PWCC - Sorry, Yet Again

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by bnorth

There is an ignore option so you only see someones post when someone quotes them.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But then you are missing the fun!

Wow, Ben is in on this thread?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Did you even look at the dozens of threads showing concrete proof of alteration? Thousands of cut and dried "before and after" examples for you to peruse through. All miraculously from the same submitter over a multiple-year span...

Whether or not the FBI finally comes around, someone with your self-proclaimed expertise should easily be able to determine for yourself, their obvious level of corruption and complicity.

The before and after photos themselves could have been altered, don't you know.
And if PSA graded the cards, how can you possibly blame Brent?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Did you even look at the dozens of threads showing concrete proof of alteration? Thousands of cut and dried "before and after" examples for you to peruse through. All miraculously from the same submitter over a multiple-year span...

Yes, I read those. Nearly all, if not all of those posts. The majority of the cards posted certainly were trimmed or altered in some way, I agree. What I'm waiting on is the evidence that PWCC themselves did this.

Originally Posted by perezfan

Whether or not the FBI finally comes around, someone with your self-proclaimed expertise should easily be able to determine for yourself, their obvious level of corruption and complicity.

Show me one post where I proclaimed expertise in this area. Just one. I'll give you $10k if you can find just one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, I read those. Nearly all, if not all of those posts. The majority of the cards posted certainly were trimmed or altered in some way, I agree. What I'm waiting on is the evidence that PWCC themselves did this.




Show me one post where I proclaimed expertise in this area. Just one. I'll give you $10k if you can find just one.

They didn't have to do it, if they knew they were trimmed or altered but sold them anyway without disclosure, they're just as culpable. If you've read as much as you claim you would already understand this because I have explained it ad nauseum and probably others have too. And Brent certainly did some of the chemical stuff himself.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, I read those. Nearly all, if not all of those posts. The majority of the cards posted certainly were trimmed or altered in some way, I agree. What I'm waiting on is the evidence that PWCC themselves did this.




Show me one post where I proclaimed expertise in this area. Just one. I'll give you $10k if you can find just one.

OK perhaps not expertise in this specific area... but expertise in the general hobby of card collecting would preclude any rational collector (or an educated and well-versed collector such as yourself) from venturing into the treacherous waters of Lake Oswego. Is that good enough for the $10K ?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The before and after photos themselves could have been altered, don't you know.

And if PSA graded the cards, how can you possibly blame Brent?

If only Leon could add emogis for...

Hear no evil
See no evil
Speak no evil

[Bigdaddy]

I too don't know what the outcome of any FBI or other law enforcement investigation will be, but I have to make a personal decision whether to spend my money with PWCC or not.

And at this point, I have all the evidence I need to make that decision. And so has everyone else. If you continue to deal with them, then you have concluded that they are worthy of your business. And if you don't, then you've come to the other conclusion. For me, I see no reason to do business with them.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

I too don't know what the outcome of any FBI or other law enforcement investigation will be, but I have to make a personal decision whether to spend my money with PWCC or not.

And at this point, I have all the evidence I need to make that decision. And so has everyone else. If you continue to deal with them, then you have concluded that they are worthy of your business. And if you don't, then you've come to the other conclusion. For me, I see no reason to do business with them.

Innocent until proven guilty...sure but given the extent of the allegations, the long history of questionable business practices (one of which was confirmed by eBay), the piles of evidence on BO, Brent's many proclamations up until lawyering up...I prefer to just avoid him. Too many other places to buy cards. Where there is smoke there is fire.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Wow, Ben is in on this thread?

You are far from the only one saying that.

[Johnny630]

If a indictment and criminal conviction of PWCC does happen then you will see major hit to the current prices as a whole for this industry. If nothing happens which I continue to think will be the case we continue to March on.

Is the juice worth the squeeze ? I’d say no. The court of public opinion and eBay has dealt with them, that’s enough for me.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

If a indictment and criminal conviction of PWCC does happen then you will see major hit to the current prices as a whole for this industry. If nothing happens which I continue to think will be the case we continue to March on.

Is the juice worth the squeeze ? I’d say no. The court of public opinion and eBay has dealt with them, that’s enough for me.

Innocent until proven guilty.

John, I disagree. Most of us myself included are like rabbits on Viagra when it comes to buying cards. Half the industry could get thrown in jail and we'd just move to buying from the other half. I don't think a conviction of Brent would affect anything.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

John, I disagree. Most of us myself included are like rabbits on Viagra when it comes to buying cards. Half the industry could get thrown in jail and we'd just move to buying from the other half. I don't think a conviction of Brent would affect anything.

Time will tell....idk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

John, I disagree. Most of us myself included are like rabbits on Viagra when it comes to buying cards. Half the industry could get thrown in jail and we'd just move to buying from the other half. I don't think a conviction of Brent would affect anything.

I agree. I don't see how PWCC going down would have an effect on overall market prices.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I agree. I don't see how PWCC going down would have an effect on overall market prices.

Guess it would depend on the collateral damage, and what exactly the went down for. I assume you dont mean their website went down. In that case, probably no effect.

List of altered cards, consignors, shillers, people unable to remove items from the vault, panic selling, pandemonium ensuing. Well I'd think that Might have an impact. They were, of course, the greatest Ebay sellers and always got a premium for their secure shipping

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Guess it would depend on the collateral damage, and what exactly the went down for. I assume you dont mean their website went down. In that case, probably no effect.

List of altered cards, consignors, shillers, people unable to remove items from the vault, panic selling, pandemonium ensuing. Well I'd think that Might have an impact. They were, of course, the greatest Ebay sellers and always got a premium for their secure shipping

I'm assuming worst case scenario, conviction for selling altered cards and shill bidding. I'll even assume a couple of others go down with him. I don't see a market impact, this hobby is dug in way too deep to change its habits, it will move right past it.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

If a indictment and criminal conviction of PWCC does happen then you will see major hit to the current prices as a whole for this industry.

[samosa4u]

I really like Johnny and I enjoy reading his posts, but he was the one telling people that the hobby was doomed and to sell back in ... wait for it ... 2019!

You really have to be careful who you listen to, kids!

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I really like Johnny and I enjoy reading his posts, but he was the one telling people that the hobby was doomed and to sell back in ... wait for it ... 2019!

You really have to be careful who you listen to, kids!

I’m glad you like reading my posts, I like yours as well.

I’ll eat it, I’ve been wrong on the outlook of the card market since 2019.

[Exhibitman]

Other than taking a pack of crooks out it wont make a bit of difference. Whatever they don't sell will just fall to the others to sell.

[drcy]

I don't know, but my intuition says they won't do as well as their own site. eBay is a unique place for what PWCC does. And I'm not talking about shilling or trimming, I'm talking about offering at auction 40,000 lots.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Would you care to share how you know the investigation is still ongoing? I have no knowledge of whether the investigation has been completed or not. But I do know that they were investigated. I did not misspeak. Perhaps they are also still being investigated, but at this point (as it has been years now) the onus is on you to provide evidence of that claim if you wish to make it.

Hate to tell you Snowman, but Ted/Republicaninmass has a very good point in regards to your earlier response where you stated, "I've read enough to know that their actions have been THOUROUGHLY investigated by the FBI for the laundry list of accusations made on the Blowhard forums." I know you are very intelligent and quite articulate so, when using the word "thouroughly", you are stating that the FBI has in fact completely investigated every detail in regards to these accusations, which most normal, intelligent people would take to mean that the FBI has nothing more to look at and investigate in this regard (ie: They ARE done investigating). But then in a later thread you stated you never said they completed the investigation, and that you didn't know if they were done with it or not. So you've made completely conflicting statements within a couple of posts of each other. I can fully and easily see how people are being confused by some of what you're saying, and therefore questioning it. So be kind when telling others to go back because they didn't properly read what you wrote, it can also apply to yourself as well.

Another point in regards to your statements and ongoing debate with several others on here regarding the treatment and opinions towards PWCC, I saw you state that though late to the party, you feel you've pretty much seen and read all the applicable posts out there, and how you feel up to date on what has transpired so far in regards to PWCC and all the accusations. You have mentioned that there is really no definitive proof of any wrong doing on PWCC's part that has actually been presented to the hobby community as a whole yet, and therefore are withholding any final determination as to their guilt or innocence, which I can fully understand and agree with under those circumstances.

Now, it hasn't been spefically brought up in this thread, but it has previously been brought up by others on this forum that they had in the past communicated directly with Brent at PWCC about a lot of past activity and consignments he allegedly accepted and sold on behalf of at least one particularly well known card doctor. And if my memory serves me correctly, when the issues and examples of all the card doctoring taking place in the hobby started being exposed on Blowout, that was when Brent started getting questioned and allegedly admitted to having taken consignments and worked with this known card doctor in the past, but supposedly was telling those then questioning him that he was no longer doing business with that person anymore. Now I don't remember the exact details, but it was then reported on this forum that it was somehow found out or determined that Brent/PWCC was in fact still working with this known card doctor after all, despite his statements that he wasn't anymore. Do you remember coming across and reading that info on this forum as well, and if so, would that in your thinking be positive evidence that Brent/PWCC was knowledgeable after all in regards to the acceptance and continued selling of items from a known card doctor? I guess the question would be, why would someone tell people they no longer took consignments from a known card doctor if in fact they still were?

I would think that as the Blowout guys kept exposing altered cards being sold that it would be pretty easy for who ever was selling them to have their people look up who the consignor(s) was/were. And once discovering such info, do you think they should maybe confront them about it and stop doing business with repeat consignors of such exposed, altered cards? I'm pretty confident people were and still are trying to contact and make whoever is/was selling such doctored cards aware of that fact, based on numerous posts and comments of people on this and other forums. So I doubt any such major sellers can plead total ignorance to this issue. And I can also understand your stance that maybe these sellers aren't directly involved in actually altering any cards, or in the improper grading of such cards by TPGs totally missing/ignoring the alterations. But does that then excuse all these sellers in your mind from not being complicit to some extent? It is kind of hard (really pretty much impossible) for any major seller to not be aware of what is going on in the hobby in regards to alterations. So if they aren't somehow complicit, why aren't they all being totally transparent with everyone as to what they are doing to stop dealing with altered cards?

Or maybe it is already too late and hobby purists, like many are here on Net54, are the old and fading part of the hobby who's thinking and actions are slowly being transformed by the incoming younger generations, investors, registry addicts, people who do not mind card restoration, and so on. In that case we may be nothing more than a dwindling minority and no action will ever come from our objections as the rest of the hobby community accepts things we do not want to. And if that turns out to be the case, maybe card doctors and alterations become the norm and an accepted part of the hobby, even if a TPG grades it without recognizing any such alterations. With no single, uniform, recognized standards in the hobby, it is going to be difficult for anyone to be found guilty of anything for relying upon someone else's opinion. And this may be another reason why AHs and sellers aren't saying/doing much about alterations and card doctors, as they see the changes and acceptance coming more and more in the future. And they realize that there is already so much altered and doctored material out there in graded slabs that it is impossible to ever go back and correct it all, so they don't. They just sit tight and be quiet as more and more old time purist collectors go away over time. Who really knows anymore.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah Bob I posted everything I knew about this when the scandal first broke and Gary's name came to light, including emails I've seen and personal conversations. I don't feel like doing it again every time some skeptic pops up. I also explained why knowingly selling altered cards without disclosure, even if someone else altered them, could be mail/wire fraud.


One other point -- if the feds decide not to prosecute you, it doesn't mean they think you're innocent, necessarily. Sometimes the rules of evidence make it difficult to prove something in court even though it's clearly true, and that can factor into the decision. Prosecutors don't like to bring cases they don't view as highly likely to succeed.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah Bob I posted everything I knew about this when the scandal first broke and Gary's name came to light, including emails I've seen and personal conversations. I don't feel like doing it again every time some skeptic pops up. I also explained why knowingly selling altered cards without disclosure, even if someone else altered them, could be mail/wire fraud.


One other point -- if the feds decide not to prosecute you, it doesn't mean they think you're innocent, necessarily. Sometimes the rules of evidence make it difficult to prove something in court even though it's clearly true, and that can factor into the decision. Prosecutors don't like to bring cases they don't view as highly likely to succeed.

Yeah Peter, I remember you were one of the people posting about it, and wondered if Snowman wouldn't have to admit there might be complicity based on those circumstances alone. Just didn't know if he had come across that info before and included that in his thinking.

Also wanted to poke Snowman a bit for what he said. He's always telling others to go back and re-read what he wrote and then chastises them for not paying attention to what he said. Well this time the tables are turned and he wrote and stated something and then said he didn't. He'll probably argue with me that I'm wrong or it wasn't what he meant, at which point I'll just tell him to look up the definition of the word "thouroughly", and read his own statement again. I figured I'd help out some of those he debates a lot with by good naturedly pointing out hes not always infallible. LOL


As for the wire/mail fraud possibility, this whole issue got me thinking that the government may do nothing because they're not sure they could convict someone in the case of cards that may have been doctored. As you said, the FBI may know that some parties were purposely doctoring cards to get better grades, but may not go ahead and file any charges. They know they'd have to convince a jury, probably made up of mostly non-card collecting people, that a crime was committed. But exactly what crime was being committed?

I can easily see a defense attorney arguing and asking what mail/fraud occurred in the case of an altered card being slabbed by a TPG, and then sold on Ebay. Assuming the card was a real one to begin with, it wasn't a fake or counterfeit, so no fraud there. And it has been said many times on here that a person can do anything they want to a card they own, including trimming, soaking, erasing marks, etc., none of which is a crime of any kind. And the submission of a doctered/altered card to an independent TPG is likewise not a crime either. And the TPGs reviewing a submitted card for authenticity and grading results in their rendering an opinion as to what they believe the condition of a card is, and whether they think it authentic or not. And the key word is "opinion", because that is all a TPG gives. If they don't detect any alterations or issues with an altered card, have they committed any fraud or crime, again, no. And if that altered card is then consigned to an AH or online consignment seller, they just list and sell what is given to them and rely upon the opinion of the TPG who authenticated and graded the card, since the TPG is probably one of the respected and relied upon TPGs in the hobby. People look to their opinions as to a card's authenticity and condition, not the consignor or seller. So if the TPG says a card is real and don't detect any alterations, is it legally up to a seller/owner to say otherwise that they disagree with a TPG's opinion, I'm not so sure it is. Now it may not be viewed by some as ethically or morally right, but that doesn't mean it still may be legally okay.

And here's where I can see the prosecution having a problem convincing a jury filled with non-card collecting peers that someone committed fraud of any kind. First off, an altered card can still be authentic, so no fraud from that standpoint. Now the issue of condition and potential alteration of a card is the opinion reflected in the grade a TPG gives a card. And if you want to prove fraud, wouldn't you have to be able to prove that the TPG knowingly misgraded a card and purposely ignored alterations, probably working in union with the seller and/or consignor to knowingly dupe the public? But how do you prove such complicity between TPGs, sellers and their consignors? I sincerely doubt they'd write letters or send texts or emails to one another talking about how they are in cahoots. In fact, I can actually see the card doctors hoping some of their grading submissions do get rejected for alterations (as probably do the TPGs as well), as that makes it look all the more like the TPGs are doing their job and catching altered cards. Makes the ones not being detected all the more believable as legit, unaltered cards. So the card doctors can just consign altered cards to a seller, and maybe have the seller submit them to a TPG for grading then. Nicely helps to keep all the parties separate from one another and maybe adds an extra layer of protection then as the card doctor doesn't directly sell altered cards to unsuspecting buyers and actually mail them as well. The TPGs don't always deal directly with card doctors then if the seller handles the grading submission, or so I assume, and I'm also guessing no one in this threesome (card doctor/seller/TPG) asks or offers to tell any of the others outright if cards being consigned for sale or submitted for grading were doctored or altered. That way the seller and TPG can both have plausible deniability as to whether a card was altered or not, and the card doctor can merely say they relied on an independent TPG's opinion as to a card's condition, and left it up to the seller they consigned a card with to list and sell it as they, the seller, saw fit. Plus, think of all the other errors that TPGs routinely seem to make, especially some of the really egrgious ones that often get pointed out here on our forum. That would go a long way IMO to persuading a jury that altered cards, along with many other errors, often slip through a TPG's quality control system to wind up in improperly graded holders, but are not necessarily indicative of any illicit or illegal scheme or collusive activity to intentionally grade and slab altered cards.

And if that wasn't already enough to confuse and befuddle a jury, I'd then start pointing out to them how the issue ultimately comes down to how a card is graded, but that there isn't one overall, agreed upon set of grading and alteration standards for the entire hobby. Each TPG has their own unique way they grade and detect issues, and even those standards for individual TPGs can easily be shown to have changed over the years. And the same can be shown for individual collectors how they also have vastly different ideas of what a card should grade, and what they do or don't consider as alterations, be it soaking, erasure of marks, spooning out creases, possibly trimming oversided borders, and even full-blown restorations. Heck, I can see this restored T206 Wagner in the current SCP auction being a perfect example to show to a jury why restored cards have significant value, regardless of grade, especially if it ends up selling for more than some non-restored Wagners. And of course there's the now infamous Gretzky Wagner, still residing in an incorrect PSA 8 holder. But at the same time, if it were to suddenly come up for sale I imagine it would likely go for the highest ever price for a single baseball card of all time, easily eclipsing all the recent single card record sales that have occurred since the pandemic started. That alone could possibly sway some jurors to not find fault with other altered cards and how they end up being graded. And with all the other problems and issues we've been been going through lately, the last thing the government wants and needs is to spend a ton of time and resources on a long, drawn out trial over baseball cards, only to have it end in aquittal or a hung jury. This is definitely not the same as legal issues from shill bidding.

So I have no clue either if we ever will see charges brought for sales of alleged altered cards. Only time will tell.

[GeoPoto]

Prosecutors generally don't have to prosecute cases that are likely to succeed. Instead they use the threat of prosecution to force the company to "voluntarily" make changes necessary to prevent recurrance of the proscribed activity. If Brent and Betsy "dance" perfectly, they may be able to blame "everything" on him, transfer his control/interest to her, commit to internal controls designed to prevent recurrance, and pay a whopping fine. The company could then go forward, led by Betsy and/or a new CEO.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

Prosecutors generally don't have to prosecute cases that are likely to succeed. Instead they use the threat of prosecution to force the company to "voluntarily" make changes necessary to prevent recurrance of the proscribed activity. If Brent and Betsy "dance" perfectly, they may be able to blame "everything" on him, transfer his control/interest to her, commit to internal controls designed to prevent recurrance, and pay a whopping fine. The company could then go forward, led by Betsy and/or a new CEO.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Would this be discoverable if something like this were to occur? I could see how something like this could be on the table if the crimes were somewhat negligible, but if you read the allegations on Blowhard, we're talking about levels of fraud that far exceed that of what even Mastro did. If all (or even just the majority of) those allegations are true, might they still pursue such a soft punishment? I just have a difficult time buying the idea that PWCC committed massive fraud and that Brent just received a slap on the wrist because that's just how these things go.

[GeoPoto]

If what many on this and other forums believe is true/provable, Brent will end up pleading to something. From the company's perspective, whatever happened was an unfortunate part of the past but will never be repeated.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[CardPadre]

Just an add-on item to a PWCC thread, did anyone know that they keep your cards if they don’t get the minimum $10 bid at auction?

I just found this when reading through all their terms and faqs. Out of the 40,000+ cards for sale during their first monthly auction, almost 3000 went without bids and are now owned by PWCC. Wonder if all those owners were made clearly aware of that possibility or if it will be a surprise.
- Will.i.am $t@dy




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vthobby]

I just got a very personalized email from PWCC telling me that the items I had in their last auction were sold and will be paid out in time.

Funny thing is......I pulled ALL of my cards from them about 6 months ago and breathed a big sigh of relief when I finally got everything back.

I can't wait to see what I sold (lol) ........ that I did not even have in their auction!



Crazy times indeed!

Peace, Mike

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

I just got a very personalized email from PWCC telling me that the items I had in their last auction were sold and will be paid out in time.

Funny thing is......I pulled ALL of my cards from them about 6 months ago and breathed a big sigh of relief when I finally got everything back.

I can't wait to see what I sold (lol) ........ that I did not even have in their auction!



Crazy times indeed!

Peace, Mike

If the purchased cards just go into the vault and show up only on a vault account, think of the Ponzi schemes they could run, selling phantom cards they no longer actually have in possession.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Just an add-on item to a PWCC thread, did anyone know that they keep your cards if they don’t get the minimum $10 bid at auction?

I just found this when reading through all their terms and faqs. Out of the 40,000+ cards for sale during their first monthly auction, almost 3000 went without bids and are now owned by PWCC. Wonder if all those owners were made clearly aware of that possibility or if it will be a surprise.
- William Stady




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe you may have misunderstood their policy. It sounds like they're saying that if a card in their auction gets no bids that they keep it to relist in their next auction, not that they actually own the card. I imagine that if/when the card sells in a subsequent auction that they still send the net proceeds from the sale to the original consignor. Sounds like they're trying to protect themselves from the effort and costs of dealing with people who send them items that end up not being worth even the initial bid amount they set their auctions at. Not sure how they actually handle the determination and acceptance of consigned items, but this policy may keep them from having to expend the time and incur the shipping costs of constantly having to send back items that aren't worth their standard minimum auction starting bid.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

I believe you may have misunderstood their policy. It sounds like they're saying that if a card in their auction gets no bids that they keep it to relist in their next auction, not that they actually own the card. I imagine that if/when the card sells in a subsequent auction that they still send the net proceeds from the sale to the original consignor. Sounds like they're trying to protect themselves from the effort and costs of dealing with people who send them items that end up not being worth even the initial bid amount they set their auctions at. Not sure how they actually handle the determination and acceptance of consigned items, but this polcy may keep them from having to expend the time and incur the shipping costs of constantly having to send back items that aren't worth their standard minimum auction starting bid.

Yes, they obviously (even if it is Brent lol) aren't just keeping people's cards as their own. They just mean they won't individually relist it after the auction. They could have worded it better.

[CardPadre]

Maybe I did misinterpret it, absolutely possible. But it literally says "the item will be forfeited to pwcc". No one else reads that as pwcc actually taking ownership of the card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Maybe I did misinterpret it, absolutely possible. But it literally says "the item will be forfeited to pwcc". No one else reads that as pwcc actually taking ownership of the card?

You have to read it in light of the last sentence. It's poorly worded to be sure.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You have to read it in light of the last sentence. It's poorly worded to be sure.

I felt the last sentence referred to unpaid items, not items that did not receive a bid. I felt the unsold item (not receiving a bid) policy was addressed earlier. Again, not totally sure, but I'm stuck in that interpretation at the moment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

I felt the last sentence referred to unpaid items, not items that did not receive a bid. I felt the unsold item (not receiving a bid) policy was addressed earlier. Again, not totally sure, but I'm stuck in that interpretation at the moment.

They can't just keep your cards.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Maybe I did misinterpret it, absolutely possible. But it literally says "the item will be forfeited to pwcc". No one else reads that as pwcc actually taking ownership of the card?

I agree with you it sounds like they get ownership of your card if it doesn't meet their $10 min bid. They are doing this instead of charging you fees for a low end item that didn't sell.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They can't just keep your cards.

Official response…they do own your card if it doesn’t get a bid.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Official response…they do own your card if it doesn’t get a bid.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This cannot be right. One cant just modify Terms of service and keep someone’s property that was entrusted to them. If true, this policy will never survive a legal challenge.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by chadeast

This cannot be right. One cant just modify Terms of service and keep someone’s property that was entrusted to them. If true, this policy will never survive a legal challenge.

Why wouldn't it? The person is agreeing to the terms before consigning the cards.

We are talking cards that don't get a $10 min bid. The fees and shipping would be more than the card it worth and seems like a very reasonable outcome for everyone.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Why wouldn't it? The person is agreeing to the terms before consigning the cards.

We are talking cards that don't get a $10 min bid. The fees and shipping would be more than the card it worth and seems like a very reasonable outcome for everyone.

I assumed that this was a new change. If the policy was already in place when cards were consigned, then my mistake.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Maybe I did misinterpret it, absolutely possible. But it literally says "the item will be forfeited to pwcc". No one else reads that as pwcc actually taking ownership of the card?

I read it that way. It's wholly unambiguous. Even in context, it's quite clear that they are stating that they are taking ownership of the card(s) and do not intend to ever give them back to you. Presumably they would compensate you if and when the card actually sells.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I read it that way. It's wholly unambiguous. Even in context, it's quite clear that they are stating that they are taking ownership of the card(s) and do not intend to ever give them back to you. Presumably they would compensate you if and when the card actually sells.

I would definitely not presume that. That would be like expecting you to give a cut of any sales of your cards to the previous owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

I would definitely not presume that. That would be like expecting you to give a cut of any sales of your cards to the previous owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I presume it only because not doing so would seem to amount to theft.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I agree with you it sounds like they get ownership of your card if it doesn't meet their $10 min bid. They are doing this instead of charging you fees for a low end item that didn't sell.

I find it hard to believe they would/could do that, as it would definitely turn some people off from ever consigning with them. The wording they used definitely leaves something to be desired. But I can also understand them saying they won't simply return the cards because they don't want to go through the work and shipping expense of doing so.

I do not know their consignment policy and if they have any pre-acceptance protocols in place so they don't receive tons of unsolicited consignment submissions that aren't even worth their minimum bid. Unsold lots are not a good look for any AH/seller, and typically incur costs they can't recoup since there was no sale. And the fact that they had approximately 3,000 or so lots that didn't even warrant a bid in their first ever independent platform auction is a bit shocking to me. That seems like an awful high percentage of their initial auction lots got no bids, between 5% - 10%. Makes you wonder if they just did a bad job in accepting items for consignment they shouldn't have, if a lot of people that normally saw and bid on their auctions when they were on Ebay just aren't there now, at least for this first auction, or if there are even other unknown factors causing/influencing this large number of lots to not sell. Probably a combination of factors, that could change as they move forward with future auctions. We'll likely never know for certain though.

Still, if they had 3,000+ lots that didn't even get a $10 minimum bid, and say the average value for those unsold lots was realistically $5 each, that would mean that if their policy of taking possession of anything that didn't sell in their auction was really true that they just grabbed about $15K of cards for nothing. I don't think that will go over well at all with a lot of people, and would add more negative publicity to their name, which is probably the last thing they need right now.

Hmmmm, if they are in fact going to take someone's cards for not selling, I wonder if this could eventually lead to some sort of anti-shilling speculation that they may be able to do things in their auctions so that cards don't sell and they can simply take them for nothing. You know someone would eventually make that accusation if this policy continues.

Not so sure they'd have too many legal issues though as not many, if any, people would go to the time and expense of bringing a lawsuit for an item not even worth $10.

Would love to get the IRS's take on this if they do just take ownership of someone's cards. Would think the IRS could view this as reportable taxable inome to them, equal to at least the FMV of the cards they just took. Would be interesting to know how they internally account for this if they do take someone's cards then.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

I find it hard to believe they would/could do that, as it would definitely turn some people off from ever consigning with them. The wording they used definitely leaves something to be desired. But I can also understand them saying they won't simply return the cards because they don't want to go through the work and shipping expense of doing so.

I do not know their consignment policy and if they have any pre-acceptance protocols in place so they don't receive tons of unsolicited consignment submissions that aren't even worth their minimum bid. Unsold lots are not a good look for any AH/seller, and typically incur costs they can't recoup since there was no sale. And the fact that they had approximately 3,000 or so lots that didn't even warrant a bid in their first ever independent platform auction is a bit shocking to me. That seems like an awful high percentage of their initial auction lots got no bids, between 5% - 10%. Makes you wonder if they just did a bad job in accepting items for consignment they shouldn't have, if a lot of people that normally saw and bid on their auctions when they were on Ebay just aren't there now, at least for this first auction, or if there are even other unknown factors causing/influencing this large number of lots to not sell. Probably a combination of factors, that could change as they move forward with future auctions. We'll likely never know for certain though.

Still, if they had 3,000+ lots that didn't even get a $10 minimum bid, and say the average value for those unsold lots was realistically $5 each, that would mean that if their policy of taking possession of anything that didn't sell in their auction was really true that they just grabbed about $15K of cards for nothing. I don't think that will go over well at all with a lot of people, and would add more negative publicity to their name, which is probably the last thing they need right now.

I get what you are saying, I just see it way differently.

Lets go with your $5 value because it seems reasonable. Wouldn't PWCC charge more than that for fees and return postage of the unsold item? To me it seems like a win win for both parties. It also really pains me to say PWCC is doing anything correctly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Official response…they do own your card if it doesn’t get a bid.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WTF. Then again it's Brent.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I get what you are saying, I just see it way differently.

Lets go with your $5 value because it seems reasonable. Wouldn't PWCC charge more than that for fees and return postage of the unsold item? To me it seems like a win win for both parties. It also really pains me to say PWCC is doing anything correctly.

Hey Ben,

This whole thing seems goofy, and IMO doesn't ultimately look good for PWCC no matter how you slice it if they can, and do, in fact just take someone's cards. I've never heard of any AH or seller in the hobby doing anything like this......ever! If you or anyone else is aware of this type of policy being currently, or at anytime in the past, practiced by anyone else in our hobby, I'ld love to hear about it, and who else it was doing it.

I get exactly what you're saying though, but would all the people that consigned, and then lost their cards, also agree? I don't think they all would. Plus, I went back and edited and added some more to my original post you quoted. Go back and see what else I added while you were responding. I can see this practice, if in fact it is what they are doing, creating more negative publicity for them that they don't need.

If nothing else, it also opens them up to potential accusations of giving false valuation estimates by accepting potential consignments from people who expect to sell their cards to make money, not just end up giving them to PWCC.

What I would suggest is that someone contact PWCC one more time for defintive clarification of exactly what they mean by "forfeited". I would follow-up that response from Heather Harrison by asking if that means if a card of mine that PWCC accepted for consignment and sale did not get even a minimum bid in their auction, and therefore didn't sell, that they (PWCC) took full and complete possession and ownership of my card, without any compensation at all to me from PWCC, whatsoever, and that if PWCC subsequently did sell my card in the future, as the immediately subsequent current owner of that card, they kept all the proceeds and I had the right to absolutely nothing ($0) from the sale of my card. And I would likely also include/ask Heather Harrison if upon their taking possession and ownership of my card for nothing, if that is what they are going to do, would they (PWCC) agree that I can then claim my full basis (cost I have in acquiring the card) as a potential loss on my next tax return that I will be submitting to the IRS. That would be just to let them know this transaction/activity of theirs could potentially have some tax and IRS compliance reporting consequences for myself, and possibly them as well, under the remote possibility they hadn't thought/known about that already.

I have not, nor do I ever intend to consign and sell anything with PWCC so, I'll leave the sending of such a follow-up, clarifying email to PWCC to others.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sounds to me, Bob, like Heather has spoken. Do you REALLY think she's going to give the dude tax advice?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They can't just keep your cards.

They can if you agree to it and sign! I do know of consignment furniture and clothing shops that take possession if things don't sell. The suspicious person might posit that they intentionally price things too high so that they don't sell until they have taken ownership of the items. Now in the case of $10 items in a PWCC auction obviously that's not the case, but still people are consistently surprised by the contracts they sign.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

They can if you agree to it and sign! I do know of consignment furniture and clothing shops that take possession if things don't sell. The suspicious person might posit that they intentionally price things too high so that they don't sell until they have taken ownership of the items. Now in the case of $10 items in a PWCC auction obviously that's not the case, but still people are consistently surprised by the contracts they sign.

It's still a shitty and unnecessary thing to do IMO. Bad look.