ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Andrew1975]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Does anyone have an idea of what the maximum amount of time the FBI might spend would be before bringing charges in a case like the PWCC/PSA/BGS/Probstein/eBay card trimmers and shill bidding scandal?

Also, when did it start? Wasn't it about 3 years ago now?

At some point, we should get to close the door on whether or not PWCC was engaged in illegal activities. If they were/are guilty of what their detractors claim, then Brent, and likely others, will be charged with crimes. At some point we no longer have to guess whether it not they were engaged in illegal activity. We'll know, because we know the FBI looked into it.

If charges are brought against PWCC and/or its owners, then I think it's likely that this ebay email cutting ties with them has something to do with it. However, on the other hand, if charges are not brought against PWCC within the next 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? Then it would be safe to assume that the detractors were wrong all along and that ebay's email likely was defamatory and an attempt to tarnish the reputation of a competitor.

I honestly don't know which direction I'd lean here in terms of who is and isn't guilty and what they might be guilty of. I wouldn't be surprised be either outcome (PWCC collapsing and Brent ending up behind bars or PWCC/PSA/BGS/Probstein all being exonerated). But being 3 years into this with still no charges being brought at all? That's not looking good for the haters. And with every day that passes, it looks less and less likely that they were right. How much time is left in the hourglass of this investigation? When I think about other recent FBI investigations that have been in the news, they were all wrapped up in much sooner than this one and multiple charges were brought against people at different points in time throughout the course of those investigations. Yet we still have no charges from this investigation. Could it be that it was delayed because of the pandemic perhaps? Maybe it's now just heating back up again and that's why ebay cut ties with PWCC? How much longer do we give this? At some point we either need to see some charges or we need to see some apologies.

If there are still no charges by this time next year, I think I'll be pretty firmly in the "they're not guilty" camp. I think 4 years seems like it should be enough time to make that conclusion, but I don't really know. That's just a guess. Maybe these things can take 7+ years for all I know. But it sure seems unlikely to me.

Covid brought US District Court GJ's to a grinding halt, with only the most serious cases getting any GJ time at all (and not much even for those). I'm not surprised in the least that we haven't seen indictments yet. Wouldn't be surprised if eBay thought they might be coming and decided to kick PWCC to the curb before it happened. Just a guess... maybe just wishful thinking.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Bob,

Yes, you read right.

We're all grown men here - not schoolchildren. Why do we need to bid ten times or more?

Hmmm, let's see ... 350 ... 400 ... hehehe ... 425 ... 450 ... oh dear ... 475 ... 499 ... 501 ... hohoho ...

A person bidding like that is either a) not serious about the item or b) shilling it up! Limiting the number of times an individual can bid on a particular item is a great idea and all the major auction houses should consider it!

Okay, that is an interesting opinion, and I don't think you'll ever see it happening. No self-respecting AH would ever institute such a practice as the first thing I can see consignors doing is taking their items elsewhere from then on. How someone chooses to legitimately bid in an auction is their own business, and I can't understand how your thinking will be of much help. I assume your concern is with shill bidding, if not, I'm really curous to know what it really is.

I saw one other person already responded to your post stating they have at times made multiple bids on auctions, and for exactly the same reason I'm assuming you are concerned with, shill bidding. So are people that do that type of bidding so they don't get stuck leaving a secret max bid out there for some shill bidder to run up wrong? And if so, please tell me exactly what they are supposed to do then. Since auction houses have things like extended bidding, you normally can't just set a snipe bid and forget about it. And the way a lot of these extended bidding periods are set up, they continue on till only one person is still standing. I have gotten into a back and forth in extended bidding periods myself, and at times have only wanted to go one increment at a time so as to hopefully outlast the other bidder without going higher than I have to. During such times things can change also if another lot suddenly went out of reach so I now have more to spend on a lot than originally planned. Or I end up winning a lot I didn't expect to, and so have less money than I anticipated to have and am thus thankful I just didn't put in a secret max bid on the lot I was going bid increment by bid increment on. And the same circumstances can happen with the person you are bidding against, which may suddenly cause them to drop out of a back and forth bidding war and allow you to get something for less than you would have had to pay otherwise.

So you stated what you don't approve of, numerous multiple bids, which I assume is an issue to you in combating shilling. So if that isn't okay, please explain to me how limiting the number of times a person can bid on a particular AH item will actually stop shill bidding. If the number of times someone could bid on an auction item were limited, I would assume someone shilling an auction would simply run the bidding up to where they wanted in fewer bids going forward. So you haven't really stopped the shilling, but you've now succeeded in limiting legit bidders to how often they can bid, potentially costing consignors and AHs money as I said earlier.

And if it turns out you aren't really concerned about shill bidding at all, do you really just dislike the way some legit people bid? If so, would really like to hear from someone who owns/works for an AH to get their perspective on limiting how many times someone can legitimately bid on an auction lot.

And calling people schoolchildren because you personally don't like their legit auction bidding habits is a bit harsh, don't you think?

[packs]

I always thought there was a psychological angle to bidding 20 times just to slightly increase your max bid. I always thought it was a tactic people used to try to scare others off by making them think the lot has a a lot of competition.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I always thought there was a psychological angle to bidding 20 times just to slightly increase your max bid. I always thought it was a tactic people used to try to scare others off by making them think the lot has a a lot of competition.

or a tactic used to make people think they are getting shill bid.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whatever Travis. Defend away. You could spin a bullet hole through the head I am sure into some ordinary ho hum thing. Talk to me when he's indicted, for now I'm done with this.

This is a false equivalency though. This isn't a 'my opinion' vs 'your onion' question either. This is a verifiable claim that can be answered simply by looking at the data. We're specifically discussing the 3 sales of a Mayweather PSA 9 rookie card. Your claim is that they are representative of extremely suspicious behavior and that the hammer prices for those auctions are completely out of line with other commensurate sales of the same card.

An example of "spinning" a debate regarding fraud in this hobby would be if someone were to say that a card wasn't "trimmed" but rather it was "professionally restored by a curator to its original intended state". That would be "spin". I have done nothing of the sort in this debate. What I did was equivalent to saying, "no, that card is not trimmed and I can prove it" followed by a link to a YouTube video where the card in question was pulled in its current condition straight from the pack.

Your claim about the Mayweather card is false. I disproved your claim with data from all commensurate sales of this card which clearly show that the hammer prices of the auctions in question were all perfectly in line with the market and other commensurate sales of that time. You can't just call that "spin". You can say, "Oh, my mistake. I was wrong about this card." You can even follow that up with, "but it doesn't change my mind about PWCC" or something similar. That would be a perfectly reasonable position to hold. But you can't discard the evidence that disproves your claim and then recast it as "spin" without looking unreasonable.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

Do you really think eBay put out the statement they did without having it vetted by their legal team and having ironclad proof?

I will reword your question first as Do you really think eBay is capable of putting out the statement they did without having it vetted by their legal team and having ironclad proof?

To this revised version of your question, I would answer yes. Emphatically, yes (although it was certainly also reviewed by their legal team first). I used to live and work only a few blocks from ebay's headquarters. I have several friends who are either current or former employees of eBay. They've also been actively trying to recruit me for years. I've heard many stories from numerous different departments at eBay, all of which shed light on them having a cutthroat corporate culture that I want no part of. An email blast like this is precisely the type of calculated move I would expect from them in an effort to damage their competition. But that doesn't mean this is in fact what happened or that I even believe this to be what happened here. I don't know what went down in this instance. I have no insider knowledge of this particular situation. I'm just saying they are certainly capable of it.

And IF the "individuals associated with PWCC" merely refers to people who consigned with them, then I would have a serious issue with ebay sending out this email and would definitely consider it to be defamatory.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is a false equivalency though. This isn't a 'my opinion' vs 'your onion' question either. This is a verifiable claim that can be answered simply by looking at the data. We're specifically discussing the 3 sales of a Mayweather PSA 9 rookie card. Your claim is that they are representative of extremely suspicious behavior and that the hammer prices for those auctions are completely out of line with other commensurate sales of the same card.

An example of "spinning" a debate regarding fraud in this hobby would be if someone were to say that a card wasn't "trimmed" but rather it was "professionally restored by a curator to its original intended state". That would be "spin". I have done nothing of the sort in this debate. What I did was equivalent to saying, "no, that card is not trimmed and I can prove it" followed by a link to a YouTube video where the card in question was pulled in its current condition straight from the pack.

Your claim about the Mayweather card is false. I disproved your claim with data from all commensurate sales of this card which clearly show that the hammer prices of the auctions in question were all perfectly in line with the market and other commensurate sales of that time. You can't just call that "spin". You can say, "Oh, my mistake. I was wrong about this card." You can even follow that up with, "but it doesn't change my mind about PWCC" or something similar. That would be a perfectly reasonable position to hold. But you can't discard the evidence that disproves your claim and then recast it as "spin" without looking unreasonable.

Now you're the one using false equivalencies.

Showing that those listed (assumed) sales were around current market prices does not prove your point. Though most of us were not disputing that as part of the "suspicious" argument anyway.

Some of us feel that (given how people hate to take any losses, and especially quick ones) that it's odd that anyone would continue to sell that particular Mayweather when they did. Especially with a company that has no qualms about being pretty slimy.

You disagree and feel that it was simply people panicking.

These are not objective matters, and you're inaccurately trying to make them so and ignoring a key opposing point to falsely "prove" what you want to assume

[Republicaninmass]

Still trying

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is a verifiable claim that can be answered simply by looking at the data.

Have you not noticed how many people in this country don’t care about verifiable data?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Now you're the one using false equivalencies.

Showing that those listed (assumed) sales were around current market prices does not prove your point. Though most of us were not disputing that as part of the "suspicious" argument anyway.

Some of us feel that (given how people hate to take any losses, and especially quick ones) that it's odd that anyone would continue to sell that particular Mayweather when they did. Especially with a company that has no qualms about being pretty slimy.

You disagree and feel that it was simply people panicking.

These are not objective matters, and you're inaccurately trying to make them so and ignoring a key opposing point to falsely "prove" what you want to assume

If the proposition is, two consecutive people did not win this card and consign it right back to PWCC, then you are right, prices don't disprove that.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the proposition is, two consecutive people did not win this card and consign it right back to PWCC, then no, prices don't disprove that.

I never said that proved anything. All I said was that he showed that the listed PWCC sales were around other market sales at the time. And even specifically worded it "assumed" sales.

Peter, you seem like a good guy, but I've never seen anyone find so many ways to argue with people on all sides of debates like you do (even when they agree with you, like here). I've made my suspicion about the sale(s) clear :-)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

I never said that proved anything. All I said was that he showed that the listed PWCC sales were around other market sales at the time. And even specifically worded it "assumed" sales.

Peter, you seem like a good guy, but I've never seen anyone find so many ways to argue with people on all sides of debates like you do (even when they agree with you, like here). I've made my suspicion about the sale(s) clear :-)

I was AGREEING with you. Restating your point. Edited it to be clear.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I was AGREEING with you. Restating your point. Edited it to be clear.

No problem. It came off a different way to me (from the wording)!

[packs]

Posting this without comment but it appears shill bidding accusations and faux market bubbles have been made in the video game world as well:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/youtu...190000435.html

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Posting this without comment but it appears shill bidding accusations and faux market bubbles have been made in the video game world as well:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/youtu...190000435.html

There was probably shill bidding in the agora.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by packs

Posting this without comment but it appears shill bidding accusations and faux market bubbles have been made in the video game world as well:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/youtu...190000435.html

Try to find one single auction marketplace where shill bidding isn't a concern. I'll wait. Some are more rampant than others, with eBay by far being the worst, but no matter how hard they try, it's simply not entirely preventable. And the difference between a 'reserve price' and a 'shill bid' is often semantics at best anyhow. So much so that shill bidding is perfectly legal in some states.

[packs]

I wouldn't say eBay is the worst. I'd say the people on eBay are the worst. As far as I know eBay isn't bidding on auctions for sellers.

[BobC]

Going back to some of the posts questioning card sales for losses, and why would rational people due that, don't forget that more and more people are looking at cards like investments, and therefore not thinking anything like collectors. I'm not saying this is what was actually happening, but did anyone ever consider that someone purposely selling into a down market may have done so as an investor to generate capital losses to then offset against capital gains they already had from sales, and thus save on income taxes? And if the item being sold is a known market commodity that can possibly be expected to go back up in the future (Jordan rookies?), I can also see that seller waiting to get around the wash rules to be able to buy a similar card at the current reduced value back so they hold onto it for future appreciation. They end up basically with the same asset they would have had had they not sold it, but now they get the advantage of utilizing a current capital gains tax loss to put/keep more cash in their pockets. I always called this practice harvesting tax losses.

So there may be other reasons for people doing things that aren't so nefarious, that no has considered.

[packs]

No.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

No.

Oh, so you had considered that already?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Going back to some of the posts questioning card sales for losses, and why would rational people due that, don't forget that more and more people are looking at cards like investments, and therefore not thinking anything like collectors. I'm not saying this is what was actually happening, but did anyone ever consider that someone purposely selling into a down market may have done so as an investor to generate capital losses to then offset against capital gains they already had from sales, and thus save on income taxes? And if the item being sold is a known market commodity that can possibly be expected to go back up in the future (Jordan rookies?), I can also see that seller waiting to get around the wash rules to be able to buy a similar card at the current reduced value back so they hold onto it for future appreciation. They end up basically with the same asset they would have had had they not sold it, but now they get the advantage of utilizing a current capital gains tax loss to put/keep more cash in their pockets. I always called this practice harvesting tax losses.

So there may be other reasons for people doing things that aren't so nefarious, that no has considered.

Or maybe his wife found out he was cheating so he decided to sell the card to reduce his liabilities in divorce. Also possible, isn't it? You're really out on a limb, Bob, with the speculation.

[Snowman]

Bob is not out on a limb at all. Not even remotely. There is a MASSIVE faction of this market that treats their collections as assets. They have no emotional connection to these cards whatsoever. Not wanting to sell a card at a loss is a completely irrational behavior that is only held by true collectors, not investors. Try putting yourself in an investor's shoes as opposed to your collector shoes for a moment. Instead of it being a Mayweather RC, imagine it was an investment in General Motors stock or Pfizer or pick some other random stock. Say 2 months after you bought it, the market crashes and you want to move some of your money around. Maybe you want to put it in gold or silver or into bitcoin or some other investment opportunity. Are you really not going to sell that General Motors stock for its current market price because you paid double what it's worth today? Really? Are you really telling me that nobody does this?

"Nope, I'm not selling my Pfizer stock until they net me a profit! I don't take losses, God dammit!!!"

This isn't some guy who's been saving up his paper route money until he finally had enough to land his holy grail Mayweather RC. This is someone with money to invest with no emotional connection whatsoever to their cards. He was never going to keep that card. He probably never even saw it in person. Just bought it on eBay, shipped it to his vault, kept it there, and then sold it from his vault so he could put the money in Bitcoin instead.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or maybe his wife found out he was cheating so he decided to sell the card to reduce his liabilities in divorce. Also possible, isn't it? You're really out on a limb, Bob, with the speculation.

Peter, I distinctly said this wasn't necessarily what was happening in the specific cases several posters were going back and forth about. But it does seem true that as our hobby appears to really be plunged into the investment side of things that actions of some may start more from an investment way of thinking. I've had numerous discussions with people adopting this investment strategy over the years, especially in times where markets are down, like the crash back in 2008, or even the 2020 market hit from the pandemic. They still like the investment (card) and don't necessarily want to sell it, but if there is a way they could still keep that investment (card) AND also generate a current tax saving capital loss, why wouldn't they go for it? Time value of money and all, they could take the dollars they saved from harvesting the tax losses and use it to buy more investments (cards) that they maybe couldn't have afforded to buy now otherwise. You would likely be surprised how many people would think of harvesting capital losses like that.

I'm not speculating at all, this thinking and investment strategy happens every day. I'm merely trying to point out that there may be other legit reasons for what some people say are attempts to manipulate the card market that they did not realize and consider. This hobby is undergoing such rapid and dramatic changes right now that you have to be aware of new ideas and concepts going forward, and can't just blindly assume things aren't changing, whether you like or agree with them or not.

So I am not out on any limb and what I'm saying is absolutely valid, whether it is applicable to the specific cases discussed in this thread or not. If not those cases, maybe the next ones down the road.

And even your postulated reason for selling having to do with a pending divorce could be a valid alternative as well, however, a lot less likely I think than my suggestion for selling to harvest capital losses for tax purposes. First off, you said they may have sold to reduce liabilities, don't you mean reduce assets so they could then try to hide the cash and pay less in the divorce settlement? Of course, that begs the question of whether the spouse knew about the card to begin with. Assuming they did, the sale could have been to establish the exact value for the divorce proceedings and make it real easy to just split the cash between the parties. Otherwise, if the spouse knew of the card they would likely tell their attorney, who would likely inquire and investigate what it ended up selling for and where did the cash go. And if the spouse was not aware of the card, I think the last thing you'd want to do is sell it to potentially create a taxable event that the spouse's attorney could pick up from doing a review of the divorcing couple's tax returns. In that case you'd be better off leaving the card alone and just keeping it, and a big reason why a sale because of divorce may be less likely than a sale to utilize capital losses.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Peter, I distinctly said this wasn't necessarily what was happening in the specific cases several posters were going back and forth about. But it does seem true that as our hobby appears to really be plunged into the investment side of things that actions of some may start more from an investment way of thinking. I've had numerous discussions with people adopting this investment strategy over the years, especially in times where markets are down, like the crash back in 2008, or even the 2020 market hit from the pandemic. They still like the investment (card) and don't necessarily want to sell it, but if there is a way they could still keep that investment (card) AND also generate a current tax saving capital loss, why wouldn't they go for it? Time value of money and all, they could take the dollars they saved from harvesting the tax losses and use it to buy more investments (cards) that they maybe couldn't have afforded to buy now otherwise. You would likely be surprised how many people would think of harvesting capital losses like that.

I'm not speculating at all, this thinking and investment strategy happens every day. I'm merely trying to point out that there may be other legit reasons for what some people say are attempts to manipulate the card market that they did not realize and consider. This hobby is undergoing such rapid and dramatic changes right now that you have to be aware of new ideas and concepts going forward, and can't just blindly assume things aren't changing, whether you like or agree with them or not.

So I am not out on any limb and what I'm saying is absolutely valid, whether it is applicable to the specific cases discussed in this thread or not. If not those cases, maybe the next ones down the road.

And even your postulated reason for selling having to do with a pending divorce could be a valid alternative as well, however, a lot less likely I think than my suggestion for selling to harvest capital losses for tax purposes. First off, you said they may have sold to reduce liabilities, don't you mean reduce assets so they could then try to hide the cash and pay less in the divorce settlement? Of course, that begs the question of whether the spouse knew about the card to begin with. Assuming they did, the sale could have been to establish the exact value for the divorce proceedings and make it real easy to just split the cash between the parties. Otherwise, if the spouse knew of the card they would likely tell their attorney, who would likely inquire and investigate what it ended up selling for and where did the cash go. And if the spouse was not aware of the card, I think the last thing you'd want to do is sell it to potentially create a taxable event that the spouse's attorney could pick up from doing a review of the divorcing couple's tax returns. In that case you'd be better off leaving the card alone and just keeping it, and a big reason why a sale because of divorce may be less likely than a sale to utilize capital losses.

I said reduce liabilities IN divorce, which to me meant reducing what one would owe the spouse and so in effect means reducing one's own assets. But sorry if I was imprecise there.

And rational or not I think it does happen that guys getting divorced try to hide their collection or cash part of it out. There was a member here who shall remain nameless who had his whole collection on a personal website. When he became headed for divorce, it disappeared.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Bob is not out on a limb at all. Not even remotely. There is a MASSIVE faction of this market that treats their collections as assets. They have no emotional connection to these cards whatsoever. Not wanting to sell a card at a loss is a completely irrational behavior that is only held by true collectors, not investors. Try putting yourself in an investor's shoes as opposed to your collector shoes for a moment. Instead of it being a Mayweather RC, imagine it was an investment in General Motors stock or Pfizer or pick some other random stock. Say 2 months after you bought it, the market crashes and you want to move some of your money around. Maybe you want to put it in gold or silver or into bitcoin or some other investment opportunity. Are you really not going to sell that General Motors stock for its current market price because you paid double what it's worth today? Really? Are you really telling me that nobody does this?

"Nope, I'm not selling my Pfizer stock until they net me a profit! I don't take losses, God dammit!!!"

This isn't some guy who's been saving up his paper route money until he finally had enough to land his holy grail Mayweather RC. This is someone with money to invest with no emotional connection whatsoever to their cards. He was never going to keep that card. He probably never even saw it in person. Just bought it on eBay, shipped it to his vault, kept it there, and then sold it from his vault so he could put the money in Bitcoin instead.

Or it could be a person who is both a collector and an investor who still wants to keep the card, but sells it say to realize a $50K capital loss. They wait 31 days then before going back to try to buy virtually the same card they just sold, for hopefully no more than what they had just sold it for, and if really lucky, for even less so they have some cash from the sale left over. So they end up still owning the same card, but now when they do their taxes they maybe save upwards of $14,000 ($50K loss X 28%) that they otherwise wouldn't have had to buy/invest in other cards, or whatever else they're now interested in.

FYI. I mentioned waiting at least 31 days before trying to buy a similar card back because in sales of stocks, if you sold 100 shares of a particular stock for a loss, but then bought 100 shares of that same stock within a month, either before or after the date you had sold the 100 shares, you would not be able to claim the capital loss for tax purposes under what is known as the wash rule. Now baseball cards are not exactly the same as a company's stock, especially graded cards with their own unique cert numbers, etc. But cards can and are now also considered investments, and I don't know if an IRS agent would argue that one PSA 10 Jordan rookie is the same as another to be able to invoke the wash rule against someone selling one at a loss, and then buying a different PSA 10 Jordan rookie just a couple weeks later. Don't know of any cases out there, but why take a chance if you don't have to, just wait for the month to pass to be sure. Throwing this out as general knowledge for anyone reading this thread.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I said reduce liabilities IN divorce, which to me meant reducing what one would owe the spouse and so in effect means reducing one's own assets. But sorry if I was imprecise there.

And rational or not I think it does happen that guys getting divorced try to hide their collection or cash part of it out. There was a member here who shall remain nameless who had his whole collection on a personal website. When he became headed for divorce, it disappeared.

No problemo, i simply took the liability term from a different viewpoint. We're actually on the same wavelength. And I do think what you said is very rational and can and has/does happen. It was a very good, alternative selling reason, in addition to mine regarding sales to take advantage of otherwise unrealized capital losses. I still think the utilization of capital losses would happen more than divorced related sales, but both still happen. And I'm guessing there are still other plausible reasons that neither of us has thought of as well. Just saying you can't automatically say all weird looking sales are due to shilling or attempts at market manipulation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

No problemo, i simply took the liability term from a different viewpoint. We're actually on the same wavelength. And I do think what you said is very rational and can and has/does happen. It was a very good, alternative selling reason, in addition to mine regarding sales to take advantage of otherwise unrealized capital losses. I still think the utilization of capital losses would happen more than divorced related sales, but both still happen. And I'm guessing there are still other plausible reasons that neither of us has thought of as well. Just saying you can't automatically say all weird looking sales are due to shilling or attempts at market manipulation.

I agree but when the seller is PWCC and the same exact card nominally sells THREE times in a short time span, I am going to be skeptical until proven wrong.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree but when the seller is PWCC and the same card nominally sells THREE times in a short time span, I am going to be skeptical until proven wrong.

Peter, I'm with you 100%. If it looks, like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck.............................!

Still, there is always a small chance that one of these other plausible reasons could be a part of what people are seeing. Just trying to keep a somewhat open mind till more facts and info are out there going forward. Like that recent revelation by Travis/Snowman about PWCC being limited in how many people can be blocked from their Ebay auctions at any one time. Never heard that before, but guessing other Ebay sellers on here may be able to confirm or deny that. I don't know his sources and how accurate what he said truly is, and this has nothing to do with other allegations such as alleged alliances with card doctors and so on, but if any of what Travis/Snowman said is true, that may change, or at least point to differences in, the narrative regarding alleged shill bidding issues with PWCC. I am by no means defending them and saying they are entirely innocent, nor am I saying they are entirely guilty. Just that I don't think there is enough fully vetted and credible information out there yet to make a final, conclusive decision.

[Republicaninmass]

Assets that go down in a span of 2 months.


Where are the underbidders?


Must be the new crypto. I dont.buy it for a second, and never did since the 06 run ups

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Assets that go down in a span of 2 months.


Where are the underbidders?


Must be the new crypto. I dont.buy it for a second, and never did since the 06 run ups

And that is a big part of the problem, we're not able to see and know who those underbidders were. If we could find out and question them it would hopefully remove any doubts and skepticism. Maybe one day the government will go forward with a case and we'll finally get more info and answers.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Not wanting to sell a card at a loss is a completely irrational behavior that is only held by true collectors, not investors. Try putting yourself in an investor's shoes as opposed to your collector shoes for a moment. Instead of it being a Mayweather RC, imagine it was an investment in General Motors stock or Pfizer or pick some other random stock. Say 2 months after you bought it, the market crashes and you want to move some of your money around. Maybe you want to put it in gold or silver or into bitcoin or some other investment opportunity. Are you really not going to sell that General Motors stock for its current market price because you paid double what it's worth today? Really? Are you really telling me that nobody does this?

"Nope, I'm not selling my Pfizer stock until they net me a profit! I don't take losses, God dammit!!!"

This isn't some guy who's been saving up his paper route money until he finally had enough to land his holy grail Mayweather RC. This is someone with money to invest with no emotional connection whatsoever to their cards. He was never going to keep that card. He probably never even saw it in person. Just bought it on eBay, shipped it to his vault, kept it there, and then sold it from his vault so he could put the money in Bitcoin instead.

When it comes to this "I'm not taking a loss" subject, you have little understanding of what often drives human behavior.

Grown adults often do exactly what you're mocking there (with something like their Pfizer stock). They absolutely DO think your exact foot-stopping quote of "I'm not gonna sell until a get a profit!", regardless of what the sensible allocation of their investments should be going forward. Has nothing to do with whether it's a "collector" or "investor"; it's the same principle for anyone involved with a speculative asset. The only time that many can stomach and justify taking the loss is (as brought up above) when it's to offset capital gains.

It's easy for someone to get married to their purchase price (human nature for a number of unflattering or poorly thought-out reasons.) And on the flip side, they also take profits for the wrong reasons. Because what you "made" isn't the key factor either, except for tax purposes. Once you own something, the purchase price is a sunk cost. All that matters is what the value is now, what could happen going forward, your risk tolerance at the current value for that asset, what portion it is of your overall portfolio, etc. But I digress.

Rationality isn't what dictates decisions sometimes. Especially when it comes to this.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

When it comes to this "I'm not taking a loss" subject, you have little understanding of what often drives human behavior.

Grown adults often do exactly what you're mocking there (with something like their Pfizer stock). They absolutely DO think your exact foot-stopping quote of "I'm not gonna sell until a get a profit!", regardless of what the sensible allocation of their investments should be going forward. Has nothing to do with whether it's a "collector" or "investor"; it's the same principle for anyone involved with a speculative asset. The only time that many can stomach and justify taking the loss is (as brought up above) when it's to offset capital gains.

It's easy for someone to get married to their purchase price (human nature for a number of unflattering or poorly thought-out reasons.) And on the flip side, they also take profits for the wrong reasons. Because what you "made" isn't the key factor either, except for tax purposes. Once you own something, the purchase price is a sunk cost. All that matters is what the value is now, what could happen going forward, your risk tolerance at the current value for that asset, what portion it is of your overall portfolio, etc. But I digress.

Rationality isn't what dictates decisions sometimes. Especially when it comes to this.

Ya for sure. I agree 100%. A lot of people think this way. Especially with cards. But it's more of an emotional attachment. It's not rational or logical behavior. I didn't mean to imply that people don't act like this. I only intended to point out that there is also no shortage of people who don't. Of which I am one. I don't care one bit what I paid for something. I only make decisions based on what it's worth today. I also wanted to make the point that this mindset is more in line with an investor than a pure collector.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Bob is not out on a limb at all. Not even remotely. There is a MASSIVE faction of this market that treats their collections as assets. They have no emotional connection to these cards whatsoever. Not wanting to sell a card at a loss is a completely irrational behavior that is only held by true collectors, not investors. Try putting yourself in an investor's shoes as opposed to your collector shoes for a moment. Instead of it being a Mayweather RC, imagine it was an investment in General Motors stock or Pfizer or pick some other random stock. Say 2 months after you bought it, the market crashes and you want to move some of your money around. Maybe you want to put it in gold or silver or into bitcoin or some other investment opportunity. Are you really not going to sell that General Motors stock for its current market price because you paid double what it's worth today? Really? Are you really telling me that nobody does this?

"Nope, I'm not selling my Pfizer stock until they net me a profit! I don't take losses, God dammit!!!"

This isn't some guy who's been saving up his paper route money until he finally had enough to land his holy grail Mayweather RC. This is someone with money to invest with no emotional connection whatsoever to their cards. He was never going to keep that card. He probably never even saw it in person. Just bought it on eBay, shipped it to his vault, kept it there, and then sold it from his vault so he could put the money in Bitcoin instead.

Why don't we just stipulate that Brent Mastro has been and is a cheater effer and move on? You do know that, correct?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

Why don't we just stipulate that Brent Mastro has been and is a cheater effer and move on? You do know that, correct?

I've read countless accusations against him and PWCC, so, in that sense, yes, I'm aware of the accusations being made. However, I've yet to encounter any actual evidence though, so I continue to reserve judgement. I'm not saying he's innocent. I just don't know.

Perhaps I should note that I don't consider the fact that trimmers have sold their cards through PWCC to be a stain on them. I don't think a consignment company should be held responsible for PSA's screw ups. PWCC is not a grading company. Those issues should be taken up with the TPGs. They're the ones that are supposed to be the experts. Not PWCC.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I've read countless accusations against him and PWCC, so, in that sense, yes, I'm aware of the accusations being made. However, I've yet to encounter any actual evidence though, so I continue to reserve judgement. I'm not saying he's innocent. I just don't know.

Perhaps I should note that I don't consider the fact that trimmers have sold their cards through PWCC to be a stain on them. I don't think a consignment company should be held responsible for PSA's screw ups. PWCC is not a grading company. Those issues should be taken up with the TPGs. They're the ones that are supposed to be the experts. Not PWCC.

PWCC is not a grading company you say yet they offer their opinion on the grade of a card rountinely.

And I believe an association between pwcc and moser has been established showing they have worked together.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

PWCC is not a grading company you say yet they offer their opinion on the grade of a card rountinely.

And I believe an association between pwcc and moser has been established showing they have worked together.

Brent knew he was selling altered cards but did not disclose, there is email proof of that among other evidence, and as I've explained countless times, that's fraud. Brent also likely submitted many of the cards in question himself. The relationship between Brent and Gary goes back perhaps 20 years if not longer, Brent was just a kid when he started selling Gary's stuff.

And that's why there's an FBI probe. That TPGs may also culpable is irrelevant. Anyone coming to this fresh can find the old posts explaining the mail and wire fraud statutes and their applicability to the scandal. Sorry but I don't have the patience to keep doing it every time some skeptical newbie pops up.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

DNFTT. There's no point. Brent knew he was selling altered cards but did not disclose that, there is email proof of that among other evidence, and as I've explained countless times, that's fraud. And that's why there's an FBI probe. That PSA is also culpable is irrelevant. Anyone coming to this fresh can find the old posts explaining the mail and wire fraud statutes and their applicability to the scandal.

thx pete...and here's a card.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

When it comes to this "I'm not taking a loss" subject, you have little understanding of what often drives human behavior.

Grown adults often do exactly what you're mocking there (with something like their Pfizer stock). They absolutely DO think your exact foot-stopping quote of "I'm not gonna sell until a get a profit!", regardless of what the sensible allocation of their investments should be going forward. Has nothing to do with whether it's a "collector" or "investor"; it's the same principle for anyone involved with a speculative asset. The only time that many can stomach and justify taking the loss is (as brought up above) when it's to offset capital gains.

It's easy for someone to get married to their purchase price (human nature for a number of unflattering or poorly thought-out reasons.) And on the flip side, they also take profits for the wrong reasons. Because what you "made" isn't the key factor either, except for tax purposes. Once you own something, the purchase price is a sunk cost. All that matters is what the value is now, what could happen going forward, your risk tolerance at the current value for that asset, what portion it is of your overall portfolio, etc. But I digress.

Rationality isn't what dictates decisions sometimes. Especially when it comes to this.

Boy, is that ever true. How many times has a seller refused a reasonable offer based on "what I have into it?"

In the next couple of years I suspect we are going to see a ton of irrational "hold till it makes money" collectors. We don't have to reach back too far for that. Look at what happened after 2008-2009.

I had one amusing experience I can relate that's apropos of the subject. I paid a really 'frothy' price for a card in a 2008 auction. Several years later another collector and me were trying to work out a deal for my card but I just could not stomach the financial loss of an outright sale. Eventually, we decided to trade overpriced cards instead, because he'd bought a bunch of stuff in the same auction season that was totally upside down on too. I got a handful of cards from a set I liked more than the one I had and he got my albatross in return. We made the trade at the National and we were just laughing at the absurdity of what we spent versus what they were worth at that point. The cards I obtained will probably never be worth what they were worth when he bought them but they are in my PC until I stop collecting, so I don't really care.

[Republicaninmass]

Oh no, it's a whole new batch of collectors! They made so much in bitcoin and Tesla they NEED losses! Also, All the other collectors know the market and wont bid at the top, they wait a few months, even the plethora of underbidder. They somehow can time the market!

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Brent knew he was selling altered cards but did not disclose, there is email proof of that among other evidence, and as I've explained countless times, that's fraud. Brent also likely submitted many of the cards in question himself. The relationship between Brent and Gary goes back perhaps 20 years if not longer, Brent was just a kid when he started selling Gary's stuff.

Twenty-plus years? Homie, you never told me that! That's messed up!

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sorry but I don't have the patience to keep doing it every time some skeptical newbie pops up.

LOL! BOOM! It's over!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Twenty-plus years? Homie, you never told me that! That's messed up!



LOL! BOOM! It's over!!!

LOL Ranch. Yeah, as Gary told a friend of mine, I have this kid who sells for me on ebay now. It was probably still the 1990s or maybe the early 2000s. Brent's original ID was huigensr or something like that. I don't remember when he became prewarcardcollector.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Boy, is that ever true. How many times has a seller refused a reasonable offer based on "what I have into it?"

In the next couple of years I suspect we are going to see a ton of irrational "hold till it makes money" collectors. We don't have to reach back too far for that. Look at what happened after 2008-2009.

I had one amusing experience I can relate that's apropos of the subject. I paid a really 'frothy' price for a card in a 2008 auction. Several years later another collector and me were trying to work out a deal for my card but I just could not stomach the financial loss of an outright sale. Eventually, we decided to trade overpriced cards instead, because he'd bought a bunch of stuff in the same auction season that was totally upside down on too. I got a handful of cards from a set I liked more than the one I had and he got my albatross in return. We made the trade at the National and we were just laughing at the absurdity of what we spent versus what they were worth at that point. The cards I obtained will probably never be worth what they were worth when he bought them but they are in my PC until I stop collecting, so I don't really care.

Amazing how strong the force is. And no matter how many things go well, it can be so tough to even do it with just one or two bad apples.

In the face of so many cards that have gone up post-pandemic, there's one that I bought for a set last year that was a very mediocre price (but I never expected to move it and it's a tough card, so I went ahead).

Then I got an unexpected upgrade. Now, with no use for the first one, I am stuck with the fact that (after transactions costs going every which way), I may easily have to eat 10-15% selling it. No big deal at all.

But after all my being used to the "right" thing to do here, and all my preaching about it over the years, I still have such a tough time accepting a sensible offer (and haven't done so yet)

[Aj-hman]

ebay should figure out each shilled transaction and refund to buyer

ebay should ban them for as long as they were found to have been shilling

ebay should notify every buyer know to have a shilled transaction and give them the data so they can go to pwcc.

PWCC should figure how to be a decent company

What is PWCC response? Legal talk I am sure. Slimy lawyer talk!

I stopped buying pwcc 2 years ago and told anyone i knew bought cards.

there are other sellers that shill but its nice to cut one nut off the beast hope ebay cuts two to set a tone in the card world

[Peter_Spaeth]

No need to speculate about PWCC's response.

https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/faq#pwcc-ebay-update

Reproduced in part.

PWCC Marketplace/eBay Update

PWCC Marketplace/eBay Update
PWCC no longer uses eBay to sell items. PWCC will continue to host its Premier Auction on the PWCC platform. The August Premier Auction will close on August 21 as scheduled. The September Premier Auction will start as scheduled on September 1. The September Premier Auction will start as scheduled on September 1. To read our official statement, please click here.

How can you assure me that shill bidding is not taking place in the current and future Premier Auctions?
As part of our Marketplace Tenets, PWCC and our staff and affiliates have no visibility into any bidders' maximum bid. This information is stored in a third-party service and no one from PWCC or any affiliates of the sellers can view it, by specific design.

All bidders must be approved to participate in the Premier Auction. To apply, submit a brief application. Our team will review your application, contact you within 24 hours we need additional information, and notify you of your approval. This process can take several days, so please submit your application early.

What happens when somebody is caught placing a bid they do not intend to honor, known as shill bidding?
Our Marketplace Trust team is extremely proactive in monitoring bidding. We have placed permanent blocks on any bidder who does not pay. Refer to the Marketplace Tenets for more details on our monitoring procedures.

What will happen to my cards once the are pulled from eBay? WilI I get a notification that they have indeed been removed?
All Fixed Price and Flash Auction listings that did not sell and were removed from eBay will automatically be placed back into your Vault. All unsold items in our August Monthly Auction and submissions received for future auctions will be slated for sale in our new Monthly Auction, hosted on the PWCC website, which will launch in October. The new Fixed Price Marketplace will launch on the PWCC website on September 1, 2021, and the new Flash Auction Marketplace will be available soon.

What is PWCC's stance on shill bidding, and did PWCC participate in shill bidding on eBay's platform?
Shill bidding is a bid placed without the intention to honor it--regardless of who placed the bid. As outlined in our Marketplace Tenets, PWCC has clear rules that no one may place a bid unless that bid is intended to win the item--not consignors, friends of consignors, people who own other versions of the card, etc. PWCC has never engaged in nor condoned the practice of shill bidding or manipulating the card market. PWCC is proud of our work to ensure a trusted marketplace and unequivocally denies eBay's claims regarding shill bidding.

PWCC prides itself on creating a culture of integrity and trust. We understand its importance to our company, the industry, and collectors. For more than 20 years, PWCC has built its reputation with buyers and sellers—always putting the company’s values first. There are no circumstances under which PWCC would approve violating auction site policies.

Can I trust PWCC as a business moving forward?
Yes. We care deeply about this industry and we would never do anything to jeopardize its integrity. Many of our team members are lifelong collectors, too. We know trust is built over time and through a consistent experience. We hope that we have earned that trust from you and that we will continue to do so with our new platform. We are deeply committed to ensuring the bidding environment you deserve.

How will the split between PWCC and eBay affect the industry?
PWCC cannot predict short-term volatility that may arise from the PWCC and eBay separation; however, PWCC remains bullish on the future of the industry and looks forward to continuing its role as a leading marketplace for hobbyists and investors. To that end, PWCC had been building out its capacity to serve as a one-stop hub for customers. Hopefully, new initiatives like the PWCC Vault show our commitment to supporting the industry’s growth, integrity, safety, and success.

Will PWCC’s separation from eBay impact the safety of my items?
No. PWCC consists of three separate legal entities: the PWCC Marketplace, Capital, and Vault. There are no legal circumstances under which your items are at risk while using these services unless you have a personal legal matter that involves your property. Any legal matters that may arise between PWCC’s Marketplace entity and eBay do not impact the safety of your items. Your items always belong to you.

Can I still sell my cards with PWCC?
Since March 2021, our team of developers has focused on building and improving the Premier Auction experience which is currently live and has always been independent of eBay.

Sales through pwccmarketplace.com will be the foundation for the future Monthly Auction, Flash Auction, and Fixed Price Marketplace. The initial design of these marketplaces is in place, and we are committed to make them the most user-friendly, cost-competitive, and trusted tools in the industry. Although this platform shift happened sooner than planned, we are excited to launch the new Fixed Price Marketplace on our website on September 1, 2021 and our new Monthly Auction Marketplace this October.

What do I need to know about PWCC’s marketplace platform moving forward?
PWCC currently hosts its Premier Auction on the PWCC website. PWCC is widely considered the leading auction site for cards and memorabilia. Our customers appreciate PWCC’s presentation transparency, detailed item descriptions, advertising and promotions, and professional service. We expect the Premier Auctions’ success to translate to the Monthly and Flash Auctions, and Fixed Price listings on our platform. We also expect to retain the trust of buyers and sellers in the years ahead.

What can I expect from PWCC in terms of future plans and operations?
We are excited to roll out our proprietary Marketplaces specifically designed to meet the unique needs of this market and continue to offer excellent services to our clients.

In the meantime, PWCC conducts the Premier Auction each month for cards with a market value over $25,000, and we can always look to help you find a buyer privately. Please contact our Customer Service team, if interested.

[Republicaninmass]

Ebay builds a better mousetrap


Pwcc builds a better mouse

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

PWCC is not a grading company you say yet they offer their opinion on the grade of a card rountinely.

They put an eye-appeal sticker on cards that are well-centered. That doesn't make them a grading company and it certainly doesn't make them responsible for validating real grading companies' opinions regarding cards.

Originally Posted by ullmandds

And I believe an association between pwcc and moser has been established showing they have worked together.

Because they sold a card to someone whose masked eBay user ID is "m***1", which happens to be the same as one of the 100+ unique masked user IDs that his "Whitman111" account receives when making purchases? Do you have any idea how many buyers there are on eBay with the same masked ID? There are thousands. Literally thousands. And Moser's masked eBay ID changes every time. I've proved this multiple times.

But that aside, let's just assume they have done business together. I absolutely believe they probably have. So what? They're a consignment company. People consign cards to them. Are they really responsible for playing detectives to try to determine which of their users might be guilty of "crimes" that law enforcement doesn't even care to pursue? How is this their responsibility whatsoever? People alter cards. Thousands of people. Those cards sneak past grading all the time. And what if they falsely accuse someone because some internet troll "detectives" think a masked eBay user ID actually means something? Then what?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Aj-hman

ebay should figure out each shilled transaction and refund to buyer

LOL. Good luck with that. eBay can't even figure out how to increase the maximum number of blocked bidders above 5,000. They can't even take down an active listing that is currently being shilled despite multiple people reporting that auction for shill bidding. These guys are as incompetent as they come.

[Republicaninmass]

Blowout determined that an extremely high amount of stickers were on cards originally bought from pwcc, altered and regraded, and auctioned with pwcc a second time around.


Cards that were "prime" for alterations were bid up so high any other buyers would be scared off. These same cards, were altered, then returned to pwcc, auctioned for a second time with a HE sticker.

This was methodically, repeatedly and systematically done.

I'd wager youd only need to prove this a handful of times during discovery in a court of law to....get a result


Arent you tired of trying yet? Brent couldn't pay me enough to stick up for him. I do have morals though

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Blowout determined that an extremely high amount of stickers were on cards originally bought from pwcc, altered and regraded, and auctioned with pwcc a second time around.


Cards that were "prime" for alterations were bid up so high any other buyers would be scared off. These same cards, were altered, then returned to pwcc, auctioned for a second time with a HE sticker.

This was methodically, repeatedly and systematically done.

I'd wager youd only need to prove this a handful of times during discovery in a court of law to....get a result


Arent you tired of trying yet? Brent couldn't pay me enough to stick up for him. I do have morals though

Ah yes, "Blowout has determined..." Well I guess that's a closed case then isn't it? Lol.

Again, I'll wait for actual detectives to bring charges before I cast judgement.

Glad to see that 'RepublicanInMass' has "morals" though.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ah yes, "Blowout has determined..." Well I guess that's a closed case then isn't it? Lol.

Again, I'll wait for actual detectives to bring charges before I cast judgement.

Glad to see that 'RepublicanInMass' has "morals" though.

Although there are a lot of anonymous A holes on Blowout, the Boda team has done a very good job and a big service to our hobby. If anyone denies that they are ignorant or stupid, pick one.

.