PWCC I want to bid but.... I just can't!

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

So you would be extremely careful about placing max bids with 'at least two printed catalog type AHs' but let the general public bid away on them. If you dont name any names then you really arent accusing them of anything.

A word to the wise from someone who's been a lawyer for 40 years: If it appears to sound like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, but you really have no absolute proof that it is in fact a duck, better not to make accusations. My point which was most relevant to this thread was that I have not had a single such experience with PWCC.

May your collecting be joyful,

Larry

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

A word to the wise from someone who's been a lawyer for 40 years: If it appears to sound like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, but you really have no absolute proof that it is in fact a duck, better not to make accusations. My point which was most relevant to this thread was that I have not had a single such experience with PWCC.

May your collecting be joyful,

Larry

Ok so no proof.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Ok so no proof.

A reasonable, rational person begins to wonder when, near the end of an auction, but still way too early for a snipe, the bidding almost magically zooms upwards to a point just two bids short of your max bid on an item that sold for less than one-third as much five years earlier (admittedly a very rare card, but one of a quite esoteric, obscure character), thus triggering a bid from you just one step below your max. Absolute proof? Of course not. Suspicion? You betcha! Caveat emptor--you're better off for the future by keeping your eyes wide open!

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Ok so no proof.

Proof often consists of circumstantial evidence from which inferences can be drawn, so you are misusing the term here. Larry's point is that there's risk for him in publicly accusing a major auction house of shill bidding even if he's pretty damn sure what happened. The same reason one is reluctant to publicly accusing people of card doctoring.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Proof often consists of circumstantial evidence from which inferences can be drawn, so you are misusing the term here. Larry's point is that there's risk for him in publicly accusing a major auction house of shill bidding even if he's pretty damn sure what happened. The same reason one is reluctant to publicly accusing people of card doctoring.

He actually said no absolute proof so i was just summarizing what he said...

It does appear odd though what happened in the auction he talks about, but maybe just a coincidence...if knew which AH he was talking about there could be a back and forth of shared experiences and a discussion that may lead to something.

Someone could be very truthful and not risk any exposure to them if they explain their exact experience with an auction. They dont have to say something underhanded was going on but can just say they were outbid and when etc. It would be hard to see any legal exposure by just saying what happened to you (and not saying why it happened)

[mark evans]

As an update and out of fairness to PWCC, while the company failed to respond to e-mails I directed to the address on its website for reporting suspicious bids, PWCC responded very promptly to my inquiry via eBay.

The company's customer rep advised that they were unaware of any relationship between the consignor and bidder in question. PWCC went on to advise that they had 'contacted' the bidder. I was not advised of the substance of that contact.