PWCC - Sorry, Yet Again

[ezez420]

This has always been in place for PWCC. Four Sharp Corners has the same thing in place. Although I don’t agree with it is in their consignment guidelines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

So if they aren't able to sell a card, they get rewarded by keeping it. Makes sense to me.

[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.

[notfast]

If you’re using pwcc vault for cards that aren’t even worth $10, I think you need to reevaluate a lot of things.

[CardPadre]

Many truly unspectacular slabbed cards can bring $10 with the right eyes on them. If I remember correctly, there was a 1953 Topps baseball common in psa 7 that went unsold. Some set collector who needed it would have jumped on it if seen. And if two saw it and needed it, gets bid up. What doesn’t sell one time for $10, could do double that another time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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

[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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

If I remember correctly, there was a 1953 Topps baseball common in psa 7 that went unsold. Some set collector who needed it would have jumped on it if seen. And if two saw it and needed it, gets bid up. What doesn’t sell one time for $10, could do double that another time.

This is where it starts to get dicey for me. A card that definitely has value but slips through the cracks because the right buyers weren't present for this particular auction. However, that's more the buyer's fault than PWCC's I would say. A card like this never sells until the right buyer comes along, and there aren't very many of them. I would never even consider selling a card like this at auction. This is one of those cards that you just put in your eBay store as a 'Buy-it-now' and wait for that one set collector who needs it to come along X number of months later. The likelihood of this card ending up in a bidding war on PWCC is extremely low. The seller should have known that. And even if it did sell, what's he missing out on? A few bucks?

I would be interested to hear what Scott's view on extremely low valued cards is. I assume most auction houses do not want to even bother with them, and the ones that do merely offer it as a courtesy for sellers with larger collections and other higher priced items to sell. But I promise you, they don't want someone sending in 100 $10 cards to list in their next auction, even if it means they get to keep all 100 of them if they don't sell.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by notfast

If you’re using pwcc vault for cards that aren’t even worth $10, I think you need to reevaluate a lot of things.

Here are a number of prewar cards that went for $10 or $11. They came oh so close to being forfeited. They're not premier cards by any means, but this would make me pause if I was considering consigning with PWCC, which I am not.

https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971194
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971209
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971224
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971237
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971244
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971248
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971256
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971345
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971376
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971395
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971399
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971401
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2971406

[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?

[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.

[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

[BobC]

Originally Posted by notfast

If you’re using pwcc vault for cards that aren’t even worth $10, I think you need to reevaluate a lot of things.

What if someone won an entire lot of multiple cards, where some of the individual cards may not be worth $10 each, but the entire lot itself was worth over $1,000? Do you think PWCC would turn away and not take the cards that are not worth at least $10 that were included in that lot? Or what if the buyer of that lot won it off Ebay, and then had the vault as their default shipping address so they didn't have to pay sales tax, would they want to risk having to pay sales tax on the entire lot by having it sent to their home address instead, and then only forward the cards worth over $10 to the vault? Not to mention the additional shipping/mailing fees that may also be incurred.

I think you need to think about how there isn't always just one scenario or set of circumstances by which to judge everyone or their actions!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's still a shitty and unnecessary thing to do IMO. Bad look.

I don't disagree with you at all.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I would be interested to hear what Scott's view on extremely low valued cards is. I assume most auction houses do not want to even bother with them, and the ones that do merely offer it as a courtesy for sellers with larger collections and other higher priced items to sell. But I promise you, they don't want someone sending in 100 $10 cards to list in their next auction, even if it means they get to keep all 100 of them if they don't sell.

If you mean me, while we aren't a major player, we're not looking for $10 cards. We take them as a courtesy to consignors who provide us with better items as well, but we start them at $1. We have less than 1% no sales, and typically move the few we have into a future auction for the original consignor. If someone wants them back we send them back, our dime.

[Republicaninmass]

Cant shill without one bid I guess. Prevent those sold items from being relisted month after month before being dumped on some speculator like they did on ebay.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Peter,

I'm with you. Why don't they just turn the item away as a consignment and simply tell the owner they don't think it will sell for their required minimum. Or here's a novel idea I already mentioned in an earlier post, why don't they tell the owner we'll sell it, but only if you let us combine it with another card(s) in the same lot so we pretty much know it will get the minimum bid, because we don't want to just take your card(s) for nothing.

We all know the old cliche' about how most people always think/feel that something they own is worth more than it actually is. Now if PWCC advised consignors about combining cards in lots to better the chances the lot would at least sell for the minimum, and they declined because they thought their card(s) would sell for more, then I don't think anyone would have as much of an issue with PWCC taking the card(s) by forfeiture.

Now as to your question of a gift versus a transfer for no supposed value, I believe there is a difference. A gift however is usually from one person to another, not from one person to an entirely unrelated for-profit business. So I apologize for my probable innaccurate use of that term in this case, and am pretty confident this could not be construed as a gift. Now as far as the transfer for no value, I know with your background that you are well aware that a transaction/contract/agreement cannot be considered valid and enforceable without both sides having given something of value to complete their part of such an agreement. And for the benefit of others reading this that have no clue what Peter and I are talking about, that is why when you look at some agreements or contracts they will often say something like "For the sum of $10 and.......". This is because there has to be some recognized value or compensation given by both parties/sides to the other for such a contract or agreement to be legallly recognized and enforceable. Doesn't mean the compensation has to be fair and equitable, just that both sides gave something for it to be legal and enforceable.

In this case, the person forfeiting their card is clearly giving up their card, so they would have satisfied their side of the agreement. But what did PWCC give up as compensation for their side of this agreement, and for the forfeiture of this card to be legally enforceable? Even though the seller got nothing paid to them directly for the unsuccessful sale of their card, I'm assuming that it is somehow implied (or maybe even explicitly written and spelled out) in PWCC's consignment agreement that they are owed a commission/fee for their work in listing and selling every item in one of their auctions, even those that receive no bids and aren't sold. And I'm further assuming that in the case of those items that don't get a bid and sell, the consignment agreement somehow states the card(s) that didn't sell are simply taken over by (forfeited to) PWCC to satisy their commissions/fees in lieu of them actually billing the unsuccessful consignor on their cards that didn't sell, and having the consignor then pay those commissions/fees to PWCC, or deduct them from the net proceeds of other cards the consignor may have sold in the same auction.

As already stated above, I've never consigned or sold anything with PWCC so, these are only assumptions on my part as to what they are actually doing, and maybe why. I also don't know if PWCC has stated anywhere in their agreements and paperwork if they have a defined mininum commission/fee they charge for trying to sell an item for someone. If so, would be nice to learn what it is.

Now in an earlier post I also mentioned about some possible tax consequences from this card forfeiture provision. From the standpoint of the consignor/seller, their card is gone and technically sold for I'm assuming whatever their commission/fee was. But since the commission/fee being paid is also a deductible transaction/sales cost to them, they effectively sold it for $0, and depending on other factors, would still technically have a loss equal to their tax basis in the card. Whether they can actually deduct such a loss on their tax return though is then dependent on each individual seller's facts and circumstances.

As for PWCC, I don't know how they record these forfeiture transactions on their books, or how they then subsequently treat them for tax purposes. I believe the correct way to record and report these forfeiture transactions would be to record them as commission/fee income on their books, equal to either the FMV of the forfeited card(s) or their defined minimum commission/fee, whichever is greater. Then the forfeited card(s) would be included as part of their own card inventory, with a cost basis of whatever they recorded as a commission/fee for the card(s). So when they went to finally sell the card(s), they would report 100% of the sales price as part of their ordinary gross taxable sales income, net of any applicable and allowable operating, carrying, sales, or transaction costs incurred. The important thing here I believe is that they initially are reporting the FMV (or at least the minimum defined commission/fee amount) of the card(s) received via forfeitures as ordinary taxable income on their books. By doing so they recognize and record the compensation they were to give on their side of the original assignment agreement, and thereby make the forfeiture transaction legal and enforceable.

If, for whatever reason, PWCC chose not to immediately recognize commission/fee income when they acquired a card(s) through forfeiture because no actual cash changed hands at the time, they could instead just retain and record the card(s) as part of their inventory, but with a $0 cost basis. And then whenever they sold the card(s), they would still pick up all the sales proceeds as gross ordinary taxable income. The advantage could be the deferral of taxable income by not picking up the commission/fee income immediately when the card(s) was originally forfeited, but finally picking up the income and reporting it maybe not till years later when the card(s) is actually sold.

The thing is, I don't believe the IRS would agree with the idea of deferring all the income from forfeited cards to a possibly much later year of sale. And by not reporting anything on their books income-wise when they originally took possession of the card(s) by forfeiture, I think a good attorney could then argue that by their own actions, PWCC was effectively saying they didn't give anything of value to someone who ended up forfeiting a card to them, and therefore render the consignment agreement effectively null and unenforceable. Would at least be interesting to hear and watch that fight.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bob one might look at the forfeiture provision as just one term of an overall contract for which there clearly was consideration on PWCC's part, including PWCC's effort to sell the card. Not sure you would isolate it in asking is it enforceable.

To me it's more an ethical than legal issue and I leave the tax to you. As for less draconian solutions, how about just doing what Scott does, mail the card back? The cost of a few mailers and postage isn't going to break PWCC's bank.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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?

My apologies, I did not state that very well, and was more or less simply referring to the fact that the consignor didn't give anything to the seller, and vice versa in this scenario, other than a forfeited card. In my defense though, I did say "in effect" they got something for nothing, and didn't mean it in a simple, literal way, as you probably are taking it. I was thinking of this more from the consignor's side, as I did a little more expanded explaining in post #122, and mentioned how if the consignor was deemed to get hit with a commission/fee for having the card listed, then this was exactly the same amount they'd have to report as having technically sold the card for. And since the implied commission/fee and sales price are going to be exactly equal and offset one another, the consignor effectively got absolutely nothing for the card. And since the seller ends up with the card and the consignor nothing, I feel it's pretty safe to think that the consignor will feel the seller, in effect, got their card for nothing. And that was the context I was saying that under.

Consignors select and go to sellers to aid and assist them in selling their items for as much money as possible. When someone doesn't advise you properly to help you sell your items, even for a minimum set by the seller and not the consignor, and you simply end up handing your card over to the seller, how do think those consignors are going to feel?

Also, I do recognize that there could have been (and probably should be) some implied commission/fee owed to the seller. But to the extent that any forfeited card was worth more than some stated minimum commission/fee, then yes, the seller did get something for nothing, the excess value of the card over the supposed minimum commission/fee. Think of this, let's say you had two cards consigned in some seller's auction, and both were pretty much agreed upon by the hobby community to be worth $10 each. And one of them sold for exactly $10, while the other one didn't get a bid, for whatever reason, so the seller just took and kept it as theirs. Now I don't know what a normal seller's exact commission/fee would be on a $10 sale, but I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you got money coming back to you on the $10 card sale, net of the seller's commissions/fees. So why would this seller get to effectively say that a card that is supposedly worth less than $10, because no one bid on it in that particular auction, should have a higher implied commission/fee than a card that did sell for $10? If that isn't tantamount to the seller getting something for nothing, what is? And yes, I know you're going to tell me the consignor signed and agreed to the seller's terms so it is on them. But in looking at it in my specific example, doesn't it seem extremely unfair to the consignor in this case?

Or how about a consignor who supposedly had a PSA7 1953 Topps common card in an auction that no one bid on? I know it is only a common, but what would you have to pay today just to get PSA to grade that same card, forgetting about the actual value of the card itself? I think pretty much everyone on Net54 would agree that card is worth at least $10. Now how pissed do you think the owner of that card would be at the thought of some seller just taking it. And even if someone else then speculated that a seller likely wouldn't take that card from the consignor as a forfeiture in that particular instance, then they probably shouldn't take anyone's card ever, and at least be consistent in their treatment of all consignors. Has anyone here on Net54 ever actually lost a card to a seller through such a forfeiture provision? If so, would be curious to know how they were treated and if they were offered any other options than forfeiting their card.

However, as I've also mentioned, I've never consigned anything to any AH or online seller and have never actually seen one of these consignment agreements, especially ones with forfeiture clauses, and am just asking questions myself. So I don't know if any one would actually spell out and define a minimum commission/fee to be charged someone in their consignment agreements, or if they would explicitly refer to the forfeiture of unsold cards as payment for such commissions/fees, or not. And absent such specific language in such agreements, that is all one can do is speculate what they actually meant/intended.

And as I explained in post #122, knowing how a seller may internally account for these forfeitures would really help to answer whether they themselves feel they paid anything for these forfeited cards or not. But that is something we'll likely never be able to find out for any seller.

[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!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If you mean me, while we aren't a major player, we're not looking for $10 cards. We take them as a courtesy to consignors who provide us with better items as well, but we start them at $1. We have less than 1% no sales, and typically move the few we have into a future auction for the original consignor. If someone wants them back we send them back, our dime.

I like this approach better than PWCC's. Definitely more personable and better customer service. But I also think you guys are likely dealing with a more sophisticated consignor base. I could see a situation where it becomes problematic though if it gets to the point where your user base expands and you get people taking advantage of this courtesy by just sending you all of their junk cards and having you do all the work required to list/sell them. There is surely a dollar figure below which consigning a card cannot be done at a profit for the auction houses, and I'd wager good money that this amount is likely much higher than $10. But, as you say, it's a courtesy to take those low-value cards, and I assume one that is offered strategically so as not to lose a customer to a competing auction house who accepts both their junk and their Ty Cobbs.

I think if I were starting an auction house, I would probably take this approach as well. Just be overly generous with your resources and time and offer the best customer service possible. However, I also realize that at scale, there likely would come a point where a company often outgrows this personal relationship with most of their clients and where preventing consigners from taking advantage of your generosity (whether knowingly or not) becomes something that's necessary to guard against.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bob one might look at the forfeiture provision as just one term of an overall contract for which there clearly was consideration on PWCC's part, including PWCC's effort to sell the card. Not sure you would isolate it in asking is it enforceable.

To me it's more an ethical than legal issue and I leave the tax to you. As for less draconian solutions, how about just doing what Scott does, mail the card back? The cost of a few mailers and postage isn't going to break PWCC's bank.

Peter, see and agree with your point, but also why I'm bringing up the question of internal accounting by a seller. As I said, I think a seller in this set of circumstances should be immediately recording and reporting some commision/fee on their books to recognize the value or compensation of their services, which resulted from the forfeiture of a card. And I'm pretty confident the IRS would say this is the proper way to record such a forfeiture transaction also.

However, maybe the seller doesn't have a minumum stated commission/fee, so they have to look at the value of what they get in return for the fees they would have charged, which in this case would mean that someone would have to take the time and effort to estimate the value of every single card they received by forfeiture. And not just show that as current commision/fee income, but also now list each and every forfeited card as inventory on their books, and keep track of them all going forward.

Now maybe the owner(s) of this seller tells his/her employees not to bother wasting their time keeping track of all that because its not worth the effort. Or maybe the owner(s) feel their business is so big, and the activity involving these forfeitures is so small in comparison, that no one would ever notice they weren't doing something quite right, including the IRS, so he/she says why bother recording any commission/fee income on it now, we'll just wait till we sell the items sometime in the future and recognize the income then. Unless some/all of the forfeited items just happen to disappear out the door one day since no one was keeping track of them on the company's books.

That's the thing with a forfeiture like this. Since the seller isn't writing or depositing a check, or even creating an invoice, there's no mandatory entry they'd have to make on the company books. And since nothing is going through the company's bank account(s), nothing for the IRS to see or catch either. Any forfeited cards could easily just be stuck and left on a shelf somewhere, and after a while maybe no one would know what happened to them.

And though we both agree there was value given by the seller in the form of services rendered for which they should have recognized commission/fee income, how might a judge react if he found out the seller never bothered to record and report the income though? Probably never happen, but I could possibly see a judge voiding a consighment agreement in that case, or not, but then turn the seller over to the IRS. LOL

We'll probably never see anything like that happen though, but it would be fun to follow if it ever did.

[Snowman]

I think it's a shitty thing to do to your consignors if it's just some random line item that nobody reads hidden away in your TOS. But if it's made extremely clear upfront that this is how they handle low-value items, and if there is some sort of an escape clause offered for $100+ cards that somehow snuck through the cracks, then I think it's a perfectly reasonable way to handle things. But the communication aspect of it should be made very clear to the person consigning. I don't know how well they market this information though? I know I was aware of it ever since I looked into consigning with them over a year ago (which I ultimately never did), but I don't recall how I came upon that information. I'm sure I read more than the average person consigning cards does, so it may have been the result of me information hunting moreso than it was a result of them over-communicating. I can't remember.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I could see a situation where it becomes problematic though if it gets to the point where your user base expands and you get people taking advantage of this courtesy by just sending you all of their junk cards and having you do all the work required to list/sell them.

Well we do tell people, "No, thank you, we're not interested" on a regular basis. We don't have people just mailing us cards unannounced and expecting us to sell them.

We definitely do NOT make any money on $10 cards. Realistically somewhere around $50 is where profit starts.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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!

1s are easy to get - it's those sweet, sweet 2s, 3s and 4s that are tough

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Tabe

1s are easy to get - it's those sweet, sweet 2s, 3s and 4s that are tough

I sold/traded my upper deck Griffey psa 1 for a lot. Not quite psa 10 value but more than a couple 9’s

Need a update Soto Psa 3 to complete my 1-10 run. pop 1

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by notfast

I sold/traded my upper deck Griffey psa 1 for a lot. Not quite psa 10 value but more than a couple 9’s

Need a update Soto Psa 3 to complete my 1-10 run. pop 1

Now that PSA has decided to give all creased cards a 1, you'll probably have to get more creative to get those 2s and 3s.

I accidentally sent in the wrong 89 UD Griffey from my collection a couple years ago (I had a mint one that I was planning to grade and one with a very minor surface wrinkle on it). I was planning to send in the mint one for grading and give the one with the wrinkle to a friend as a gift. I accidentally sent the wrinkled one to PSA and the mint one to my buddy. When it came back from PSA, they gave it a 6, which I thought was odd. Because if they missed the wrinkle, it should have gotten a 9, but if they caught it, I would have thought they'd given it a 4. Apparently wrinkles can get higher than a 4 with PSA.

[MikeGarcia]

...I've been looking to upgrade this player in this pose since 2007 so I imagine there's fewer than 25 which were saved ; I realize I'm in the incorrect thread but this thread needs a card every hundred posts or so ...

..

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Now that PSA has decided to give all creased cards a 1, you'll probably have to get more creative to get those 2s and 3s.

I accidentally sent in the wrong 89 UD Griffey from my collection a couple years ago (I had a mint one that I was planning to grade and one with a very minor surface wrinkle on it). I was planning to send in the mint one for grading and give the one with the wrinkle to a friend as a gift. I accidentally sent the wrinkled one to PSA and the mint one to my buddy. When it came back from PSA, they gave it a 6, which I thought was odd. Because if they missed the wrinkle, it should have gotten a 9, but if they caught it, I would have thought they'd given it a 4. Apparently wrinkles can get higher than a 4 with PSA.

I got a PSA 6 on a Score Chipper Jones rookie, little wrinkle that I missed when I submitted it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Every time I read this thread title I think "When were they sorry the first time?"

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hate to tell you Snowman, but Ted/Republicaninmass has a very good point in regards to your earlier response where you stated, "I've read enough to know that their actions have been THOUROUGHLY investigated by the FBI for the laundry list of accusations made on the Blowhard forums." I know you are very intelligent and quite articulate so, when using the word "thouroughly", you are stating that the FBI has in fact completely investigated every detail in regards to these accusations, which most normal, intelligent people would take to mean that the FBI has nothing more to look at and investigate in this regard (ie: They ARE done investigating). But then in a later thread you stated you never said they completed the investigation, and that you didn't know if they were done with it or not. So you've made completely conflicting statements within a couple of posts of each other. I can fully and easily see how people are being confused by some of what you're saying, and therefore questioning it. So be kind when telling others to go back because they didn't properly read what you wrote, it can also apply to yourself as well.

Another point in regards to your statements and ongoing debate with several others on here regarding the treatment and opinions towards PWCC, I saw you state that though late to the party, you feel you've pretty much seen and read all the applicable posts out there, and how you feel up to date on what has transpired so far in regards to PWCC and all the accusations. You have mentioned that there is really no definitive proof of any wrong doing on PWCC's part that has actually been presented to the hobby community as a whole yet, and therefore are withholding any final determination as to their guilt or innocence, which I can fully understand and agree with under those circumstances.

Now, it hasn't been spefically brought up in this thread, but it has previously been brought up by others on this forum that they had in the past communicated directly with Brent at PWCC about a lot of past activity and consignments he allegedly accepted and sold on behalf of at least one particularly well known card doctor. And if my memory serves me correctly, when the issues and examples of all the card doctoring taking place in the hobby started being exposed on Blowout, that was when Brent started getting questioned and allegedly admitted to having taken consignments and worked with this known card doctor in the past, but supposedly was telling those then questioning him that he was no longer doing business with that person anymore. Now I don't remember the exact details, but it was then reported on this forum that it was somehow found out or determined that Brent/PWCC was in fact still working with this known card doctor after all, despite his statements that he wasn't anymore. Do you remember coming across and reading that info on this forum as well, and if so, would that in your thinking be positive evidence that Brent/PWCC was knowledgeable after all in regards to the acceptance and continued selling of items from a known card doctor? I guess the question would be, why would someone tell people they no longer took consignments from a known card doctor if in fact they still were?

I would think that as the Blowout guys kept exposing altered cards being sold that it would be pretty easy for whover was selling them to have their people look up who the consigner(s) was/were. And once discovering such info, do you think they should maybe confront them about it and stop doing business with repeat consigners of such exposed, altered cards? I'm pretty confident people were and still are trying to contact and make whoever is/was selling such doctored cards aware of that fact, based on numerous posts and comments of people on this and other forums. So I doubt any such major sellers can plead total ignorance to this issue. And I can also understand your stance that maybe these sellers aren't directly involved in actually altering any cards, or in the improper grading of such cards by TPGs totally missing/ignoring the alterations. But does that then excuse all these sellers in your mind from not being complicit to some extent? It is kind of hard (really pretty much impossible) for any major seller to not be aware of what is going on in the hobby in regards to alterations. So if they aren't somehow complicit, why aren't they all being totally transparent with everyone as to what they are doing to stop dealing with altered cards?

Or maybe it is already too late and hobby purists, like many are here on Net54, are the old and fading part of the hobby who's thinking and actions are slowly being transformed by the incoming younger generations, investors, registry addicts, people who do not mind card restoration, and so on. In that case we may be nothing more than a dwindling minority and no action will ever come from our objections as the rest of the hobby community accepts things we do not want to. And if that turns out to be the case, maybe card doctors and alterations become the norm and an accepted part of the hobby, even if a TPG grades it without recognizing any such alterations. With no single, uniform, recognized standards in the hobby, it is going to be difficult for anyone to be found guilty of anything for relying upon someone else's opinion. And this may be another reason why AHs and sellers aren't saying/doing much about alterations and card doctors, as they see the changes and acceptance coming more and more in the future. And they realize that there is already so much altered and doctored material out there in graded slabs that it is impossible to ever go back and correct it all, so they don't. They just sit tight and be quiet as more and more old time purist collectors go away over time. Who really knows anymore.

Agreed...Breaker, breaker Snowman good buddy. You are an apologist for one of the biggest and well known BANDIT's in the industry. Love, Smokey (as in you blow Smokey Up Brent Mastro's ass)

https://youtu.be/nKo2Bz8izXY?t=13

VROOOOOOOM Snowman: I'll blow some Benzene out of my ass for you you today, good buddy...