Goldin income verification

[raulus]

Seems like there's a missing middle ground here.

I'm guessing that a big part of the issue is probably just the challenge of being flexible and specific for the AH as it assesses its buyers/bidders, rather than painting with a wide brush. I suspect some recent mandate came down from on high at this AH, possibly because the AH was burned by someone, it cost the AH in reputation and probably lost commission, and now it's time to tighten things up to avoid a similar problem going forward.

Certainly every AH can and should verify that their bidders are capable of honoring their bids. How they go about that process, however, doesn't have to require that they need access to everything about me.

In situations where we have an existing relationship, particularly one where I've been a solid customer for many years, it shouldn't be that difficult for the AH to get comfortable with my credit without the need for additional support. Unless, of course, I'm looking to substantially expand my bidding patterns from 4 figures to 6 figures, in which case the AH has every right to ask for some documentation showing that I can handle that new and substantially elevated level of bidding.

And if I don't like the process from the AH, then I have every right to walk away. As an added bonus, if I'm feeling particularly vexed by the entire situation, then I might just come here and broadcast to the world my utter dissatisfaction with the whole business.

[Peter_Spaeth]

AH to consignor: sorry, your card didn't get paid for, we can return it to you or run it again.

Consignor to AH: didn't you make sure the guy could afford to pay?

AH to consignor: Oh no, we're old school we would never insult someone by asking them for financial information.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

AH to consignor: sorry, your card didn't get paid for, we can return it to you or run it again.

Consignor to AH: didn't you make sure the guy could afford to pay?

AH to consignor: Oh no, we're old school we would never insult someone by asking them for financial information.

You'll be happy to hear that this happened to me a few times previously. Since it was with your favorite now-defunct AH, you'll be even more delighted.

Luckily, the last time it happened, the non-paying bidder got burned, because it was August 2020, and the item turned right back around and sold for 20% more in the next month's auction.

[samosa4u]

Just send Goldin a photo of yourself holding up an East Coast gang sign and a thick roll of Benjamins in the other hand while wearing thick gold chainz and you'll get approved immediately!

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by raulus

Seems like there's a missing middle ground here.

I'm guessing that a big part of the issue is probably just the challenge of being flexible and specific for the AH as it assesses its buyers/bidders, rather than painting with a wide brush. I suspect some recent mandate came down from on high at this AH, possibly because the AH was burned by someone, it cost the AH in reputation and probably lost commission, and now it's time to tighten things up to avoid a similar problem going forward.

Certainly every AH can and should verify that their bidders are capable of honoring their bids. How they go about that process, however, doesn't have to require that they need access to everything about me.

In situations where we have an existing relationship, particularly one where I've been a solid customer for many years, it shouldn't be that difficult for the AH to get comfortable with my credit without the need for additional support. Unless, of course, I'm looking to substantially expand my bidding patterns from 4 figures to 6 figures, in which case the AH has every right to ask for some documentation showing that I can handle that new and substantially elevated level of bidding.

And if I don't like the process from the AH, then I have every right to walk away. As an added bonus, if I'm feeling particularly vexed by the entire situation, then I might just come here and broadcast to the world my utter dissatisfaction with the whole business.

This times 100 percent. and I expect the other major auctions to follow suit in short order.

[calvindog]

As I said above, I was previously unaware until recently as to how many winning bidders pay for their winnings with cards they then consign for future auctions, after winning their lots. Getting basically interest-free loans from the auction houses. So I can better understand the houses' concern that winning bidders can't pay for their lots.

[MVSNYC]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As I said above, I was previously unaware until recently as to how many winning bidders pay for their winnings with cards they then consign for future auctions, after winning their lots. Getting basically interest-free loans from the auction houses. So I can better understand the houses' concern that winning bidders can't pay for their lots.

Jeff, I've found that if you consign prior to an auction that you're also buying in, you (obviously) are working with 100% of your consigned value for auction purchases...but if you propose to "consign to pay" after the auction ends, most auction houses allow this at 50% value of your "new" consignment, thus you need to lay out 50% cash for winnings up front. Everything then gets settled after your item(s) sell.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

This times 100 percent. and I expect the other major auctions to follow suit in short order.

I'm pretty sure it's already the norm with high-end art auctions. It's just new for the sports card crowd, so they take offense.

[MikeGarcia]

Post number 36 of a ballplayer wearing a suit doesn't quite count per the bylaws.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm pretty sure it's already the norm with high-end art auctions. It's just new for the sports card crowd, so they take offense.

Yes, don't question the integrity of a baseball card collector lest they take umbrage. After all we're a small close knit community and love and trust each other and our reputations should speak for themselves. Son, I was buying from Lew Lipset when you were still a toddler.

[Yoda]

I blame next week's election for all the snarky exchanges on this thread.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I blame next week's election for all the snarky exchanges on this thread.

Rubbish.

[ALR-bishop]

I have been on the board since June of 2009 and there has never been a shortage of snarky replies. If they all end next week things may get boring around here.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by raulus

Rubbish.

Please look up sarcasm in your dictionary.

[Jewish-collector]

Would it be sufficient if we tell/show them the family name on some college buildings ?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Please look up sarcasm in your dictionary.

Apparently you didn't get the sarcasm in my response.

As an added bonus, there was a subtle cultural reference from recent events thrown in, because I'm sick that way.

[Lobo Aullando]

Maybe I missed this in the discussion, but are there any legal protections if the information of someone who has to go through this... let's call it a "background check," gets stolen or leaked? Even something as simple as mere notification or (probably useless) credit monitoring.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by raulus

I suspect some recent mandate came down from on high at this AH, possibly because the AH was burned by someone, it cost the AH in reputation and probably lost commission, and now it's time to tighten things up to avoid a similar problem going forward.

I hope the King of Collectibles has a show in Season 3 that digs deeper into the bidder who reneged, and how they went back to the consignor to tell them what happened. It might be the most interesting show yet in the series.

Insert "sarcasm" face here.