Originally Posted by BeanTown (Post 1956389)

Im sure I left many AHs out of my list as I was just firing them out, as I was thinking of them. Ive never delt with Birmingham auctions, so I didn't List them... Nothing personal.

Originally Posted by buymycards (Post 1956358)

In the past few years, I have sent two lots to PWCC. I would say that roughly 1/3 of the items sold for well above my expectations, 1/3 sold at for what I expected, and 1/3 sold for under what I felt I could have sold them for myself. I think that PWCC's perceived sold prices are specific to certain items, and the high prices don't carry through on all items...

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2144478)

I don't think he took his website down because of what BODA did. He can make more money selling his cards through other auction sites.

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2144489)

I feel pretty confident that when PWCC launches its' new platform, we will see an avalanche of PSA graded cards on offer and undoubtedly some will have been messed with. But if you offer them, they will come.
As big as Ebay is, I am sure they miss the revenue PWCC provided, and it obvious that vintage, maybe outside of Probstein, has dried up on Ebay. The simplest solution, of course, is to stop buying any PSA graded cards and move to SGC or Beckett. That is wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2144478)

I don't think he took his website down because of what BODA did. He can make more money selling his cards through other auction sites.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2144498)

What makes you think SGC or Beckett are any better at stopping altered cards?

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2144489)

As big as Ebay is, I am sure they miss the revenue PWCC provided

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144499)

I am not IT dude but the server error that displays I think suggests it was more than an expired domain but that the data from the site has been wiped out.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144499)

Well he absolutely stopped running auctions specifically because of being outed by BODA.

Originally Posted by drcy (Post 2144506)

Makes one think it was a big (legal?) issue for eBay to kick PWCC off.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144509)

How successful was this auction site before that though? Was he a real player in this space? I'd never even heard of them before BODA posted about it.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144511)

If the site did not somehow mysteriously vanish you could see his prices realized and could see he was raking it in. He sold odd ball stuff and got more than every last penny for what he sold.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2144514)

This notion that PWCC was or is a threat to eBay's business is absurd. eBay does not only sell sports memorabilia and the sports memorabilia it does sell makes up a fraction of it's entire revenue. There is no competing with eBay. It's like saying Yahoo is competing with Google. They both exist, but they're not in competition with each other.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144509)

How successful was this auction site before that though? Was he a real player in this space? I'd never even heard of them before BODA posted about it.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2144520)

I bid on and won some cards thru Small Tradition. Never a problem.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2144523)

I'm sure there is more to the story but it will have nothing to do with this idea that PWCC was starting a competing platform and eBay booted them before they could be bankrupted by it.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2144498)

What makes you think SGC or Beckett are any better at stopping altered cards?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2144524)

If I had to guess at this point, I would guess that ebay wanted to dissociate itself from PWCC and Brent because bad things are going to happen to them on the legal front. Just a guess.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2144522)

What does that prove?

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2144535)

Peter, I don't think for a moment that SGC or Beckett has any magic formula for detecting and stopping altered cards from receiving anything but an A grade. But it seems that all of the scandals we have seen over the past few years, Moser, you name it, have almost always involved PSA graded cards, much less than the other two whose pop reports are suspect at best. Their slick marketing supports auction results, SMR and pop features. As many have said, PSA knows how to play Money Ball.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2144514)

This notion that PWCC was or is a threat to eBay's business is absurd. eBay does not only sell sports memorabilia and the sports memorabilia it does sell makes up a fraction of it's entire revenue. There is no competing with eBay. It's like saying Yahoo is competing with Google. They both exist, but they're not in competition with each other.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144583)

Of course PWCC is a threat to ebay's business. They did something like 150 million in revenue in just the first half of 2021 alone. And all those cards that they're selling are in their possession, in their vault. They weren't just the largest seller of sports cards on ebay, they were the largest seller by a long shot. They were also one of ebay's largest sellers in any category, not just cards. When PWCC launches their new platform, they're taking that business with them. Ebay stands to lose a significant revenue stream if those cards are no longer being sold on their platform. Is it going to bankrupt eBay? No, of course not. But it's definitely a kick in the balls to their wallet. Plus, if PWCC is successful, and if they are able to provide a platform with even lower selling fees, they could end up gaining a much larger share of that market in the future. It is without question in ebay's best interest to do whatever they can to ensure this doesn't happen. Ebay is also well known for playing dirty. Cutting off their competition and capping them at the knees by sending out an email blast to all of PWCC's buyers is precisely the sort of calculated move I would expect from eBay. They've earned their reputation for a reason. As has PWCC. Which of the various theories, if any, turn out to be true in the end, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But you'd be foolish to think that PWCC poses no threat to ebay's business. Even myslabs.com poses a threat to ebay. Hell, myslabs just cost ebay $350 yesterday when I sold just one card on their platform that I otherwise would have sold through ebay. Those fees add up quick.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144605)

What? If PWCC did 150 million in gross sales on eBay, what percentage of those sales do you think eBay kept? Let's say it was 5% across the board and that would be a very high number, I think. That is 7.5 million of eBay's over 10 billion in gross revenue. I would not call that a threat to eBay's bottom line...in the least. They already forgot he is gone.

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2144615)

The threat isn't necessarily that they take a large chunk of Ebay's business, the threat is that they are successful, which inspires more and more people and groups to think about taking things off Ebay. Ebay already has enough competition, and they aren't wilingly looking for more. They've been moving away from their auction format for quite a few years now. Talk has been they'd like to be more like Amazon for quite a while now with BIN listings seeming to outpace the auctions by 10X - 20X, at least for baseball cards. Will also be interesting to see if PWWC maintains an auction only strategy on their new platform, or also allow consignors to do BINs as well.

Don't forget, if PWCC can sell on their own platform they cut out Ebay fees. They can probably pass some portion of that fee reduction on as savings to their consignors/customers and lure away product from Ebay. And regardless of whether you like them or not, if PWCC can lure away the product, the buyers will follow. That could become a blueprint for other big Ebay sellers in different categories to possibly observe and mimic, a trend Ebay would not care to see start. Pure speculation though, but plausible.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144624)

I feel this is oversimplifying what it takes to move to your own platform. I doubt most sellers on eBay would want to take on the responsibility on maintaining what it takes to drive traffic to them while still being able to focus on their primary purpose of being in business. Going to take much more than being inspired. If it didn't then many sellers would have done it long ago. I am not defending eBay as a great venue or well run business but I doubt many sellers would have the ability to sustain their businesses without eBay.

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2144615)

Don't forget, if PWCC can sell on their own platform they cut out Ebay fees. They can probably pass some portion of that fee reduction on as savings to their consignors/customers and lure away product from Ebay.

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg (Post 2144665)

Just to make sure we all understand the scale.

ebay had $5.3 billion of revenue the first half of this year and $1.5 billion of operating income. PWCC's contribution to ebay's revenue was about $0.007 billion and maybe $0.002 billion to income*. A drop in the bucket.

*PWCC reported $150 million of sales for the first half of 2021. ebay was charging PWCC fees of less than 5%, according to ebay, which would about $7 million at the most, and probably a lot less. At a 28% average margin to revenue, ebay's operating income on PWCC business would have been about $2 million (or $0.002 billion).

Bottom line: ebay doesn't give a flying fig about PWCC.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144605)

What? If PWCC did 150 million in gross sales on eBay, what percentage of those sales do you think eBay kept? Let's say it was 5% across the board and that would be a very high number, I think. That is 7.5 million of eBay's over 10 billion in gross revenue. I would not call that a threat to eBay's bottom line...in the least. They already forgot he is gone.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144677)

This was in just the first 6 months of 2021. And in a growing market. They were on pace to probably do upwards of 350 million in revenue this year on ebay. You're fooling yourself if you think eBay doesn't care about that revenue.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144510)

Or that eBay got wind of the fact that there were plans in the works at PWCC to leave eBay completely and set up their own auction platform, so eBay retaliated in classic eBay fashion. Who knows why they actually did it, but to cut ties so publicly in the way that they did sure makes one wonder.

One thing is certain though. The premise of the email was clearly bullshit. eBay has never given two shits about shill bidding in the past. This was most likely about something other than cracking down on shill bidding. Perhaps the FBI was breathing down their neck and the legal team felt they had to make a drastic move to cover their asses. Or perhaps they wanted to damage the brand of a soon-to-be competitor who was already on their way out the door. I think those are the two most plausible scenarios. Time will tell. If it is cracking down on shill bidding though, surely that will become apparent via further actions against shill bidding. And if it's the FBI breathing down their neck, that will become apparent once all these indictments start rolling in (any day now... any day now...). But if neither of those things happens, then the scale begins to tip quite heavily toward them just trying to damage the brand of a competitor. Stay tuned, IMO.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok (Post 2144694)

You might have a more compelling argument if you weren't conflating PWCCs revenue with eBay's revenue. PWCC may make $350MM in a year, but eBay only captures a small portion of that. From their 10-K:

The majority of our revenue comes from a take rate on the GMV of transactions closed on our Marketplace and StubHub platforms.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144677)

This was in just the first 6 months of 2021. And in a growing market. They were on pace to probably do upwards of 350 million in revenue this year on ebay. You're fooling yourself if you think eBay doesn't care about that revenue. It was one of their top 10 accounts in all of eBay. They care. This decision was 100% discussed with and strategized by all of the top executives at eBay. Probably at great length. Their legal team, CEO, and CFO all thought deeply about this issue without question, whatever that issue was. Obviously, ebay will do just fine without PWCC. They'd even do just fine without the entire sports card industry. But you shouldn't conflate that with the idea that they don't care about losing one of their largest accounts or that they couldn't be bothered by the idea of PWCC creating a competing platform to take away "their" customers. I promise you, they care.

I work for a company that has a similar grip on a different market like eBay has in theirs (and our market cap is triple that of eBay's). There are a handful of other companies that try to do what we do, but none of them come even remotely close to our capabilities and volume. We are orders of magnitude larger than all of our competitors combined. But I promise you, we definitely care what they're doing and we pay close attention to all of them. Only a fool wouldn't.

Say what you want about PWCC, but scandals aside, one thing is certain. They've built a remarkable brand in this hobby in a fairly short amount of time. They have catapulted themselves to the very top of the sports card industry, and the owners are extremely driven and creative. Perhaps all these rumors about them are true, in which case they'll burn down in flames. But if they're not true, then I wouldn't want to bet against them. They took consignments to a new level. They invented the vault. They launched a premier auction platform and broke records right out of the gate. They've built arguably the best database for card sales that exists online, and they're launching a new platform to compete against eBay with lower tier cards next month. They continue to innovate more and more every year. People like that don't just stop creating new products and expanding. They don't just suddenly become content. They are greedy. They are driven by the desire to succeed and will pursue it at any cost. Today, it's sports cards, but tomorrow it might be sports cards and comics, and the next day it's cards, comics, Pokémon, video games, and coins. I promise you, eBay execs aren't stupid. They see the threat for what it is, and it's not just a few million dollars per year in lost revenue.

I'll make a prediction. Come back and visit this thread in 5 years. Either they'll be in jail, or they'll be a huge competitor to eBay in this space within 5 years, and they will have already expanded into other collectibles markets by then as well, and will continue to develop more tools and resources for the market and their customers as well.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2144703)

It is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand. Taking a dump on a competitor to damage their brand is called "trade libel" (publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. The tort encompasses ‘all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so. (City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments,LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376) and if a $10 billion company does it just to thwart a competitor it will find itself on the receiving end of a massive lawsuit. The fact that eBay did what it did publicly and loudly means that it has solid evidence in hand sufficient to allow their corporate counsel to greenlight a statement that is otherwise textbook trade libel.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2144652)

There is no way they are saving money using their own platform over the sweetheart fees they had with ebay. The costs are tremendous.

No design, no maintenance, no hosting and on and on.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144772)

How can you possibly say that it is "definitely NOT that" though? I assume you're a lawyer. Pay attention to the language used in that email. Their claim is that "individuals associated with PWCC engaged in shill bidding". That's a remarkably broad statement that could easily just mean that people who consigned with PWCC bid on their own auctions. Surely, their legal team carefully crafted that email so as to avoid any such lawsuits. If they had proof that PWCC employees were the ones doing the shill bidding, then why not just say so? After all, as you said, surely they wouldn't make such a claim without proof. But they in fact did not make such a claim. Probably because they did not have such proof.

To walk away from that email and assume that eBay meant anything other than people who consigned with PWCC would be jumping to conclusions based on assumptions. If that is in fact who eBay was referring to when they said "individuals associated with", then I think what they did should be criminal and that it should be considered trade libel. I'm also of the belief, based on my experiences with eBay and the experiences of several of my friends who have worked there (some of whom were executives) that this is most likely what happened.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2144781)

Of course I don't know, but like Adam my assumption would be that a corporation with a 50 billion dollar market cap would have internal controls such that a statement accusing a customer of shill bidding to be widely disseminated would be subject to rigorous review.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2144782)

Agreed. Though I have seen some pretty bone-headed moves by in-house counsels in my career...

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2144703)

It is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand. Taking a dump on a competitor to damage their brand is called "trade libel" (publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. The tort encompasses ‘all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so. (City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments,LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376) and if a $10 billion company does it just to thwart a competitor it will find itself on the receiving end of a massive lawsuit. The fact that eBay did what it did publicly and loudly means that it has solid evidence in hand sufficient to allow their corporate counsel to greenlight a statement that is otherwise textbook trade libel.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144789)

I would also have to assume eBay's move was with the FBI's "nudging" too. Highly doubt eBay was just now able to identify shill bidding with PWCC--whether it as by consignors, employees or both.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2144778)

You need to pay attention to language, Travis. I wrote that eBay's statement "is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand." Just being about damaging the brand would be evidence of intent. As for your point, eBay sending out an email stating that "Recently, it was determined that individuals associated with a trading card seller, PWCC, have engaged in “shill bidding,”" is certainly a "statement concerning the quality of services or product of" PWCC and is certainly one that will cause it financial damage, if for no other reason than the lost profits on the canceled sales and the man-hour needed to relist all that crap on another site. That leaves the intent element of the tort. My point is that under those circumstances eBay's email blast would never pass legal vetting unless there was solid evidence in the file to back up the statement and therefore negate the possibility that it was done with intent to damage the business rather than to protect eBay's customers from further perceived predation with resulting tangential damage to PWCC's business. Otherwise I would expect PWCC to sue, but that will never, ever happen because it would mean that the PWCC crew would have to open their records of communications with every shill bidder and then answer questions under oath posed by trained cross-examiners. If PWCC is so wronged and so right in its actions, let's see the lawsuit to vindicate it. Personally, I am not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2144778)

My point is that under those circumstances eBay's email blast would never pass legal vetting unless there was solid evidence in the file to back up the statement and therefore negate the possibility that it was done with intent to damage the business rather than to protect eBay's customers from further perceived predation with resulting tangential damage to PWCC's business.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2144778)

You need to pay attention to language, Travis. I wrote that eBay's statement "is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand." Just being about damaging the brand would be evidence of intent. As for your point, eBay sending out an email stating that "Recently, it was determined that individuals associated with a trading card seller, PWCC, have engaged in “shill bidding,”" is certainly a "statement concerning the quality of services or product of" PWCC and is certainly one that will cause it financial damage, if for no other reason than the lost profits on the canceled sales and the man-hour needed to relist all that crap on another site. That leaves the intent element of the tort. My point is that under those circumstances eBay's email blast would never pass legal vetting unless there was solid evidence in the file to back up the statement and therefore negate the possibility that it was done with intent to damage the business rather than to protect eBay's customers from further perceived predation with resulting tangential damage to PWCC's business. Otherwise I would expect PWCC to sue, but that will never, ever happen because it would mean that the PWCC crew would have to open their records of communications with every shill bidder and then answer questions under oath posed by trained cross-examiners. If PWCC is so wronged and so right in its actions, let's see the lawsuit to vindicate it. Personally, I am not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2144781)

Of course I don't know, but like Adam my assumption would be that a corporation with a 50 billion dollar market cap would have internal controls such that a statement accusing a customer of shill bidding to be widely disseminated would be subject to rigorous review.

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2144798)

+1,000

If PWCC does have anything even remotely not above board, they will not want to risk going to court and expose any of it. If they did, I can already picture FBI reps sitting in the front row at the trial taking notes.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144799)

I feel like I keep having to point this out, but this is the problem. Nowhere in that email did eBay actually accuse PWCC of shill bidding. Yet somehow, nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144799)

I feel like I keep having to point this out, but this is the problem. Nowhere in that email did eBay actually accuse PWCC of shill bidding. Yet somehow, nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144789)

I would also have to assume eBay's move was with the FBI's "nudging" too. Highly doubt eBay was just now able to identify shill bidding with PWCC--whether it as by consignors, employees or both.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2144783)

Yes but at the level of an ebay for the most part in my experience you're dealing with very good lawyers.

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2144774)

Don't disagree at all Scott, but then why would PWCC have been working on their own platform already? If they had such a sweet deal with lower Ebay fees in the first place, and costs for setting up and then running their own platform would be so exorbitant, why would they have ever thought of operating outside of Ebay? If it ends up costing them so much more to operate their own platform, one would think they would have to charge more to their consignors to cover their costs then, or end up settling for making less money.

And you know how some people/consignors can be when it comes to even a slight increase in costs, they immediately start looking for a cheaper alternative. I don't know if Probstein has the same sweet deal PWCC did regarding Ebay fees. But if PWCC does end up having to charge more to their consignors going forward to cover the operating costs of their own online platform, couldn't this possibly cause some PWCC longtime consignors to maybe start consigning to Probstein, or others who sell on Ebay, instead?

That's why I was thinking PWCC may have figured out a way to operate their own platform at a more reasonable cost than Ebay. I know it isn't cheap to operate their own platform, but PWCC is not ignorant when it comes to running their business. Of course they weren't expecting the boot from Ebay, so maybe that has screwed up their plans on how they were going to run their new platform more than we'll ever likely know. Will be curious to see how PWCC's new platform will actually operate. Will it be like Ebay auctions or more like an online store with mostly BIN pricing, does anybody really know yet? I guess time will tell.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2144813)

So now it is someone else's fault that "nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption"? I am not a lawyer either but I don't think assumptions play a huge role in the judicial process.

For starters, maybe PWCC should not have placed themselves in the predicament they are now in--knee deep in fraud. Or do you see that as also someone else causing them all of this grief?

So do you love PWCC that much or do you just like playing the contrarian?

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2144818)

Don't underestimate the money to be made in an opaque setting where nobody can access your data without a subpoena. This doesn't make the expenses less, it just makes the upside greater.

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2144814)

Didn't specifically address your point about "nudging" before, but can definitely see (and know) that can happen. Would have thought the government could have just gone in and got any records and data they would need, but maybe they didn't have enough to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant?

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2144825)

Oh yea, PWCC said "we dont need Ebay anymore".

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2144825)

Keep trying, you're not changing the PWCC sentiment here on N54.

Just devil's advocate here with a lot of time on his hands

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2144830)

To me, "individuals associated with PWCC" does NOT plausibly mean people in an arms' length relationship such as consignors.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2144835)

Do you mean the "marketplace"?

All the information I had seen had "buy it now" without mention of auctions

Originally Posted by todeen (Post 2144861)

I know there are very smart and successful people on Net54. And lots of valid points were mentioned. I don't have much to contribute by way of speculation. But....

My father worked for Marlboro cigarettes (a parent company that has gone by many names including Philip Morris, Philip Morris USA, and Altria). What I learned from decisions that were made by a mega company is that they are ruthless and willing to do anything to maintain or grow their share in their market regardless of legality. The small group of decision makers at the top of mega companies are willing to lose astonishing sums of money in lawsuits because of the POSSIBILITY of making even more money.

Sometimes no amount of speculation will ever create a plausible reason for why a mega company chooses to do what they do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by RL (Post 2145164)

funny that someone keeps waffling on their opinions

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2144864)

No, supposedly that's separate. I read that they are actually launching an auction platform in addition to the marketplace for their lower tier consignments. I'm just not sure what the format looks like or when exactly it will launch. I think I read October, or maybe November?

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2144895)

Heck, just go back to that story from a few months ago about the MA couple that were stalked, harrassed, and threatened by Ebay employees for posting things on their website that Ebay company execs didn't like. Company culture starts at the top, and works it way all the way down in an organization. If they would do that to a couple for simply postings unpopular things about them on a somewhat obscure website, what do you think Ebay would be capable of doing to one of their top sellers, generating around $300M in sales for the current year, if they suddenly wound up on Ebay's bad side?

Originally Posted by todeen (Post 2145180)

In the mid-90s, Marlboro sponsored the Billings MT fair a couple times. Some local yokel was selling gag gifts, and one of them was a silly cigarette product in Marlboro colors and design. My dad provided a cease and desist letter for encroachment on brand identification. Another time we were in Mexico, and we saw knockoff Marlboro stuff being peddled by sellers on the beach. My dad looked at me and said, "You don't know how much time is spent trying to eliminate stuff like this."

Sometimes it seems like mega companies don't care about money, they are willing to tie up litigation in the courts for years and years instead of paying a settlement. They don't save any money and their lawyers just keep ringing up the billable hours. And then at other times, they are going after mom & pops because every dollar counts.