PWCC Part Deux

[cincyredlegs]

I am disappointed that the previous PWCC thread was locked. I am not a defender of Courtney. I think he is part of the problem in our collecting world as he cares more about how much money he makes vs "most" of us who are purely collectors.

However, he has shown us some pretty damning evidence where PWCC (Brent and company) is participating in the same BS which a lot of us has believed that is occurring. I, along with a lot of people were waiting for Brent to refute the evidence. The only response was to come back at Courtney that he was "un-stable."

Sorry, if I were Brent and I was innocent, I would vehomently deny his accusations. Because he didn't, my gut tells me what most of us believe that he is part of the problem.

I believe Brent should respond back and communicate to us that he did not ask Courtney to shill bid the auction. Not lawyer is needed. If he didn't, then he should respond. No response speaks volumes in my opinion.

Again, I am not defending Courtney. Sammy the Bull wasn't a good person either but he did spill the beans on John Gotti.

Mark

[Peter_Spaeth]

In fairness I believe they did offer an explanation, although one that certainly did not impress everyone. They said they asked him to become the high bidder because he had placed a string of earlier bids without becoming the high bidder and they thought it would look better if he became the high bidder.

[cincyredlegs]

LMAO.......EXACTLY why my gut tells me something isn't right with this entire situation.

[Exhibitman]

Yeah, but the guarantee that his bid won't hold as high bid says all I need to know about the real reason for asking him to shill, and it isn't making it look good.

And I too am disappointed the other thread was shut down. It was entertaining (mostly) and involves an issue of significant concern to collectors. Should've been allowed to run its course.

[Leon]

I think he could have meant the bid wouldn't hold anyway because it would still be way too low, but maybe I am misreading it?
If Courtney has more he can post what he wants to. I think we need to be cognizant to how a text can be physically manipulated too. I am not saying any that were shown were. Just that there is always at least a possibility of it. The other thread was shut down because we weren't even talking about the original subject any longer. I quoted a 3 day old quote as the last post, which questioned it's longevity too. I can assure everyone that no one is being protected. In fact, if I had to guess, there is probably more being done than meets the eye.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Yeah, but the guarantee that his bid won't hold as high bid says all I need to know about the real reason for asking him to shill, and it isn't making it look good.

And I too am disappointed the other thread was shut down. It was entertaining (mostly) and involves an issue of significant concern to collectors. Should've been allowed to run its course.

[Republicaninmass]

Once the name calling started, the little tidbit that Brent had asked him to bid, fell by the wayside.

[ngnichols]

Any person running an auction contacting a bidder other than to let them know that the auction is over and they have won the item is showing an immense conflict of interest.

The #'s PWCC gets for some of it's items makes no sense what-so-ever.

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think he could have meant the bid wouldn't hold anyway because it would still be way too low, but maybe I am misreading it?

I guess you can rationalize just about anything. My rationalization is maybe he meant that he is a greedy, unethical fraudster and he wanted to shill the auction to higher level. No matter what you believe, the fact that an auctioneer is telling a bidder how to bid and how much to bid is certainly unethical and borderline against the law. And I don't think I'm misreading anything.