Goldin income verification

[MikeGarcia]

Post number 36 of a ballplayer wearing a suit doesn't quite count per the bylaws.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm pretty sure it's already the norm with high-end art auctions. It's just new for the sports card crowd, so they take offense.

Yes, don't question the integrity of a baseball card collector lest they take umbrage. After all we're a small close knit community and love and trust each other and our reputations should speak for themselves. Son, I was buying from Lew Lipset when you were still a toddler.

[MVSNYC]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As I said above, I was previously unaware until recently as to how many winning bidders pay for their winnings with cards they then consign for future auctions, after winning their lots. Getting basically interest-free loans from the auction houses. So I can better understand the houses' concern that winning bidders can't pay for their lots.

Jeff, I've found that if you consign prior to an auction that you're also buying in, you (obviously) are working with 100% of your consigned value for auction purchases...but if you propose to "consign to pay" after the auction ends, most auction houses allow this at 50% value of your "new" consignment, thus you need to lay out 50% cash for winnings up front. Everything then gets settled after your item(s) sell.

[Yoda]

I blame next week's election for all the snarky exchanges on this thread.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I blame next week's election for all the snarky exchanges on this thread.

Rubbish.

[ALR-bishop]

I have been on the board since June of 2009 and there has never been a shortage of snarky replies. If they all end next week things may get boring around here.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9

It’s not that hard
I did it over a year ago
There’s a old thread about the premiere auction
I questioned it myself
But gave limited info
I explained my experience
Now this was Pwcc which is now Fanatics
I also bid in Goldin and not had a issue
Not had this problem come up

I believe you may have made a mistake somewhere in your haiku

[brianp-beme]

I don't participate in snark exchanges. I am, however, guilty of the occasional snark and run.


Brian (stay out of murky waters if you want to avoid a snark attack)

[OhioLawyerF5]

I'm happy to be snarky when I see people claiming to take personal offense when a corporation doesn't trust them implicitly because they've been a customer before. I find that hilarious....and sad.

[gabrinus]

I find you hilarious and sad...Jerry

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

I find you hilarious and sad...Jerry

I love you, Jerry.

[Kco]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What are you talking about? To be a bidder you meed to prove income? Or to get a much higher bidding limit?

Yup, did the same to me last year, even after winning well into 5 figures and wiring money the next day. They have zero right to ask for it but they do. I for one haven’t bid again but hey.

[kengoldin]

Without getting into a response to some of these posts in this thread….
If anybody wishes to get a credit limit over $10,000 and does not currently have it and you do not wish to provide the requested information. Please email me personally give me your name. Give me the email you are registered under and just give me a couple hobby references and the limit you think you will need and I will take care of it for you.
Email me do not DM me here
Ken@goldin.com

Keep in mind these policies are done not only to ensure the winning bidder has the ability to pay for anything they are bidding on, but it also ensures the bidders are actually competing against people with the funds to pay, and lowers our default rate.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Kco

Yup, did the same to me last year, even after winning well into 5 figures and wiring money the next day. They have zero right to ask for it but they do. I for one haven’t bid again but hey.

But they have every right to ask. You have every right to refuse and not bid. But that doesn't mean a business doesn't have the right to restrict customers to those approved via their methods.

[Snapolit1]

If this is such an obvious no brainer and customary, how come I’ve been bidding with about a dozen AHs for over a decade for prob hundreds of thousands in bids and no one has asked me for this before? Weird.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If this is such an obvious no brainer and customary, how come I’ve been bidding with about a dozen AHs for over a decade for prob hundreds of thousands in bids and no one has asked me for this before? Weird.

A lot has changed in the baseball card market in the last ten years, if you hadn't noticed.

[Lobo Aullando]

Maybe I missed this in the discussion, but are there any legal protections if the information of someone who has to go through this... let's call it a "background check," gets stolen or leaked? Even something as simple as mere notification or (probably useless) credit monitoring.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm happy to be snarky when I see people claiming to take personal offense when a corporation doesn't trust them implicitly because they've been a customer before. I find that hilarious....and sad.

You're missing the point entirely, if you want to drop to your knees and suck the corporate teat that's your decision. You're defending a company that got its start hoodwinking people into buying sports cards with snake oil tactics on late night TV. Not a good start on the integrity meter.

Kens done a great job maximizing profits, props all day long, but if you think a corporations self interest is greater than normal folks with integrity that are bidding on sports cards in this hobby I would disagree.

Call me old fashioned, I'm good with that, I'd rather hang out with the dozens of old timers on this sub that live by the "my word is my bond" credo than prove we can pay for what we bid on. Lack of trust is your problem not mine.

Heritage, LOTG, REA, etc have never asked for any of that, I'm completely good sending them my unverified money, and they're completely good accepting it.

I'm just a small time collector but do occasionally spend more than 10k in an auction. I'll never deal with a corporation that makes it difficult for me to spend money with them, so no Goldin for me, Ken doesn't need my pittance of business anyway.

Peters false equivalence of mortgage loans makes no sense either, I'd be interested to see if Goldins stewardship of that highly sensitive information adheres to the strict laws we have in the mortgage industry.

So you can defend corporate bullshit all you want but your rooting for the wrong team imo.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

You're missing the point entirely, if you want to drop to your knees and suck the corporate teat that's your decision. You're defending a company that got its start hoodwinking people into buying sports cards with snake oil tactics on late night TV. Not a good start on the integrity meter.



Kens done a great job maximizing profits, props all day long, but if you think a corporations self interest is greater than normal folks with integrity that are bidding on sports cards in this hobby I would disagree.



Call me old fashioned, I'm good with that, I'd rather hang out with the dozens of old timers on this sub that live by the "my word is my bond" credo than prove we can pay for what we bid on. Lack of trust is your problem not mine.



Heritage, LOTG, REA, etc have never asked for any of that, I'm completely good sending them my unverified money, and they're completely good accepting it.



I'm just a small time collector but do occasionally spend more than 10k in an auction. I'll never deal with a corporation that makes it difficult for me to spend money with them, so no Goldin for me, Ken doesn't need my pittance of business anyway.



Peters false equivalence of mortgage loans makes no sense either, I'd be interested to see if Goldins stewardship of that highly sensitive information adheres to the strict laws we have in the mortgage industry.



So you can defend corporate bullshit all you want but your rooting for the wrong team imo.

Talk about missing the point.

I didn't defend it at all. I merely said it was stupid to take personal offense to it. I specifically said that while the company has the right to do it (because they do), you are more than within your rights to hate it and stop doing business with them.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Talk about missing the point.

I didn't defend it at all. I merely said it was stupid to take personal offense to it. I specifically said that while the company has the right to do it (because they do), you are more than within your rights to hate it and stop doing business with them.

Are you calling me and other members like me stupid?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

You're missing the point entirely, if you want to drop to your knees and suck the corporate teat that's your decision. You're defending a company that got its start hoodwinking people into buying sports cards with snake oil tactics on late night TV. Not a good start on the integrity meter.

Kens done a great job maximizing profits, props all day long, but if you think a corporations self interest is greater than normal folks with integrity that are bidding on sports cards in this hobby I would disagree.

Call me old fashioned, I'm good with that, I'd rather hang out with the dozens of old timers on this sub that live by the "my word is my bond" credo than prove we can pay for what we bid on. Lack of trust is your problem not mine.

Heritage, LOTG, REA, etc have never asked for any of that, I'm completely good sending them my unverified money, and they're completely good accepting it.

I'm just a small time collector but do occasionally spend more than 10k in an auction. I'll never deal with a corporation that makes it difficult for me to spend money with them, so no Goldin for me, Ken doesn't need my pittance of business anyway.

Peters false equivalence of mortgage loans makes no sense either, I'd be interested to see if Goldins stewardship of that highly sensitive information adheres to the strict laws we have in the mortgage industry.

So you can defend corporate bullshit all you want but your rooting for the wrong team imo.

Why is it a false equivalence?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why is it a false equivalence?

The mortgage industry is a highly regulated industry when it comes to financial information, how we ask for that information, how we protect that information, how we can use that information, and how we store that information just to name a few.

I would posit the unregulated AH industry has little to none of those protections. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

The mortgage industry is a highly regulated industry when it comes to financial information, how we ask for that information, how we protect that information, how we can use that information, and how we store that information just to name a few.

I would posit the unregulated AH industry has little to none of those protections. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

I now have an identity and credit monitoring account. It was provided to me free of charge, because the 3rd party servicer of my mortgage had a data breach. That means, all of my financial info provided to my mortgage company was compromised.

So much for mortgage industry regulations and protections.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I now have an identity and credit monitoring account. It was provided to me free of charge, because the 3rd party servicer of my mortgage had a data breach. That means, all of my financial info provided to my mortgage company was compromised.

So much for mortgage industry regulations and protections.

No doubt, even with all the regulations that stuff happens way too often. I would imagine an unregulated AH industry is a crapshoot with how they protect your information.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by raulus

I suspect some recent mandate came down from on high at this AH, possibly because the AH was burned by someone, it cost the AH in reputation and probably lost commission, and now it's time to tighten things up to avoid a similar problem going forward.

I hope the King of Collectibles has a show in Season 3 that digs deeper into the bidder who reneged, and how they went back to the consignor to tell them what happened. It might be the most interesting show yet in the series.

Insert "sarcasm" face here.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

No doubt, even with all the regulations that stuff happens way too often. I would imagine an unregulated AH industry is a crapshoot with how they protect your information.

Hopefully they look at it once and then destroy it.

With mortgages, I got the mortgage from one company, who had a 3rd party servicer. After a few years, they sold my mortgage to another company, which used a different servicer. After that servicer had their data breach, the current owner of my mortgage has now contracted with yet another servicer. So I provide all sorts of sensitive info to get a mortgage and then, without my consent, 4 other companies also end up with it and one of them gets hit.

I'd take my chances with Goldin over that scenario.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Are you calling me and other members like me stupid?

I'm saying it's stupid to take personal offense to a policy implemented by a company that applies across the board. If you want to take personal offense to that, well... I wouldn't be surprised.

Smart people do stupid things all the time. So I'm not calling you stupid. I'm saying something you are doing is stupid. The fact that you interpret that as calling you stupid just proves my point about how ridiculous some people are who take offense to non-offensive things. I like to live by the saying that taking offense just shows someone's inability to control their reactions to others. And this case is a prime example. A company makes a sweeping policy change and people think Ken Goldin specifically targeted them because he questions their personal integrity. Stupid. Yes, that's stupid. I don't know another way to say it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

The mortgage industry is a highly regulated industry when it comes to financial information, how we ask for that information, how we protect that information, how we can use that information, and how we store that information just to name a few.

I would posit the unregulated AH industry has little to none of those protections. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

But your originally stated objection was not concern that your information provided to Goldin could be compromised, it was that you found the request personally insulting. Old time collector etc. etc. So I asked why that was the case if you didn't find a request by a bank insulting. You seem to be shifting arguments.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If this is such an obvious no brainer and customary, how come I’ve been bidding with about a dozen AHs for over a decade for prob hundreds of thousands in bids and no one has asked me for this before? Weird.

It probably has more to do with the customer base that each auction house caters to. Sites like Mile High or REA largely deal with vintage collectors, and most bidders in that segment of the hobby pay for their winnings. However, sites like Goldin and PWCC that sell a lot of higher-end ultra-modern cards likely have a significantly higher percentage of non-paying bidders since shill-bidding is a much bigger problem on that side of the fence. It makes sense that sites like Goldin and PWCC would ask for proof of funds before sites like REA or Mile High would.

[mrreality68]

its is the way they do business. I also had to do that at a few other auction houses (I think it was Christies where I won my Joe Jackson Minor League Postcard) and Chtisties did require verification of funds in the bank and available not even income
With Goldin there was a choice of either showing income or past purchase histories from other auction houses. I did the past pruchases and showing they were paid and from that my "limit was determined".

It was a paperwork pain in the butt but it was 1 time and it is done (unless I want to get my bidding limit raised).

[ValKehl]

Not that I ever would, but if I were to consign a very valuable card or cards to Goldin, I'd first require Goldin to provide me with a copy of their insurance policy.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Not that I ever would, but if I were to consign a very valuable card or cards to Goldin, I'd first require Goldin to provide me with a copy of their insurance policy.

I've had consignors ask to see my policy.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Not that I ever would, but if I were to consign a very valuable card or cards to Goldin, I'd first require Goldin to provide me with a copy of their insurance policy.

Especially if they seem likely to ship, in willy-nilly fashion, the card(s) to a Best Western Plus.

Brian

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Not that I ever would, but if I were to consign a very valuable card or cards to Goldin, I'd first require Goldin to provide me with a copy of their insurance policy.

I guarantee they wouldn't be personally offended by the request. :cry:

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I guarantee they wouldn't be personally offended by the request. :cry:

Can I ask for their bank statements too? Will Ken send me information about his home value?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Can I ask for their bank statements too? Will Ken send me information about his home value?

Proof that consignor funds are held in escrow would I think be more relevant and equivalent.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by raulus

Rubbish.

Please look up sarcasm in your dictionary.

[Jewish-collector]

Would it be sufficient if we tell/show them the family name on some college buildings ?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Please look up sarcasm in your dictionary.

Apparently you didn't get the sarcasm in my response.

As an added bonus, there was a subtle cultural reference from recent events thrown in, because I'm sick that way.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Can I ask for their bank statements too? Will Ken send me information about his home value?

You can ask for whatever you want. They may decline, as you have the right to do. But they won't be personally offended.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

But they won't be personally offended.

You might be surprised. Some people get their dander up pretty quick.

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I've had consignors ask to see my policy.

Totally understandable. You don't hand over the Carl Fryslinger collection without doing due diligence.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by raulus

You might be surprised. Some people get their dander up pretty quick.

I've noticed. :cry:

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

Totally understandable. You don't hand over the Carl Fryslinger collection without doing due diligence.

Not sure if you're being snarky but Carl was a personal friend who approached me when he got his terminal diagnosis. He was well-known to our original live auction crowd, so I wanted them to know which items were his. Plus due to the donation in his name that we are making to the PA Food Bank we needed to set those items apart in the titles. His is not one of the larger consignments we have taken on, but regardless of the value of a collection to the rest of the world it means the world to the consignor and I try to be understanding.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I've noticed. :cry:

Give it a rest Ohio, if you want to pass out your financial information to some AH so you can spend $10,100 like a two bit whore on quarter night that's up to you but don't denigrate many collectors here who don't buy into that, I'd ask you to have a little respect but clearly you're lacking in that dept.

Sometimes we find ourselves in these playground shitshow threads but this is a collectors sub which I'm way more interested in.
That being said, I'd be interested in you posting your favorite top 5 cards in your collection. I'd rather see what you're interested in as a collector and form an opinion of you based on that.

Not a dick measuring contest but there are a whole bunch of old school well endowed collectors who choose not to weigh in on dumb threads like this that defend some "hey, it's just a rule to protect corporate profits" so get in line and put on you grey jumpsuit.

No thanks Brother.

I'd rather know you by your collection than your insults.

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Give it a rest Ohio, if you want to pass out your financial information to some AH so you can spend $10,100 like a two bit whore on quarter night that's up to you but don't denigrate many collectors here who don't buy into that, I'd ask you to have a little respect but clearly you're lacking in that dept.

Sometimes we find ourselves in these playground shitshow threads but this is a collectors sub which I'm way more interested in.
That being said, I'd be interested in you posting your favorite top 5 cards in your collection. I'd rather see what you're interested in as a collector and form an opinion of you based on that.

Not a dick measuring contest but there are a whole bunch of old school well endowed collectors who choose not to weigh in on dumb threads like this that defend some "hey, it's just a rule to protect corporate profits" so get in line and put on you grey jumpsuit.

No thanks Brother.

I'd rather know you by your collection than your insults.

Did he start the thread? Looks like he chimed in first in post #21. I do not take his words as "insults" at all.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by sox1903wschamp

Did he start the thread? Looks like he chimed in first in post #21. I do not take his words as "insults" at all.

I respect your opinion, do you think thre is room for your boy to stop insulting people on this sub?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

A car dealership is still verifying your creditworthiness, even if you've bought 15 cars in the past. Am I living in a bizarro world in this thread? I can't believe how sensitive people are.

If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, but we need to stop pretending it's an unreasonable business practice.

I have never had to provide bank statements to buy a car or get a credit card. They pull your credit report to see that you pay on time. My local bank even gave me a home mortgage without needing income verification. I had been with them for several years and they didn't sell their mortgages.

Every auction house I have registered for has requested hobby references, similar to running a credit report. I have never been given a credit limit. I have spent over 10k with most of them. I have spent over 100k with one. If you have a history of paying for what you win, shouldn't that be enough?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I respect your opinion, do you think thre is room for your boy to stop insulting people on this sub?

I haven't insulted anyone. I've merely questioned how it is personally insulting. I've repeatedly said you don't have to like it. In fact, I don't like it. But I'm not personally insulted, and it makes no sense to be. The fact that you take what I've said as an insult only drives the point home that you clearly tend to take personally those things that are not personal attacks at all.

If you are truly interested in what I collect, I share it a little at a time. I'm currently sharing pieces of my Larkin collection in Todeen's thread over on the modern board. I collect Cincinnati Reds, and Cincinnati Reds only. I collect all eras of Reds, from modern players to pre-war Reds. I have complete runs of Ted Kluszewski, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Johnny Bench, Tom Seaver, Ken Griffey Jr, Joey Votto, and Scott Rolen. Additionally, my main PC is Barry Larkin. I am currently working on getting every hall of famer to ever play or manage the Reds pictured on cards wearing Reds uniform. As I draw near to completion of that project, I hope to employ the help of experts here in identifying cards I may have overlooked. For pre-war HOF, tracking down sets can be hard, and I have found some guys who don't appear to have ever been pictured as a Red (Christy Mathewson, for example). If you want to see a lot of what I share, you can see it on my Instagram @Redlegs_Collector.

I love the hobby and making friends who are like minded collectors. I never sell cards. Once they enter my collection, they are there to stay. I have many close friends in the hobby and on these message boards and facebook groups. Without them, my collection wouldn't be what it is. I'm not here trying to insult anyone. I was merely trying to make people see how it isn't personal and they shouldn't take it that way. It's a miserable way to live to feel personally attacked by every little thing, even when it's not personal at all. If anyone can read this thread and realize they may be overreacting, it would be a good thing. No ill intent intended at all. I am really sorry you took offense. You have just been so defensive with your position, responses might feel directed at you.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rats60

I have never had to provide bank statements to buy a car or get a credit card. They pull your credit report to see that you pay on time. My local bank even gave me a home mortgage without needing income verification. I had been with them for several years and they didn't sell their mortgages.



Every auction house I have registered for has requested hobby references, similar to running a credit report. I have never been given a credit limit. I have spent over 10k with most of them. I have spent over 100k with one. If you have a history of paying for what you win, shouldn't that be enough?

I don't own an auction house, and don't have to justify it to you. Why don't you ask Sotheby's or Christie's why they do it.

Again, I'm not judging whether it's appropriate or necessary for them to do it. You and others have repeatedly missed my point. I am not an auction house and don't sit in their board room with their financials and lawyers discussing the merits of the decision to request income verification. They may or may not have good reason for it. That's irrelevant. My point is, and always has been, even if you disagree with it, or don't want to do it, it is NOT a personal attack, and taking it as a personal insult is objectivity unreasonable.