PWCC Part Deux

[Peter_Spaeth]

I will repeat what I have said for years. PWCC's auctions don't look like anyone else's, in my opinion. Among the things I have noticed, over and over again:

1. On big cards, a very high percentage of early bidding activity, right out of the gate. Within a day or two many of the big ticket cards seem to be pretty close to the top already. I rarely see that with other auctions.

2. On big cards, lots and lots of string bidding, often by the same bidders.

3. A high percentage of bidders who seem to do a high percentage of their bidding in PWCC.

4. Improving of late, but lots of bidders with high numbers of retractions.

and

5. Crazy prices, although obviously not on most cards.

[irv]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Mikehealer

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.

Good points!

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Speaking of which this one blew my mind -- 8s go in the 4s and 5s.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Topps-R...cAAOSw5cNYlPWJ

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Topps-1...615?rmvSB=true

[Bruinsfan94]

I must not understand this whole thing.

If this guy admits asking someone to bid on his own cosigned cards, doesn't that bring into question the integrity of the whole operation? Whatever the reason he did it, isn't that a key thing in auctions? Not to bid up your own cards?

[botn]

Originally Posted by Bruinsfan94

I must not understand this whole thing.

If this guy admits asking someone to bid on his own cosigned cards, doesn't that bring into question the integrity of the whole operation? Whatever the reason he did it, isn't that a key thing in auctions? Not to bid up your own cards?

The WWG DiMaggio was not consigned by Cortney to Brent's auction. However, as I pointed out in the locked thread, Brent should not be having discussions with any bidders about what to bid let alone assuring Cortney repeatedly he will be out bid when the card was well over 40K.

[jfkheat]

Originally Posted by Bruinsfan94

I must not understand this whole thing.

If this guy admits asking someone to bid on his own cosigned cards, doesn't that bring into question the integrity of the whole operation? Whatever the reason he did it, isn't that a key thing in auctions? Not to bid up your own cards?

He did not ask someone to bid on their own card. The card belonged to another member here.
James

[Bruinsfan94]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

He did not ask someone to bid on their own card. The card belonged to somone else.
James

Thank you.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Irv's was a bad example there are plenty of nicely centered 8s that have sold for far less than that 7. Not to mention nicely centered 7s that have sold for one third of that one.

It was the only 8 example I could find quickly, but I thought it still got the point across?

Either that 7 should be an 8 or higher or the 8 I posted be a 7 or lower.

Ironic, another questionable PSA card in a PWCC auction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

He did not ask someone to bid on their own card. The card belonged to another member here.
James

So it's OK to ask someone to bid on someone else's card?

[jfkheat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So it's OK to ask someone to bid on someone else's card?

Where the hell did you see me say that?
James

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

Where the hell did you see me say that?
James

I was asking, because you seemed to be making the distinction.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

where the hell did you see me say that?
James

lol.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So it's OK to ask someone to bid on someone else's card?

Wouldn't that be called an auctions "mailing list"?

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Wouldn't that be called an auctions "mailing list"?

In an ideal world, yes.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

wouldn't that be called an auctions "mailing list"?

LOL. No. There will be no bidding anywhere on anything.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Bruinsfan94

I must not understand this whole thing.

If this guy admits asking someone to bid on his own cosigned cards, doesn't that bring into question the integrity of the whole operation? Whatever the reason he did it, isn't that a key thing in auctions? Not to bid up your own cards?

I think it would be wrong if the auction house asked you to bid on ANY cards, not just your own

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I think it would be wrong if the auction house asked you to bid on ANY cards, not just your own

100% agree. PWCC said they blocked his user names which means they knew he had multiple user names, and then said they blocked him period - all ID's as well as him as a person. I would like to know how they had all of this info on him and is it typical for eBay sellers to know that much about their customers. Seemed to me they were aware of a lot more info than a typical seller/buyer relationship which makes everyone wonder how much they were in cahoots.

A few things were abundantly clear:

PWCC asked him to shill bid on their auctions and the text asking him to bid up the DiMaggio and he won't be the high bidder is self explanatory.

Most people were aware of Courtney a long time ago and his multiple user names and which cards he was shilling. As many could see by his posts not the smartest guy out there, and probably should use some of his money he saved with his 60+ Retractions to get some anger management lessons.

His little spat on here with anyone and everyone pretty much assures that his days in the hobby are limited. Not hard to drive up prices when you are working with a large online seller and stating "you were bidding to protect prices" is garbage. If you were protecting prices why have more retractions than half of the population of Alabama in a 6 month time period? Not hard to bid and retract to drive prices when the seller is not stopping you.

The hobby will survive, there are a lot of good buyers and sellers out there which make the hobby fun, and people like to pull shenanigans like this will lose business and maybe get to talk to some Feds about fraud and doing it across state lines.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by irv

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Topps-1...615?rmvSB=true

Based on eye-appeal, I much prefer the PSA 7 from PWCC, over the PSA 8 in your link. The 8 is OC and it has that spot in the lower right corner. The PSA 7 appears to only have slightly softer corners, but the centering and eye-appeal are outstanding.

Steve

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Based on eye-appeal, I much prefer the PSA 7 from PWCC, over the PSA 8 in your link. The 8 is OC and it has that spot in the lower right corner. The PSA 7 appears to only have slightly softer corners, but the centering and eye-appeal are outstanding.

Steve

Irv's was a bad example there are plenty of nicely centered 8s that have sold for far less than that 7. Not to mention nicely centered 7s that have sold for one third of that one.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I will repeat what I have said for years. PWCC's auctions don't look like anyone else's, in my opinion. Among the things I have noticed, over and over again:

1. On big cards, a very high percentage of early bidding activity, right out of the gate. Within a day or two many of the big ticket cards seem to be pretty close to the top already. I rarely see that with other auctions.

This is a great point that is often not discussed. I've also noticed this with PWCC as compared to other ebay auctions.

Why would collectors bid one way on PWCC items and another way on everything else?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

jeff

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by jefferyepayne

This is a great point that is often not discussed. I've also noticed this with PWCC as compared to other ebay auctions.

Why would collectors bid one way on PWCC items and another way on everything else?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

jeff

I think everyone knows the answer although no one wishes to say.

[slidekellyslide]

I'm not going to defend PWCC because I think the real scandal is that Brent purchased the DiMaggio and had it cleaned, but I think it's clear that Cortney was one of his problem bidders that Net54 had been talking about for years, I'm sure at one point Brent and Cortney were probably very close allies, but because of places like Net54 pointing out the shady bidding practices that people like Cortney employ Brent was forced to police some of that stuff.

String bidding is done to find the top bid and to also make it appear one has been shilled. It is quite clear that Cortney who was likely warned about doing that type of bidding had once again done it on the DiMaggio card. The text message was clearly telling him that he was out of bounds and that he needs to top the bid if he's going to bid like that. Make no mistake, string bidding is a strategy to make the top bidder believe he's been shilled and try and scare him off of the auction. Looks to me like Brent was trying to avoid the appearance of shilling in one of his auctions.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I'm not going to defend PWCC because I think the real scandal is that Brent purchased the DiMaggio and had it cleaned, but I think it's clear that Cortney was one of his problem bidders that Net54 had been talking about for years, I'm sure at one point Brent and Cortney were probably very close allies, but because of places like Net54 pointing out the shady bidding practices that people like Cortney employ Brent was forced to police some of that stuff.

String bidding is done to find the top bid and to also make it appear one has been shilled. It is quite clear that Cortney who was likely warned about doing that type of bidding had once again done it on the DiMaggio card. The text message was clearly telling him that he was out of bounds and that he needs to top the bid if he's going to bid like that. Make no mistake, string bidding is a strategy to make the top bidder believe he's been shilled and try and scare him off of the auction. Looks to me like Brent was trying to avoid the appearance of shilling in one of his auctions.

Interesting theory. Although highly plausible, would lead me to believe, why would Brent do something like this?? He is making money hand over fist!! It begs the question, "How much is enough"? Not denying or supporting your theory. It definitely makes you think though.

[Exhibitman]

Yeah but...Asking a bidder to bid and reassuring him he won't be the top bidder for long is asking him to run up the price in a way that conceals the shilling. No matter how you slice it this is still baloney. And if that bid had held would he have had to pay for the card or would it be a case of a renege and resale? We won't be able to see that but I have a pretty good idea of what would happen.

[Leon]

I don't necessarily disagree. At very best it has the perception of impropriety. The whole "games that were being played" is a really bad thing.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Yeah but...Asking a bidder to bid and reassuring him he won't be the top bidder for long is asking him to run up the price in a way that conceals the shilling. No matter how you slice it this is still baloney.

[Piratedogcardshows]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Yeah but...Asking a bidder to bid and reassuring him he won't be the top bidder for long is asking him to run up the price in a way that conceals the shilling. No matter how you slice it this is still baloney. And if that bid had held would he have had to pay for the card or would it be a case of a renege and resale? We won't be able to see that but I have a pretty good idea of what would happen.

My thoughts exactly.

[irv]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I'm not going to defend PWCC because I think the real scandal is that Brent purchased the DiMaggio and had it cleaned, but I think it's clear that Cortney was one of his problem bidders that Net54 had been talking about for years, I'm sure at one point Brent and Cortney were probably very close allies, but because of places like Net54 pointing out the shady bidding practices that people like Cortney employ Brent was forced to police some of that stuff.

String bidding is done to find the top bid and to also make it appear one has been shilled. It is quite clear that Cortney who was likely warned about doing that type of bidding had once again done it on the DiMaggio card. The text message was clearly telling him that he was out of bounds and that he needs to top the bid if he's going to bid like that. Make no mistake, string bidding is a strategy to make the top bidder believe he's been shilled and try and scare him off of the auction. Looks to me like Brent was trying to avoid the appearance of shilling in one of his auctions.

That is my thinking, too, and of course, like the ancient saying goes, "Friends and Business don't mix" so it was only a matter of time before something like this we have before us, was going to happen.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I'm not going to defend PWCC because I think the real scandal is that Brent purchased the DiMaggio and had it cleaned.

Dan, I'll take it one step further, that Brent purchased the DiMaggio and had it cleaned AND DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS!

I have a problem with this.....

[dplath]

Not sure if this helps piece anything together but supposedly the person who consigned the WWG DiMaggio to Goldin purchased it at the 2015 National, which would have been after it sold in the REA as an SGC 4.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by dplath

Not sure if this helps piece anything together but supposedly the person who consigned the WWG DiMaggio to Goldin purchased it at the 2015 National, which would have been after it sold in the REA as an SGC 4.

Yes you need to read the other thread this already was chronicled at length.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Dan, I'll take it one step further, that Brent purchased the DiMaggio and had it cleaned AND DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS!

I have a problem with this.....

Right, I'm thinking everything surrounding the purchase, cleaning and somehow getting it into a PSA 7 holder...all of that stinks to high heaven.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by jefferyepayne

This is a great point that is often not discussed. I've also noticed this with PWCC as compared to other ebay auctions.

Why would collectors bid one way on PWCC items and another way on everything else?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

jeff

One point not being made is at least PWCC's auction allow for some things to be seen behind the curtain. Do you know anything that goes on with mile high, REA, heritage and the like? You receive ZERO information about the bidders basically. Yes there is no bid retractions it appears. But who knows what goes on with texts. When tens to hundreds of thousands are on the line i cant assume everything is fair to everyone. Just like i dont assume cracker jack cards with no stains on them werent cleaned.

Just saying that people are picking on pwcc but at least you get a little transperacy in their auctions and some information on bidding behavior and you dont have to bid. You have ZERO idea whats going in the other auction houses. I have bid on auctions on ebay by the way and the seller doesnt have the card or halfway through the auction the listing is pulled or the card gets lost in the mail. None of those things ever happened on an pwcc auction in listings i have won.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

One point not being made is at least PWCC's auction allow for some things to be seen behind the curtain. Do you know anything that goes on with mile high, REA, heritage and the like? You receive ZERO information about the bidders basically. Yes there is no bid retractions it appears. But who knows what goes on with texts. When tens to hundreds of thousands are on the line i cant assume everything is fair to everyone. Just like i dont assume cracker jack cards with no stains on them werent cleaned.

Just saying that people are picking on pwcc but at least you get a little transperacy in their auctions and some information on bidding behavior and you dont have to bid. You have ZERO idea whats going in the other auction houses. I have bid on auctions on ebay by the way and the seller doesnt have the card or halfway through the auction the listing is pulled or the card gets lost in the mail. None of those things ever happened on an pwcc auction in listings i have won.

Talk about damning someone with faint praise.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

One point not being made is at least PWCC's auction allow for some things to be seen behind the curtain. Do you know anything that goes on with mile high, REA, heritage and the like? You receive ZERO information about the bidders basically. Yes there is no bid retractions it appears. But who knows what goes on with texts. When tens to hundreds of thousands are on the line i cant assume everything is fair to everyone. Just like i dont assume cracker jack cards with no stains on them werent cleaned.

Just saying that people are picking on pwcc but at least you get a little transperacy in their auctions and some information on bidding behavior and you dont have to bid. You have ZERO idea whats going in the other auction houses. I have bid on auctions on ebay by the way and the seller doesnt have the card or halfway through the auction the listing is pulled or the card gets lost in the mail. None of those things ever happened on an pwcc auction in listings i have won.

I understand what you're saying about auctions in general but I specifically said eBay auctions. I have the same transparency with other eBay auctions as I do with PWCC. Bidding patterns are typically much different with PWCC. Many, many more bids early in the process. Many, many more bids by those that have a significant number of retractions. Many, many more bids by accounts that only bid (or mostly bid) on PWCC items. Why does this happen?

jeff

[Republicaninmass]

I hear all the time that the auction houses dont know the max bids, it is a type of software. If I ever received an outbid notice, and then went to check the auction and I was th high bidder again, I'd be suspicious.

One time I hit straight bid by accident and called the auction house to have it changed to max bid. They were willing to back up my bid to make me the high bidder and place my max bid.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I hear all the time that the auction houses dont know the max bids, it is a type of software.

I've been saying this here and on other boards for a long time. Anyone with some rudimentary SQL skills and experience in database development can find out what the maximum bid is from anyone on any item. Even if there is data level security, some DBA somewhere has admin privileges to find the number.

If you believe auction houses either develop or purchase auction software, and purposely ignore efforts to determine the values in a "MaxBid" type field, you're nuts. But hang tight, as the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus will all be coming to your place tonight.

[iwantitiwinit]

I have read some of the threads above but not all of them and don't think it matters much. What I do think matters is that once a card has been graded it has effectively been commoditized. Commoditized in the sense that it might not be widely available but it should be indistinguishable from another graded similarly from the same grading company and therefore is identifiable and SUBSTITUTABLE. SUBSTITUTABLE is the key thing here. It is basic free market tenant that a psa 4 of a certain player is a psa 4 of that player regardless of who the seller is, the laws of economics make those 2 cards equal value.

There is only one way those 2 cards can be worth different amounts and that is if other services have been attached to those cards or they have been exposed to a greater audience of potential buyers. Given that, I feel I don't ever need to read these stories, similar cards should be selling for approximately the same price regardless of who the seller is. If they don't, something has to be occurring during specific auctions for that psa 4 that is not occurring in other auction all else being equal. If that weren't the case, arbitrage would be possible and would occur, that's how things work, period. I'm not talking about any specific seller here I am talking about the process and market dynamics.

In my opinion, something is occurring in certain auctions to garner higher prices for the exact card than in other auctions for that same card.

Can it be anything else?????