Any fears in selling large $ items on ebay?

[Sean1125]

In short if buyers are spending the exact same gross figure whether on e-bay or at auction e-bay will be cheaper 100% of the time. This is to refute the point made earlier by Jesse. I have no opinion on anything else in the thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

In short if buyers are spending the exact same gross figure whether on e-bay or at auction e-bay will be cheaper 100% of the time. This is to refute the point made earlier by Jesse. I have no opinion on anything else in the thread.

Yep. Anyone who markets an auction on the basis that they don't charge a seller's premium is, to my mind, just employing a gimmick.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

In short if buyers are spending the exact same gross figure whether on e-bay or at auction e-bay will be cheaper 100% of the time. This is to refute the point made earlier by Jesse. I have no opinion on anything else in the thread.

Sean, my point was the opposite, that you need to take the buyer's premium into consideration and that it is still a fee. SB1 is the one who suggested a major auction house because there's no seller fee.

And to peter, I did defend PWCC in an earlier thread. This was not because I believe he's always honest just because he hasn't lied to me. The argument in that thread was pretty one sided, and I was simply saying there could have been a reasonable explanation for some of the issues people were bringing up. And I felt the tax fraud label was a little harsh.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What's your reasonable explanation for his claim that he had never heard of anyone complaining about his scans when, months before the 54 post, he had posted a lengthy response on CU to exactly such complaints? Did we not already go through that?

What's your reasonable explanation for the disparity between his claim that he only offered to help buyers avoid sales tax in 2013-14 when I represented that I had seen a 2011 invoice instructing the winner how to avoid CA sales tax?

What's your reasonable explanation for the overwhelming number of bidders across his high value auctions (not just isolated instances), with high to very high percentages of bidding with him, significant numbers of retractions (dunno about you but I have ZERO since 1997) and the same bidders bidding on wide varieties of cards in multiple sports and multiple time periods? Have you spent as much as an hour studying the patterns?

Do explain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sean, it was Scott B., not Jesse, saying people should consign to AHs because no seller's premium. Jesse agreed with me (it happens) that the point made no sense.

[pokerplyr80]

We did go through this in that thread, and I agreed with you about the scans. Seems he was caught in a lie on that one.

I believe the invoice you had just said for California bidders to contact him and did not offer any instructions on avoiding paying tax. I could be wrong on this.

As far as the bidders I have not studied the patterns but there could be any number of reasonable explanations. His auctions have huge followings and run almost constantly. Perhaps there really are that many people who like to bid on his stuff exclusively. Some collectors, myself included, have very unfocused collections, including different time eras and sports. Or perhaps they're all being shilled. Very difficult to prove either way.

[pokerplyr80]

And yes, Sean your point supports my stance.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

As far as the bidders I have not studied the patterns but there could be any number of reasonable explanations. His auctions have huge followings and run almost constantly. Perhaps there really are that many people who like to bid on his stuff exclusively. Some collectors, myself included, have very unfocused collections, including different time eras and sports. Or perhaps they're all being shilled. Very difficult to prove either way.

I'm starting to wonder if you're actually posting honestly yourself. No one can be this aggressivey clueless. You "haven't studied the patterns?" How about dozens of underbidders who bid almost exclusively on PWCC auctions, cards in every sport, and also have high bid retraction rates? You need to "study" that? If your eyeballs are working that should be enough.

It's a real shame you weren't around eight years ago -- you would have been Mastro's biggest defender.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I'm starting to wonder if you're actually posting honestly yourself. No one can be this aggressivey clueless. You "haven't studied the patterns?" How about dozens of underbidders who bid almost exclusively on PWCC auctions, cards in every sport, and also have high bid retraction rates? You need to "study" that? If your eyeballs are working that should be enough.

It's a real shame you weren't around eight years ago -- you would have been Mastro's biggest defender.

I am posting honestly and don't believe that simply having a high percentage with one seller is evidence the bidder is shilling. However, the high retraction rate would be a clear indicator, in my opinion.

And Peter, I hadn't seen that invoice before. Apparently I was mistaken. My apologies.

[Peter_Spaeth]

With perhaps a few exceptions, I don't think any one auction, or the habits of any one bidder, are enough to draw conclusions. But when one sees patterns, auction after auction, month after month, year after year, bidder after bidder, one does get strongly suspicious. And Jesse, no worries.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

We did go through this in that thread, and I agreed with you about the scans. Seems he was caught in a lie on that one.

I believe the invoice you had just said for California bidders to contact him and did not offer any instructions on avoiding paying tax. I could be wrong on this.

As far as the bidders I have not studied the patterns but there could be any number of reasonable explanations. His auctions have huge followings and run almost constantly. Perhaps there really are that many people who like to bid on his stuff exclusively. Some collectors, myself included, have very unfocused collections, including different time eras and sports. Or perhaps they're all being shilled. Very difficult to prove either way.

Yes, you could be wrong. Again. From 2011 ebay invoice.

"PWCC Auctions


Avoid CA sales tax by one of the following methods:
1) Provide a valid CA resale license, or
2) Pay by check or money order

Print this invoice and send paper payments to the following address (checks payable to 'PWCC Auctions'):

PWCC Auctions
1325 Howard Ave. #931
Burlingame, CA 94010"

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, you could be wrong. Again. From 2011 ebay invoice.

"PWCC Auctions


Avoid CA sales tax by one of the following methods:
1) Provide a valid CA resale license, or
2) Pay by check or money order

Print this invoice and send paper payments to the following address (checks payable to 'PWCC Auctions'):

PWCC Auctions
1325 Howard Ave. #931
Burlingame, CA 94010"

Gee, there could be any number of reasonable explanations for this:

Brent had a stroke and when he typed out that invoice he had no control over his hands;

Brent went to attorney Lionel Hutz who advised him that winning bidders didn't have to pay sales tax because sales tax is for sissies;

Don't believe your lying eyes -- those words actually say "please pay your sales tax, we would never aspire to evade sales tax."

[4815162342]

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Sean, my point was the opposite, that you need to take the buyer's premium into consideration and that it is still a fee. SB1 is the one who suggested a major auction house because there's no seller fee.

And to peter, I did defend PWCC in an earlier thread. This was not because I believe he's always honest just because he hasn't lied to me. The argument in that thread was pretty one sided, and I was simply saying there could have been a reasonable explanation for some of the issues people were bringing up. And I felt the tax fraud label was a little harsh.

So my point would support your stance rather than refute it.