PWCC - Sorry, Yet Again

[BobC]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Just an add-on item to a PWCC thread, did anyone know that they keep your cards if they don’t get the minimum $10 bid at auction?

I just found this when reading through all their terms and faqs. Out of the 40,000+ cards for sale during their first monthly auction, almost 3000 went without bids and are now owned by PWCC. Wonder if all those owners were made clearly aware of that possibility or if it will be a surprise.
- William Stady




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe you may have misunderstood their policy. It sounds like they're saying that if a card in their auction gets no bids that they keep it to relist in their next auction, not that they actually own the card. I imagine that if/when the card sells in a subsequent auction that they still send the net proceeds from the sale to the original consignor. Sounds like they're trying to protect themselves from the effort and costs of dealing with people who send them items that end up not being worth even the initial bid amount they set their auctions at. Not sure how they actually handle the determination and acceptance of consigned items, but this policy may keep them from having to expend the time and incur the shipping costs of constantly having to send back items that aren't worth their standard minimum auction starting bid.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

I believe you may have misunderstood their policy. It sounds like they're saying that if a card in their auction gets no bids that they keep it to relist in their next auction, not that they actually own the card. I imagine that if/when the card sells in a subsequent auction that they still send the net proceeds from the sale to the original consignor. Sounds like they're trying to protect themselves from the effort and costs of dealing with people who send them items that end up not being worth even the initial bid amount they set their auctions at. Not sure how they actually handle the determination and acceptance of consigned items, but this polcy may keep them from having to expend the time and incur the shipping costs of constantly having to send back items that aren't worth their standard minimum auction starting bid.

Yes, they obviously (even if it is Brent lol) aren't just keeping people's cards as their own. They just mean they won't individually relist it after the auction. They could have worded it better.

[CardPadre]

Maybe I did misinterpret it, absolutely possible. But it literally says "the item will be forfeited to pwcc". No one else reads that as pwcc actually taking ownership of the card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Maybe I did misinterpret it, absolutely possible. But it literally says "the item will be forfeited to pwcc". No one else reads that as pwcc actually taking ownership of the card?

You have to read it in light of the last sentence. It's poorly worded to be sure.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You have to read it in light of the last sentence. It's poorly worded to be sure.

I felt the last sentence referred to unpaid items, not items that did not receive a bid. I felt the unsold item (not receiving a bid) policy was addressed earlier. Again, not totally sure, but I'm stuck in that interpretation at the moment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

I felt the last sentence referred to unpaid items, not items that did not receive a bid. I felt the unsold item (not receiving a bid) policy was addressed earlier. Again, not totally sure, but I'm stuck in that interpretation at the moment.

They can't just keep your cards.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They can't just keep your cards.

Official response…they do own your card if it doesn’t get a bid.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They can't just keep your cards.

They can if you agree to it and sign! I do know of consignment furniture and clothing shops that take possession if things don't sell. The suspicious person might posit that they intentionally price things too high so that they don't sell until they have taken ownership of the items. Now in the case of $10 items in a PWCC auction obviously that's not the case, but still people are consistently surprised by the contracts they sign.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Maybe I did misinterpret it, absolutely possible. But it literally says "the item will be forfeited to pwcc". No one else reads that as pwcc actually taking ownership of the card?

I agree with you it sounds like they get ownership of your card if it doesn't meet their $10 min bid. They are doing this instead of charging you fees for a low end item that didn't sell.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I agree with you it sounds like they get ownership of your card if it doesn't meet their $10 min bid. They are doing this instead of charging you fees for a low end item that didn't sell.

I find it hard to believe they would/could do that, as it would definitely turn some people off from ever consigning with them. The wording they used definitely leaves something to be desired. But I can also understand them saying they won't simply return the cards because they don't want to go through the work and shipping expense of doing so.

I do not know their consignment policy and if they have any pre-acceptance protocols in place so they don't receive tons of unsolicited consignment submissions that aren't even worth their minimum bid. Unsold lots are not a good look for any AH/seller, and typically incur costs they can't recoup since there was no sale. And the fact that they had approximately 3,000 or so lots that didn't even warrant a bid in their first ever independent platform auction is a bit shocking to me. That seems like an awful high percentage of their initial auction lots got no bids, between 5% - 10%. Makes you wonder if they just did a bad job in accepting items for consignment they shouldn't have, if a lot of people that normally saw and bid on their auctions when they were on Ebay just aren't there now, at least for this first auction, or if there are even other unknown factors causing/influencing this large number of lots to not sell. Probably a combination of factors, that could change as they move forward with future auctions. We'll likely never know for certain though.

Still, if they had 3,000+ lots that didn't even get a $10 minimum bid, and say the average value for those unsold lots was realistically $5 each, that would mean that if their policy of taking possession of anything that didn't sell in their auction was really true that they just grabbed about $15K of cards for nothing. I don't think that will go over well at all with a lot of people, and would add more negative publicity to their name, which is probably the last thing they need right now.

Hmmmm, if they are in fact going to take someone's cards for not selling, I wonder if this could eventually lead to some sort of anti-shilling speculation that they may be able to do things in their auctions so that cards don't sell and they can simply take them for nothing. You know someone would eventually make that accusation if this policy continues.

Not so sure they'd have too many legal issues though as not many, if any, people would go to the time and expense of bringing a lawsuit for an item not even worth $10.

Would love to get the IRS's take on this if they do just take ownership of someone's cards. Would think the IRS could view this as reportable taxable inome to them, equal to at least the FMV of the cards they just took. Would be interesting to know how they internally account for this if they do take someone's cards then.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

I find it hard to believe they would/could do that, as it would definitely turn some people off from ever consigning with them. The wording they used definitely leaves something to be desired. But I can also understand them saying they won't simply return the cards because they don't want to go through the work and shipping expense of doing so.

I do not know their consignment policy and if they have any pre-acceptance protocols in place so they don't receive tons of unsolicited consignment submissions that aren't even worth their minimum bid. Unsold lots are not a good look for any AH/seller, and typically incur costs they can't recoup since there was no sale. And the fact that they had approximately 3,000 or so lots that didn't even warrant a bid in their first ever independent platform auction is a bit shocking to me. That seems like an awful high percentage of their initial auction lots got no bids, between 5% - 10%. Makes you wonder if they just did a bad job in accepting items for consignment they shouldn't have, if a lot of people that normally saw and bid on their auctions when they were on Ebay just aren't there now, at least for this first auction, or if there are even other unknown factors causing/influencing this large number of lots to not sell. Probably a combination of factors, that could change as they move forward with future auctions. We'll likely never know for certain though.

Still, if they had 3,000+ lots that didn't even get a $10 minimum bid, and say the average value for those unsold lots was realistically $5 each, that would mean that if their policy of taking possession of anything that didn't sell in their auction was really true that they just grabbed about $15K of cards for nothing. I don't think that will go over well at all with a lot of people, and would add more negative publicity to their name, which is probably the last thing they need right now.

I get what you are saying, I just see it way differently.

Lets go with your $5 value because it seems reasonable. Wouldn't PWCC charge more than that for fees and return postage of the unsold item? To me it seems like a win win for both parties. It also really pains me to say PWCC is doing anything correctly.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I get what you are saying, I just see it way differently.

Lets go with your $5 value because it seems reasonable. Wouldn't PWCC charge more than that for fees and return postage of the unsold item? To me it seems like a win win for both parties. It also really pains me to say PWCC is doing anything correctly.

Hey Ben,

This whole thing seems goofy, and IMO doesn't ultimately look good for PWCC no matter how you slice it if they can, and do, in fact just take someone's cards. I've never heard of any AH or seller in the hobby doing anything like this......ever! If you or anyone else is aware of this type of policy being currently, or at anytime in the past, practiced by anyone else in our hobby, I'ld love to hear about it, and who else it was doing it.

I get exactly what you're saying though, but would all the people that consigned, and then lost their cards, also agree? I don't think they all would. Plus, I went back and edited and added some more to my original post you quoted. Go back and see what else I added while you were responding. I can see this practice, if in fact it is what they are doing, creating more negative publicity for them that they don't need.

If nothing else, it also opens them up to potential accusations of giving false valuation estimates by accepting potential consignments from people who expect to sell their cards to make money, not just end up giving them to PWCC.

What I would suggest is that someone contact PWCC one more time for defintive clarification of exactly what they mean by "forfeited". I would follow-up that response from Heather Harrison by asking if that means if a card of mine that PWCC accepted for consignment and sale did not get even a minimum bid in their auction, and therefore didn't sell, that they (PWCC) took full and complete possession and ownership of my card, without any compensation at all to me from PWCC, whatsoever, and that if PWCC subsequently did sell my card in the future, as the immediately subsequent current owner of that card, they kept all the proceeds and I had the right to absolutely nothing ($0) from the sale of my card. And I would likely also include/ask Heather Harrison if upon their taking possession and ownership of my card for nothing, if that is what they are going to do, would they (PWCC) agree that I can then claim my full basis (cost I have in acquiring the card) as a potential loss on my next tax return that I will be submitting to the IRS. That would be just to let them know this transaction/activity of theirs could potentially have some tax and IRS compliance reporting consequences for myself, and possibly them as well, under the remote possibility they hadn't thought/known about that already.

I have not, nor do I ever intend to consign and sell anything with PWCC so, I'll leave the sending of such a follow-up, clarifying email to PWCC to others.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BobC

I find it hard to believe they would/could do that, as it would definitely turn some people off from ever consigning with them.

You mean like people with low value cards?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

You mean like people with low value cards?

Or like, anyone. What would one be able to do about it if, say, your Goudey Ruth just somehow didn't get bid on for some unknown reason. WELP! Guess PWCC owns it now.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

You mean like people with low value cards?

Yes those are the ones.

But hey if someone wants to spend $15 total on a card that wouldn't sell for $10 through PWCC. I say good for them if they want it back instead of cutting their losses at way less.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

You mean like people with low value cards?

Yes, but who's to say those same people didn't also consign cards to them that did get bids over $10? At least most reputable AHs that I've ever heard of will tell you they have some type of minimum value or level, under which they will not accept and sell a card, or at least combine cards from the same consignor so the lot reaches their required minimum.

I would be stunned if of the 3,000 or so lots that apparently didn't sell in their inaugural auction, every one was with a completely unique and different seller, and/or a large percentage of those owners of the unsold lots didn't also have another lot(s) that did sell for at least the minimum bid. So why when setting up and initially putting the auction together didn't PWCC simply take and combine some of those eventually unsold cards with other cards of that same particular owner so they would get minimum bids, instead of just taking some of that owner's cards? It isn't like PWCC is ignorant as to what most cards are approximately worth and likely to sell for. And given the known fact that they had been the top seller of sportscards in the secondary market on Ebay, and therefore likely in the world, I could easily see some attorney making the argument that they, of anyone else in the world, would probably know what cards should sell for, and by not advising (or requiring) consignors to combine cards in lots to meet their own minimum bid requirement, they were at least negligent in the provision of advice and sales services to clients, or at worst, doing it intentionally so as to take advantage of unsuspecting or unknowing consignors/owners. And I can also see an attorney further arguing that once they had taken ownership of someone's cards through this forfeiture provision, what is to stop them from turning around and doing what they should have done for the original owner, combine several of the cards so the lot does go for at least their minimum bid, except now instead of just getting their normal seller's commission/fee, they get to keep 100% of the sales amount.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Maybe I did misinterpret it, absolutely possible. But it literally says "the item will be forfeited to pwcc". No one else reads that as pwcc actually taking ownership of the card?

I read it that way. It's wholly unambiguous. Even in context, it's quite clear that they are stating that they are taking ownership of the card(s) and do not intend to ever give them back to you. Presumably they would compensate you if and when the card actually sells.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I read it that way. It's wholly unambiguous. Even in context, it's quite clear that they are stating that they are taking ownership of the card(s) and do not intend to ever give them back to you. Presumably they would compensate you if and when the card actually sells.

I would definitely not presume that. That would be like expecting you to give a cut of any sales of your cards to the previous owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

I would definitely not presume that. That would be like expecting you to give a cut of any sales of your cards to the previous owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I presume it only because not doing so would seem to amount to theft.