PWCC - Sorry, Yet Again

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sounds to me, Bob, like Heather has spoken. Do you REALLY think she's going to give the dude tax advice?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sounds to me, Bob, like Heather has spoken. Do you REALLY think she's going to give the dude tax advice?

No I would not expect her to give tax advice, just confirm that someone in effect gave them something for nothing, and that they did not have any obligation to then give them any future compensation whatsoever for it, ever. Which means that the person should then be able to claim on their subsequent tax return that they effectively sold their card for nothing. Do you agree the party forfeiting the card did not just not just gift it to PWCC?

And assuming this wasn't a gift, in PWCC's case I'm not sure if the IRS wouldn't view this sudden acquisition of these card as taxable income to them, at least equal to the alleged FMV of the card or the fees they didn't collect in trying to sell it. Best case scenario for PWCC would be they are considered to have $0 basis in the card and only pay tax on the net income/gain when it is sold.

Regardless, I don't think this practice of theirs is widely known in the hobby (I know I had no idea about it), at least not yet. I can also see that as info on how they operate like this starts to get out there that it could turn even more people against using them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

No I would not expect her to give tax advice, just confirm that someone in effect gave them something for nothing, and that they did not have any obligation to then give them any future compensation whatsoever for it, ever. Which means that the person should then be able to claim on their subsequent tax return that they effectively sold their card for nothing. Do you agree the party forfeiting the card did not just not just gift it to PWCC?

And assuming this wasn't a gift, in PWCC's case I'm not sure if the IRS wouldn't view this sudden acquisition of these card as taxable income to them, at least equal to the alleged FMV of the card or the fees they didn't collect in trying to sell it. Best case scenario for PWCC would be they are considered to have $0 basis in the card and only pay tax on the net income/gain when it is sold.

Regardless, I don't think this practice of theirs is widely known in the hobby (I know I had no idea about it), at least not yet. I can also see that as info on how they operate like this starts to get out there that it could turn even more people against using them.

It doesn't seem to be a gift, I agree. But is there a difference between a gift and a contractual transfer for no value, I don't know.

Anyhow, despite what the all too predictable defender says it seems to me a shitty thing to do, to reward yourself because you failed to sell someone's card for them. Hey dude, I couldn't sell your card so I'm just gonna keep it. To me that's a WTF. Even if it is "absolute junk."

Of course that characterization assumes all that matters is dollar value. Explains much.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

No I would not expect her to give tax advice, just confirm that someone in effect gave them something for nothing, and that they did not have any obligation to then give them any future compensation whatsoever for it, ever. Which means that the person should then be able to claim on their subsequent tax return that they effectively sold their card for nothing. Do you agree the party forfeiting the card did not just not just gift it to PWCC?

And assuming this wasn't a gift, in PWCC's case I'm not sure if the IRS wouldn't view this sudden acquisition of these card as taxable income to them, at least equal to the alleged FMV of the card or the fees they didn't collect in trying to sell it. Best case scenario for PWCC would be they are considered to have $0 basis in the card and only pay tax on the net income/gain when it is sold.

Regardless, I don't think this practice of theirs is widely known in the hobby (I know I had no idea about it), at least not yet. I can also see that as info on how they operate like this starts to get out there that it could turn even more people against using them.

To the part I made bold. This is your second post with this. Please by any stretch of the imagination tell us how PWCC would be getting anything for free. In most if not all cases wouldn't they really be saving the consignor money? Unless you know something I don't. Did every aspect of running PWCC as a business become free because someones card didn't sell for $10?

[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.

[Snowman]

This isn't a new PWCC policy. They had the same policy when I read it in their TOS last year when they were selling on eBay. I was looking into consigning some of my cards (which I ended sending to elsewhere) and read it on their website.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Instead of charging a listing fee, they just take ownership of the card if it can't even get a single bidder for $10. They don't want people sending in their $5 cards. It just creates more work for them but no revenue. It's a lot easier to just say the card has been forfeited to them as payment for their services than to deal with invoicing a customer and shipping the card back. It's just not worth their time to deal with. They probably take a huge box of all those borderline worthless cards over to a local card shop where they get $1 each for them.

I remember seeing a few cards listed in this last auction where I said, "PWCC is getting that one!" lol. One of them was something like a 1987 Topps Roger Clemens PSA 6. I was like, "WTF?" Card probably isn't even worth $1.

However, I'm pretty sure if it was a valuable card that somehow slipped through the cracks as a result of a glitch or misspelling or something like that, that they won't keep your card if you bring it to their attention. I highly doubt they're using it as a loophole to steal your $1,000 cards. We're talking about absolute junk cards here. It seems like a perfectly reasonable policy to me.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This isn't a new PWCC policy. They had the same policy when I read it in their TOS last year when they were selling on eBay. I was looking into consigning some of my cards (which I ended sending to elsewhere) and read it on their website.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Instead of charging a listing fee, they just take ownership of the card if it can't even get a single bidder for $10. They don't want people sending in their $5 cards. It just creates more work for them but no revenue. It's a lot easier to just say the card has been forfeited to them as payment for their services than to deal with invoicing a customer and shipping the card back. It's just not worth their time to deal with. They probably take a huge box of all those borderline worthless cards over to a local card shop where they get $1 each for them.

I remember seeing a few cards listed in this last auction where I said, "PWCC is getting that one!" lol. One of them was something like a 1987 Topps Roger Clemens PSA 6. I was like, "WTF?" Card probably isn't even worth $1.

However, I'm pretty sure if it was a valuable card that somehow slipped through the cracks as a result of a glitch or misspelling or something like that, that they won't keep your card if you bring it to their attention. I highly doubt they're using it as a loophole to steal your $1,000 cards. We're talking about absolute junk cards here. It seems like a perfectly reasonable policy to me.

Yeah, if it’s the policy, it’s the policy. And there is some reasoning behind it. I just wondered originally how many of the owners of the 2800+ cards that didn’t sell realized they wouldn’t get them back. Even here, people didn’t believe what they read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This isn't a new PWCC policy. They had the same policy when I read it in their TOS last year when they were selling on eBay. I was looking into consigning some of my cards (which I ended sending to elsewhere) and read it on their website.

Thank you. I was thinking to myself that this wasn't new but couldn't remember for sure. Glad to know somebody else remembered it the same way.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I remember seeing a few cards listed in this last auction where I said, "PWCC is getting that one!" lol. One of them was something like a 1987 Topps Roger Clemens PSA 6. I was like, "WTF?" Card probably isn't even worth $1.

You'd be surprised sometimes. There was a 1989 UD Griffey PSA 2 or 3 - I forget the exact grade but very low - that sold recently for almost $1200. Turns out that some people collect "rainbows" of some cards - that is, they want every grade from 1-10. Well, low grades of that card are REALLY rare, so they sell for big money.

I doubt that's what's going on with that Clemens though That one is more likely just the WTF you mentioned

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Thank you. I was thinking to myself that this wasn't new but couldn't remember for sure. Glad to know somebody else remembered it the same way.



You'd be surprised sometimes. There was a 1989 UD Griffey PSA 2 or 3 - I forget the exact grade but very low - that sold recently for almost $1200. Turns out that some people collect "rainbows" of some cards - that is, they want every grade from 1-10. Well, low grades of that card are REALLY rare, so they sell for big money.

I doubt that's what's going on with that Clemens though That one is more likely just the WTF you mentioned

Wait, so you're telling me that I can take my EX-MT Griffey Upper Deck RC and attach it to the wall with a thumbtack after throwing it against the wall a few times and send it off to PSA and make money? Does this count as an "alteration"? Wait until BODA gets a hold of this new strategy! Bring in the feds!

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

Here is the thing: it seems sometimes like some members of this board consider a $10 card as only fit to be folded in half and used to shim up a wobbly chair. To others, there is more inherent value there. So, I would be less dismissive of the consignor in this scenario and consider a couple of questions:

1. If the cards in question are of such limited value, why would PWCC accept consignment of them in the first place?
2. What does PWCC do with the forfeited cards? Are they consigning them to a seller like Greg Morris, for example, and keeping the proceeds for themselves?

I mean, I get that PWCC would rather deal with the cards that generate higher premiums. I don't fault them for that. Just as I don't fault Goldin for their focus on the high end. Define your niche and exceling in it is a sound business strategy. But, when I consider the range of answers to these two questions, I have to wonder about their commitment to being a good hobby citizen.

It would be helpful to see the list of the 3000 lots that were not bid on in the inaugral auction to see what we are actually talking about because, to a certain extent, I think we all may not be thinking the same thing.

[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.