BBCE lost a 6 figure wax deal over 50 cases of 1987 Topps BB Wax
MrSnuffleupagus
Posts: 689
I wonder how much they offered and what the seller was expecting that the deal for the OTHER stuff fell apart because of it? How much per case difference could ruin a 6 figure deal?
From their facebook page:
"We just lost a six figure wax deal because the seller specifically didn't like our offer on 50 cases of 1987 Topps BB wax. Seriously. Sorry guys."
Edit: to add 'for the OTHER stuff'
From their facebook page:
"We just lost a six figure wax deal because the seller specifically didn't like our offer on 50 cases of 1987 Topps BB wax. Seriously. Sorry guys."
Edit: to add 'for the OTHER stuff'
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
-CDs Nuts, 1/20/14
*1956 Topps baseball- 97.4% complete, 7.24 GPA
*Clemente basic set: 85.0% complete, 7.89 GPA
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Surely 1987 Topps BB doesn't have that high of a demand, right? 50 cases! That would sit in their inventory for years. $100,000 / 50 = $2,000 per case. That sounds way too expensive. Doesn't make sense. >>
I think the OP was saying that the TOTAL deal would have been in excess of $100K. I guess the seller wanted them to buy everything and BBCE's offer on the '87 wax was too low for the seller and he said forget about the entire deal. Bye-Bye. Steve/Reed must have figured that if they paid him what he wanted on the '87 wax that the entire deal would not make financial sense for them.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Jeff
<< <i>
<< <i>Surely 1987 Topps BB doesn't have that high of a demand, right? 50 cases! That would sit in their inventory for years. $100,000 / 50 = $2,000 per case. That sounds way too expensive. Doesn't make sense. >>
I think the OP was saying that the TOTAL deal would have been in excess of $100K. I guess the seller wanted them to buy everything and BBCE's offer on the '87 wax was too low for the seller and he said forget about the entire deal. Bye-Bye. Steve/Reed must have figured that if they paid him what he wanted on the '87 wax that the entire deal would not make financial sense for them. >>
My thoughts exactly.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
Collecting:
Any unopened Baseball cello and rack packs and boxes from the 1970's and early 1980s.
<< <i>
<< <i>Surely 1987 Topps BB doesn't have that high of a demand, right? 50 cases! That would sit in their inventory for years. $100,000 / 50 = $2,000 per case. That sounds way too expensive. Doesn't make sense. >>
I think the OP was saying that the TOTAL deal would have been in excess of $100K. I guess the seller wanted them to buy everything and BBCE's offer on the '87 wax was too low for the seller and he said forget about the entire deal. Bye-Bye. Steve/Reed must have figured that if they paid him what he wanted on the '87 wax that the entire deal would not make financial sense for them. >>
Everyone, read this again.
<< <i>sounds like a provisional dangling carrot. buy my dead-in-the-slop stuff and i'll deal with you on the rest. >>
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
Collecting:
Any unopened Baseball cello and rack packs and boxes from the 1970's and early 1980s.
TheClockworkAngelCollection
for $160.00 each.
If they offered the seller $100.00 each, that
would be $5000.00. So the guy held up the
six figure deal for 5 grand, give or take.
Interesting, course the guy could've wanted
more than BBCE sells them for, who knows?
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Certainly lets you know what is available from one dealer alone. Thats a lot of cases. 50 wax cases, thats about 1,000 more Bonds rookies that have yet to see the PSA light.
Just sayin'.....
Paul.
Later, Paul.
ALL MY PSA SETS
<< <i>why would BBCE even post this? Whats the purpose? To 'out' the seller in a whiney way?? >>
Definitely to stir up discussion on the CU boards on a slow Monday. They had to wait until all the HOF talk died down. I say pics or it didn't happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>why would BBCE even post this? Whats the purpose? To 'out' the seller in a whiney way?? >>
Definitely to stir up discussion on the CU boards on a slow Monday. They had to wait until all the HOF talk died down. I say pics or it didn't happen. >>
+1
ALL MY PSA SETS
Today we'll start sharing pics of items we've been saving for the National. Remember the rules:
- Don't bother Steve with questions about any item you see pictured. Everything will be first come, first served at the National. If I find out you asked Steve to hold the item for you or pester him with questions, I will make sure you don't get it. This is fair, right? Furthermore, continued abuse of this simple request will result in no more pics until the show begins.
- We have no idea what the price is for any of the pictured items. That won't be done for several more weeks, because we're way too busy buying more cool stuff for our inventory.
- If you absolutely must ask questions, contact me directly. My email is ReedBBCE@gmail.com or call my cell (808) 372-1974. I will be in the office a few more times before the National, most definitely from 7/15-19, and I'll try to answer any questions the best I can.
This item is on just about every Steelers collector or HOF collector's want list - a 1959 Kahn's Wieners Chuck Noll - without a doubt his most expensive and desirable card. Only five copies have been graded by PSA, and only one has been graded higher than this PSA 8. A PSA 8.5 was sold as part of the #1 1959 Kahn's set back in 2009.
<< <i>They sell them for $160 on their site, which is completely absurd for one of the most overproduced junk sets ever. They probably offered $60-$80 a case or something and the guy's like "Really? You sell them for $160." Buying stuff for less than half of what you sell them for is a GREAT business model that anyone would love to get into. >>
When is the last time you were offered 50% of retail for junk by either a dealer or collector?
And what would your offer be for 50 cases of 1987 Topps wax cases that are not a big mover for a deal to close?
<< <i>They sell them for $160 on their site, which is completely absurd for one of the most overproduced junk sets ever. They probably offered $60-$80 a case or something and the guy's like "Really? You sell them for $160." Buying stuff for less than half of what you sell them for is a GREAT business model that anyone would love to get into. >>
$160 is only $8/box since its a 20 box case. Jewelry, furniture, and clothing, all have markups around 100-300%. I'm sure on high dollar, fast moving product that they don't markup as much. But on a cheap item that takes up A LOT of shelf space and is very slow moving, you have to have higher margins. And I'm sure the seller isn't delivering all of the product to their shop.
<< <i>
<< <i>They sell them for $160 on their site, which is completely absurd for one of the most overproduced junk sets ever. They probably offered $60-$80 a case or something and the guy's like "Really? You sell them for $160." Buying stuff for less than half of what you sell them for is a GREAT business model that anyone would love to get into. >>
When is the last time you were offered 50% of retail for junk by either a dealer or collector?
And what would your offer be for 50 cases of 1987 Topps wax cases that are not a big mover for a deal to close? >>
If it's "junk", then why do they sell it at $160 a case with a buy price of $80? There is no way they offered him $80-per for those cases. They probably low balled it because it's 50 cases, but if you sell something for $160, clearly you don't think it's "junk". The guy probably wanted $80-per. They'd be setting themselves up for a $3,500+ profit on those 50 cases alone, and that's IF they bought at their buy price. If they wanted to get the deal done, give him what he wants and blow-out the 50 cases to assure a profit, if those 50 cases meant so little.
I don't have that kind of money, and if I did, I wouldn't be a wax dealer, so it's moot.
<< <i>They sell them for $160 on their site, which is completely absurd for one of the most overproduced junk sets ever. They probably offered $60-$80 a case or something and the guy's like "Really? You sell them for $160." Buying stuff for less than half of what you sell them for is a GREAT business model that anyone would love to get into. >>
Unless that stuff is large and heavy and needs to be shipped back to the warehouse, stored for years, picked, packed transacted and shipped to the client.
<< <i>
<< <i>They sell them for $160 on their site, which is completely absurd for one of the most overproduced junk sets ever. They probably offered $60-$80 a case or something and the guy's like "Really? You sell them for $160." Buying stuff for less than half of what you sell them for is a GREAT business model that anyone would love to get into. >>
Unless that stuff is large and heavy and needs to be shipped back to the warehouse, stored for years, picked, packed transacted and shipped to the client. >>
So lower the price and get rid of them. Why on earth would anyone sit on 50 cases of something they don't believe will sell at $160? Sell the 50 at $120 or $140 then. Clearly they aren't worth $160 to them.
<< <i>You guys know you are arguing over details you dont know and have no part of right? >>
No one is arguing and clearly we all know we are speaking in hypotheticals. This is a sportscard message board and the subject is sportscards.
<< <i>Ok. But you are assuming he didnt offer his posted web site offer of 80.00 per case which I find odd you think he didnt. >>
Well, that's called speculation. I have no idea if they offered $80, I'm speculating that they didn't because it's 50 cases and they probably wanted to pay less because it would take longer to get rid of them. I'm certainly allowed to speculate, aren't I. If they don't want people speculating, then keep certain info to yourself.
To jump to a speculation that he would offer less isnt the character that Steve has proven to be.
I just think its not fair to say he low balled him without knowing the facts or having a part in the deal to be fair to Steve..
Problem is, there's so much 87 Topps it just won't happen. Better chance of me booking a flight to the Moon.
BBCE should try a Facebook post about unopened 88 Donruss next week to get people riled up
<< <i>Ok, But BBCexchange has proven himself as a straight up guy. And I would take the fact that on his site he offers 80.00 for a case of 1987 as what it says.
To jump to a speculation that he would offer less isnt the character that Steve has proven to be.
I just think its not fair to say he low balled him without knowing the facts or having a part in the deal to be fair to Steve.. >>
I didn't say he low-balled him. There is a difference between a claim and speculation. I know Steve's a stand-up guy, but that doesn't mean he's not a businessman.
"""""They probably low balled it because it's 50 cases, """""
<< <i>"""""They probably low balled it because it's 50 cases, """"" >>
Exactly. That's called speculation. You really having a hard time with this? You don't see the word "probably"?
I get it
But I still didnt think it was a fair speculation to assume Steve low balled the guy.
He is not know to be that way. Thats all Im saying.
You are right to talk about this however you want. But I was just saying Steve isnt know to low ball people.
Im simply trying to add to your speculation in some way, not corecting you but giving my own opinon about the guy.
<< <i>Some people are taking this WAY too seriously. BBCE posted that they lost out on a 6-figure deal over the buy price on 50 cases of 1987 Topps baseball and we are simply discussing as to why we think that may have happened. No one is slamming BBCE. It's just curiosity. >>
But you were knocking his business model of buying at $80 and selling at $160.
<< <i>I understand.
But I still didnt think it was a fair speculation to assume Steve low balled the guy.
He is not know to be that way. Thats all Im saying.
You are right to talk about this however you want. But I was just saying Steve isnt know to low ball people.
Im simply trying to add to your speculation in some way, not corecting you but giving my own opinon about the guy. >>
Exactly. Also, good luck finding anyone else in the country that will take 50 cases of 1987 topps.
<< <i>I understand.
But I still didnt think it was a fair speculation to assume Steve low balled the guy.
He is not know to be that way. Thats all Im saying.
You are right to talk about this however you want. But I was just saying Steve isnt know to low ball people.
Im simply trying to add to your speculation in some way, not corecting you but giving my own opinon about the guy. >>
Even at $100-per, that's only $5,000. If they couldn't pony up the $5,000 to get a 6-figure deal done, then I don't know what else to say. If I really wanted to spend the 6-figures, I pay for the 50 cases and lower the price on my site to get the $5,000 back ASAP. It's basic mathematics. Of course, this IS speculation. Maybe the guy wanted $150 a case, who knows. But I still get a deal done if it's such a huge deal. $5,000+ shouldn't end a 6-figure deal and they really shouldn't even be posting that info. Let it go and move on to the next deal. I mean really, they may have just killed their future sales on 1987 Topps cases, because now everyone knows that there is a massive over-abundance out there.
ALL MY PSA SETS
<< <i>
<< <i>Some people are taking this WAY too seriously. BBCE posted that they lost out on a 6-figure deal over the buy price on 50 cases of 1987 Topps baseball and we are simply discussing as to why we think that may have happened. No one is slamming BBCE. It's just curiosity. >>
But you were knocking his business model of buying at $80 and selling at $160. >>
Oh I sure wasn't "knocking it". lol Applauding is more like it.
It's too bad we can't get a response from Reed on here. But it probably won't happen since all the sensitive narks on here had to email Steve when he posted something you didn't like.