn't want to cooperate and plead to a charge, but instead wanted to fight. But that's just a guess. That deep into the representation there had to be some fundamental rift, IMO.

Interesting.
How long ago did this take place?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

Interesting.
How long ago did this take place?

I think perhaps a couple of months back.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think perhaps a couple of months back.

I'm not a lawyer expert but I think, like you alluded to, that was likely a big mistake on Brent's part.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Leon

You have easily crossed the line a bit. I told you that one post could stay. I didn't give you carte blanche to not follow the rules. To continue saying who you know and what you know and anything else, is going to require your name. Nothing personal.
I just went back and read the PM. I did say you could call out absolute fraud as you did in that one thread, without having your name...as it was such a good job. But in retrospect no exceptions should probably be made. I do like people who root out fraud in the hobby. Quite the conundrum.



.

Thank you for the clarification. I must have misunderstood our prior conversation. I was under the impression that as long as I wasn't disparaging someone or some company that it was acceptable to engage in conversations like this. I will have to excuse myself from the discussion then. My apologies.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

I'm not a lawyer expert but I think, like you alluded to, that was likely a big mistake on Brent's part.

Well, in a criminal case involving sportscards, he was certainly in an optimal position in terms of representation.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, in a criminal case involving sportscards, he was certainly in an optimal position in terms of representation.

I would think so.

We'll see how it all plays out but if I were a betting man there will come a time, I'm sure, when Brent regrets that decision.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

"I don't buy for a second that this is eBay's attempt at cracking down on shill bidding. That's bullshit. If eBay wanted to crack down on this, they would have done so a long time ago, and they would have done it from the inside. They are the ones with all of the relevant bidding behavior and user data. Not the sellers. They can easily crack down on shill bidding, but they've chosen not to, likely because it's a project that would take money out of their pockets."

A quote from you. This is offering an opinion and/or disparaging them.

I could not care less whether you offer an opinion or not. However, when you do you must abide by the rules.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah, there is just no way iMO you're going to get heavily involved in scandal discussions without a name out there. If you want to be anonymous stick to discussing T206 backs or whatever. The most knowledgeable guys in the world on topics like that are here.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by BCauley

Just another thought, but if the FBI asked eBay questions, it could likely be understood where they are headed and thus eBay cut ties. A lot of questions agents ask they already know the answer to.

I can fully understand eBay cutting ties. Where I struggle is in eBay "explaining" the reason is because of "shill bidding".

eBay could have:

• Cut ties with no announcement, which would be the typical path for most sellers they terminate

• Cut ties with an announcement that they are simply cutting ties

I struggle with them making an announcement as to why eBay cut ties with PWCC. This leads me to believe there is something more.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

I can fully understand eBay cutting ties. Where I struggle is in eBay "explaining" the reason is because of "shill bidding".

eBay could have:

• Cut ties with no announcement, which would be the typical path for most sellers they terminate

• Cut ties with an announcement that they are simply cutting ties

I struggle with them making an announcement as to why eBay cut ties with PWCC. This leads me to believe there is something more.

Yes. It says there is something significant going on. What exactly is that significant thing can be debated, with dueling theories posted here.

As mentioned, I don't believe their lawyers would have allowed them to mention shilling if they didn't have strong evidence/proof of it. One would think that even if they did have proof of shilling, they might not mention it when cutting ties. Though, perhaps as PWCC is such a huge player, eBay felt they couldn't cut them without giving any reason.

I'm no lawyer, but, unless they really just uncovered or proved it recently, I don't see how eBay outing the shilling would give them legal protection. For example, suddenly saying "We knew all along she had been smuggling in plutonium from Iran the last ten years" doesn't get you off the hook for not having reported that you knew she had been smuggling in plutonium from Iran the last ten years. However, again, I'm no lawyer and don't know what eBay knows or knew . . . Though it begs the question of if eBay has its own legal concerns.

It should also be noted that eBay apparently only gave the notice to winners of PWCC auctions, and it was not a public announcement. Of course, enough people passed it on, posted it and reported about it that it is now public. If it's true that they sent it to all past and current winners, that's no minor detail either.

[scooter729]

Originally Posted by drcy

It should also be noted that eBay apparently only gave the notice to winners of PWCC auctions, and it was not a public announcement. Of course, enough people passed it on, posted it and reported about it that it is now public. If it's true that they sent it to all past and current winners, that's no minor detail either.

I've won items from PWCC in the past, but nothing in the past several months - and I did NOT receive the notice from eBay. So maybe it just went to very recent winners?

[DanP]

Originally Posted by scooter729

I've won items from PWCC in the past, but nothing in the past several months - and I did NOT receive the notice from eBay. So maybe it just went to very recent winners?

I won a PWCC auction on 8/16 and I’m guessing many in the past. I did not receive the PWCC email from eBay. I’m not sure how they selected who would receive the notification.

[Republicaninmass]

Seeing a few new ads for the vault. Trouble in paradise

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Awfully peculiar In my opinion. Im not sure your threat of not contributing outweighs putting a name with your post, at least with the admins that be.

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by DanP

I won a PWCC auction on 8/16 and I’m guessing many in the past. I did not receive the PWCC email from eBay. I’m not sure how they selected who would receive the notification.

Maybe it just went to the winners of auctions they've confirmed were impacted by shill bidding.

I can't believe some would actually still give PWCC the benefit of the doubt here. They were just canned by the largest online sports memorabilia marketplace in the world, at great cost to said marketplace no less. That's all the proof anyone should need. Like my doctor always says...When you see hoof prints, look for horses, not zebras.