<< <i>That rack, being an obvious counterfeit, should not have been accepted for consignment by PWCC. As a leader in this industry, they should have refused it, rather than help perpetuate its existence and future sales. >>
<< <i>Looks like I picked a good time to sign on. Inaugural post.
First, love this forum. Learned a lot from reading these threads and have changed my investing strategies because of it. So Kudos to everyone who shares their opinions and coherent thoughts.
X-mas packs by PWCC. IMO, PWCC should stay out of the X-mas pack business. But I've read the disclaimer, seems pretty clear; buyer beware. I find it hard to believe that someone buying vintage unopened baseball card packs is not intelligent enough to know what these packs mean and what the probability is of landing a low pop/star (0%). >>
first of all, welcome and solid first post! 2nd of all, ^^ sums it all up. it's not like his description even hints at the fact that these could even possibly be legit. ray charles could even tell by his description used. I for one, don't think he should be touching them w a 10 foot pole, but then again there seems to be a market for them regardless of the authenticity and description. you got the guys out there that simply open them up looking for gradeable cards, you got guys that just want to display a 52 rack pack in their man cave and so on and so forth. it's obvious that there is a market for them and it's not my/your's/his place to figure out why these things sell like they do. as long as the description doesn't even hint that they are legit, then I don't see a problem with it. it's not like he's saying "possible 52 mantle inside".
again, i wouldn't do it but not my call either... >>
Actually, it does say this: "Perhaps the all important Mantle is hidden within". This needs to be removed from the listing, agreed. I'm guessing this was written by their listing discriptionist, not Brent. Not sure what PWCC commissions are on these X-mas packs, but this shouldn't be an economic decision for them, it's about their Brand. Maybe they made a few hundred dollars selling these packs over the last year. Not worth it. Maybe the owner is a big consignor for them, so they feel obligated to list them. The PWCC Brand is well received in the card world, these packs don't help, their tainted IMO.
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
well if it says anything about the mantle, than screw that. i don't follow even click on the rack packs, so i will admit that i don't follow each and every or any one BUT if it states anything like that then that would officially cross the line in my book. but again, i don't click on them or even give them a second look. hopefully, a management oversight and will be swiftly corrected should he choose to keep listing them.
<< <i>From what I can see Brent does run an extremely strong business, with many positives, so I hope he strongly addresses the issues that have been raised in this thread.
According to his OP Brent should be following up in two days on Wednesday. >>
the only real issue is around the Xmas racks. >>
I don't have a dog in the fight, but this is incorrect. Several people have raised concerns about the accuracy of scans and even more than that have expressed concern about shilling. Just because these aren't issues TO YOU doesn't mean they're not issues on which a portion of hobbyists are seeking clarification. I have bought from PWCC with no complaints and would probably do so again. But to say only one issue has been raised in this thread is blatantly false, even if those complaints are not mine. >>
Correct. I just got a dog of a card that frankly, looked better in the pwcc scan. No big deal, as it's a cheapo card and I'll just chalk it up to stuff happens. However it's an interesting mix when the terms clearly state, if you have a problem with the grade given, your issue is with the card grading entity, and not pwcc. So take a card that got a gift grade (in my case, a topps 8 that has more in common with a 6, due to the corners) -- a fuzzy on the corners scan, and a policy of no unquestioned returns, and I've learned my lesson -- buyer beware, just as has always been the case.
<< <i>Actually, it does say this: "Perhaps the all important Mantle is hidden within". This needs to be removed from the listing, agreed. I'm guessing this was written by their listing discriptionist, not Brent. >>
After all he has been told about the Christmas Racks, if this is going to be blamed on a "listing descriptionist" then he is an incompetent manager on top of everything else. It his business, its his responsibility.
<< <i> Not sure what PWCC commissions are on these X-mas packs, but this shouldn't be an economic decision for them, it's about their Brand. Maybe they made a few hundred dollars selling these packs over the last year. Not worth it. Maybe the owner is a big consignor for them, so they feel obligated to list them. The PWCC Brand is well received in the card world, these packs don't help, their tainted IMO. >>
Incredibly the brand doesn't get tainted by this nonsense. Look at the defenses of this behavior in this very thread. Just above originalsbest is talking about a scan that is better than the card.
Go to the Net54 thread as well. Someone there has found an active auction that the previous winner of a card is the current high bidder. Look at the entire thread, but specifically Post #52 in the below link:
So the only real issue is around the Xmas Racks...... ...and the 1971 racks ...and the unrepresentative scans ...and the apparently continuing schill bids
FWIW, I also have a major problem with the inclusion of the 1971 racks. I can read well enough, and know well enough what they are, and as such I wouldn't bid on them; but not all potential bidders would have this understanding. They're unacceptable, IMO.
<< <i>Several people have raised concerns about the accuracy of scans... >>
Yes, and he already replied to that. You either take him at his word or you don't, but anyone who has ever used scanners or cameras or iPhones or whatever the case may be would know that there is not a universal setting to make every picture look good. The accusation that's out there says he was "juicing" scans on purpose - he said he wasn't. If someone doesn't believe him, that's not justification for continuing the supposed "issue". He's addressed it - move on.
<< <i>...and even more than that have expressed concern about shilling. This is probably one of the most useless conversations. Undoubtedly there is bad bidding behavior in his auctions, with that many items there is no doubt it happens. But again, he's already addressed this issue, including admitting to a practice years ago that he doesn't allow any longer. Either you believe him or you don't, but he's already addressed it and if you read the list of issues he's suggested taking to eBay this is the sort of behavior he's working to be able to police better, but he needs some assistance from them to do that. He has very little to gain by allowing schilling to occur in his auctions - if it was really that rampant, he would undoubtedly be losing customers/bidders which costs way more than the extra bit of proceeds he would get on an upped auction price.
<< <i>...doesn't mean they're not issues on which a portion of hobbyists are seeking clarification. >>
I submit to you that everything EXCEPT the XMas racks thought process has already been addressed or clarified, however the only answer that's going to satisfy certain people is to never sell them again. Maybe that ends up being the answer, but it's just not that clear cut on these. No one really knows the origin, they're absolutely authentic cards but they were probably repackaged by someone else and are not authentic from the Topps factory.
<< <i>Is it always up to the buyer to be educated enough to know they're buying something homemade and most probably worthless, or should the seller be responsible enough to make sure that they don't sell items that will easily mislead buyers? >>
YES, it is ABSOLUTELY up to the buyer to get educated, especially when it's a public auction site with pretty limited barriers to participation.
While some say the descriptions are misleading, that's opinion and not a fact. References to whether a Mantle is included or not is just "salesmanship" auction description, so unless he knows whether they are or are not in there then it's really just a question of whether you like the write up or not. It's too easy to just say "I got duped" when you don't do your homework. He's advertised these things as being authentic cards (and there's really no dispute to that is there?) in unathenticated packaging - is that really not clear enough? The people that are bidding are doing so based on their perceived value of the packs - same as with anything else collectible or otherwise.
<< <i>The problem with the Xmas racks (the original ones, that is) is that nobody can say for certain what they really are or are not. The only things that can be said for certain is that they were not packaged by the Topps company as part of their regular yearly production and distribution.
To me, I wouldn't waste my time with an Xmas rack but I see nothing wrong with offering them for sale as long as they are accurately described.
On the other hand, I have very serious concerns over the following rack:
which no one, as yet, had been able to make a definitive statement about being authentic (BTW, both myself and cpamike examined this rack in person and had some serious reservations about it due to several yellow flags we identified). >>
I'm so glad to be completely divested of 'unopened' packs. It's like living in The Matrix.
bounce, have you consigned or are you currently consigning items to PWCC?
Regardless, it appears there are many seasoned collectors here who not only think that the Xmas rack descriptions that PWCC is using are misleading, but that the sale of them is altogether wrong (some have used much more colorful language).
I think you can clearly see what's going on with those listings, so I'm a little confused by your position. Don't you want collectors to be happy, instead of getting duped into buying packs that aren't what they think they are?
Also, as far as facts go, I can say that I've contacted PWCC about an item, with a polite and poignant question regarding sed item, and have never heard back. I've heard others on the forum say similarly. By stark contrast Probstein123 has always replied to me quickly.
My advice is to raise the bar for customer service at an online venue and employ a full time CS/communication/marketing director. People want, and increasingly expect, online vendors to meet the service levels provided at the best brick-and-mortar outlets. While there are definitely good specific suggestions here, the larger issue is creating a regular, transparent mechanism for individuals to ask questions and receive answers about PWCC policies and to provide feedback about best practices. It's more responsibility than one individual can handle. Adding that role on would keep you proactive in heading off issues such as these.
<< <i>bounce, have you consigned or are you currently consigning items to PWCC?
Regardless, it appears there are many seasoned collectors here who not only think that the Xmas rack descriptions that PWCC is using are misleading, but that the sale of them is altogether wrong (some have used much more colorful language).
I think you can clearly see what's going on with those listings, so I'm a little confused by your position. Don't you want collectors to be happy, instead of getting duped into buying packs that aren't what they think they are?
Also, as far as facts go, I can say that I've contacted PWCC about an item, with a polite and poignant question regarding sed item, and have never heard back. I've heard others on the forum say similarly. By stark contrast Probstein123 has always replied to me quickly. >>
I've never consigned anything to them, I've only bid and all my experiences have been good to date. That goes back probably 2 years or so. And my wins during this time have ranged anywhere from a $10 card to close to $12,000. I've also had good experience with responses, maybe that's just a one off for me specifically but I don't think painting the picture that they aren't responsive is accurate. They are responsive at least in my case.
As far as the racks go...everyone is assuming people are being "duped", and I'd actually argue that most of them are not being duped. I suspect most of the people bidding good money on these actually know what they are, and have made their decision around value and collecting them. There's no way to prove either side of this correct, though, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the "market will set the price".
That's where education comes into play. If you do your homework on them, then you'll have a better idea of what you're buying and you adjust your bid accordingly. As long as the descriptions aren't blatantly false, and I don't see anything that leads me to believe they are, then he's made a business decision to accept them. Sure it might be easier to just stop, but I don't see any reason for him to stop just because a bunch of CU people don't like it.
It's all just opinion related to these racks - same as it's opinion related to whether a card is in the right holder or whether it's "high end" for a grade. How many auctions have we seen that say a card is "high end"? PWCC is now "authenticating" cards as high end. PSA issues autograph authentication based on opinion, it states it right there on the certificate.
Are those really any different? I don't think they are, and I don't think most collectors actually think they are. Is there some "salesmanship" going on here? Yeah, definitely there is. But for me, it ultimately gets back to education and value assessment - and anytime I'm bidding I'm doing that for myself and bidding accordingly.
And no, I don't bid on the XMas racks because I have no idea what could be in there. Then again, I've seen some with stars on top and back and if I was going to bid on those, I might bid a slight premium over what I thought the individual card raw would be worth and that's it. I'm sure there are others who value those much more than I do with a higher premium. So be it. That doesn't make Brent a bad guy or deceitful seller, and doesn't make the other auction houses who take them good guys because they won't.
<< <i>bounce, have you consigned or are you currently consigning items to PWCC?
Regardless, it appears there are many seasoned collectors here who not only think that the Xmas rack descriptions that PWCC is using are misleading, but that the sale of them is altogether wrong (some have used much more colorful language).
I think you can clearly see what's going on with those listings, so I'm a little confused by your position. Don't you want collectors to be happy, instead of getting duped into buying packs that aren't what they think they are?
Also, as far as facts go, I can say that I've contacted PWCC about an item, with a polite and poignant question regarding sed item, and have never heard back. I've heard others on the forum say similarly. By stark contrast Probstein123 has always replied to me quickly. >>
I've never consigned anything to them, I've only bid and all my experiences have been good to date. That goes back probably 2 years or so. And my wins during this time have ranged anywhere from a $10 card to close to $12,000. I've also had good experience with responses, maybe that's just a one off for me specifically but I don't think painting the picture that they aren't responsive is accurate. They are responsive at least in my case.
As far as the racks go...everyone is assuming people are being "duped", and I'd actually argue that most of them are not being duped. I suspect most of the people bidding good money on these actually know what they are, and have made their decision around value and collecting them. There's no way to prove either side of this correct, though, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the "market will set the price".
That's where education comes into play. If you do your homework on them, then you'll have a better idea of what you're buying and you adjust your bid accordingly. As long as the descriptions aren't blatantly false, and I don't see anything that leads me to believe they are, then he's made a business decision to accept them. Sure it might be easier to just stop, but I don't see any reason for him to stop just because a bunch of CU people don't like it.
It's all just opinion related to these racks - same as it's opinion related to whether a card is in the right holder or whether it's "high end" for a grade. How many auctions have we seen that say a card is "high end"? PWCC is now "authenticating" cards as high end. PSA issues autograph authentication based on opinion, it states it right there on the certificate.
Are those really any different? I don't think they are, and I don't think most collectors actually think they are. Is there some "salesmanship" going on here? Yeah, definitely there is. But for me, it ultimately gets back to education and value assessment - and anytime I'm bidding I'm doing that for myself and bidding accordingly.
And no, I don't bid on the XMas racks because I have no idea what could be in there. Then again, I've seen some with stars on top and back and if I was going to bid on those, I might bid a slight premium over what I thought the individual card raw would be worth and that's it. I'm sure there are others who value those much more than I do with a higher premium. So be it. That doesn't make Brent a bad guy or deceitful seller, and doesn't make the other auction houses who take them good guys because they won't. >>
One shouldn't really have to do their homework when buying from an expert-esq seller like PWCC, should they?
Selling the Christmas racks is bad. The descriptions on the racks are even worse.
Any questionable unopened material should not be listed. The Christmas racks are complete fakes. Anything that gives a bad impression of the hobby/business should not be tolerated by top flight sellers. It can only lead to ill will. Knowing right from wrong.
<< <i>One shouldn't really have to do their homework when buying from an expert-esq seller like PWCC, should they? >>
Yes, every single time, buyers should do their homework. Every...single...time.
And why can't someone explain why there are always multiple bidders on those racks? Do you really think that those people have no idea what they're bidding on?
With prices hitting near $1,000 at times, you really think people have no clue what they're bidding on? That's just not believable, folks. Sorry.
Thank you for your responses to this thread and for providing suggestions for both improving eBay and for improving PWCC Auctions. I have separated our responses into two sections. The first provides my responses to your feedback about improving PWCC Auctions. The second provides my approach to incorporating your feedback in my conversations with eBay later this week.
I have said before that I try to limit my involvement in message boards in order to ensure an open, uninfluenced discussion. As such, I don’t plan to revisit this thread. If you have follow up questions or feedback, please send to me by email (brent@pwccauctions.com).
Concerns over consignor-issued reserves in 2009-10
Raised by 20CAG
This was first discussed several years ago on this and the Net54 message boards. The reserve option was a highly restrictive service we offered over a narrow period of time, ending in 2010. It was used by very few consignors because our requirements were strict:
1) Consignors had to get PWCC approval to place reserve bids in advance 2) The reserve amount had to be conservative relative to the market value (also required approval) 3) The consignor still had to pay our fees, as well as eBay, in the event that the reserve was not met.
I estimate that no more than 100 (perhaps has few as 50) reserves were ever placed in 2009-10 and the vast majority were eclipsed by the bidding. Not making excuses for this program because we regret having it, but it was never used to wrong bidders, eBay, or the hobby.
Concerns over the cost of shipping, our approach to packaging, and recommendations to use FedEx rather than USPS
Raised by MULLINS5, begsu1013
In order to keep shipping costs low, we use a packaging approach which includes multiple layers of envelopes. This includes a bubble mailer and a rigid outer envelope. This approach was developed over a decade of optimizing our shipping. We feel this approach results in not only an appropriate cost but also is very effective in protecting cards. Complaints of damage in shipping are extraordinarily rare.
We ship USPS because they offer the lowest rates. Generally speaking, most buyers prefer low cost above all else. However, we offer shipping through FedEx if buyers request it. Items over $3k are shipped USPS registered due to its unmatched safety and security.
Suggestions that we stop selling Christmas Rack Packs in our Auctions due to concerns over their legitimacy
We have discussed this internally and ultimately agree with the feedback from this and other forums. As such, we will no longer broker Christmas Rack Packs in our auctions, starting with Auction #6. Out of respect for our consignors who have already submitted these items to our current auction, we will sell the items we have already in house.
Suggestion that we support zooming in/out on images in our listings
Raised by mintonlypls
We use an image size of 150 dpi because we feel this is most representative of how the card looks when actually holding it in your hand. In special circumstances (high value, unique issues, etc.) we can and do provide higher resolution scans upon request.
Concerns about bid manipulation (shilling)
Raised by Tabe
9 times out of 10, bidding behavior that appears suspicious is actually legitimate, and just the result of eccentric bid behavior by trusted and proven users. However, we acknowledge there is still room for improvement which was the reason I started this thread; please refer to the next section of this post which summarizes the recommendations I intend to make to eBay to increase transparency in bidding and seller’s ability to limit bids from eBay users with prior bad behavior.
I encourage folks to contact me regarding any auction which they feel shows signs of suspicious behavior at brent@pwccauctions.com. I will always investigate and respond to these inquires. We very much appreciate everyone’s time in helping us police the market place.
Section 2: Feedback to improve the service provided by eBay:
Suggestions to restore bidder usernames in bid history and enabling sellers to restrict bidding for things like unpaid items, bid retractions, and low feedback
Raised by LarkinCollector, 1all, Golfcollector, bounce, Mtcards
We agree about restoring bid history and usernames. It makes it difficult to ask the community to police bidding when usernames are truncated. However, more important than providing bidder IDs is providing a Bidder Defect Report, summarizing things like number of bid retractions, number of unpaid items, etc.
If such a report is created, eBay should also put in place the ability for sellers to enable or disable bidders based on certain metrics in the Bidder Defect Report. For example, sellers could then prohibit bidders who have an unacceptable number of bid retractions, unpaid items, or low feedback.
Right now, eBay does not have the functionality to allow sellers to do these things. This is one of my main suggestions to eBay.
Comment that it is unacceptable to retract a bid for any reason other than a data entry error
Raised by Dpeck100
You are correct. It’s true that not all bid retractions are illegal. There are some situations where bid retractions are needed. For example, a bidder mistakenly bids $10,800 rather than $108 because of an error in the decimal place. The difference between legal and illegal bid retractions is that a legal bid retraction requires that the correct bid amount be reapplied after the retraction. eBay already tracks this, they just don’t enforce it, so we hope to change that.
Suggestion that when a bid is retracted, that all of that user’s bids are retracted for that item, high bid is adjusted back down, and that user is not allowed to place any further bids on that item
Raised by LarkinCollector
This is a good suggestion. If a bidder has an illegal bid retraction (see above for definition of an illegal bid retraction), all bids for that user should be removed and the price should be adjusted accordingly. That bidder should be restricted from placing future bids on that item. Great feedback.
Question raised for eBay about why once an auction reaches a certain amount the bidder needs to be approved first
Raised by MULLINS5
This is also a really good point – thank you for raising this flag. You’re right – new bidders on expensive items may see certain restrictions until that bidder develops an established history of bidding on eBay. We don’t know what algorithm eBay uses to develop and define these restrictions. In some cases this is a good reason to place bids earlier on a high value items (i.e. 10 mins before item closes) to provide yourself time answer any extra eBay verification pages prior to the auction closing.
Questions about the ramifications of PayPal separating from eBay
Raised by bounce
We believe that the separation of eBay and PayPal will feel more subtle than folks may suspect. While the companies will soon be financially independent, their exchange of information will remain as intimate as prior to the split.
In reality, eBay is by far PayPal’s largest single client and the quality of service that PayPal will provide eBay will remain high, In some ways, the service could get better because resources can be more streamlined to serve each company independently and no longer be burdened by bureaucracy.
We too are cautiously optimistic, but expect the transition to be a smooth one. Rest assured PWCC and other sellers are tracking this very closely with eBay.
Comments about seller’s ability to address negative feedback
Raised by Mtcards
We agree that the feedback system needs revision, and the good news is that eBay agrees wholeheartedly. We will all soon see improvements to how feedback is treated. Generally speaking it is the belief of eBay that feedback should play a smaller role in marketplace.
Comment about the challenges of using IP addresses to identify suspicious bidding behavior
Raised by PMKAY
Agreed – you are absolutely right. But, we have to start somewhere. Bottom line is that if people want to take advantage of the system, they will find a way. But we feel that we have to make it as difficult as possible.
Although I thought the selling of X-mas packs didn't fit the PWCC brand, in no way did this diminish my trust and confidence in bidding on their cards. I will continue to buy about 50-75% of my cards through their auctions, for various reasons.
You need to pick your battles. X-mas packs are not the third rail of American card collecting. There is far more unopened fraud on e-bay then one can imagine.
I do have serious doubts about folks stating they can't get a hold of Brent or someone at PWCC, or that the scans are "manipulated". Never had that problem, and I've been dealing with PWCC for about 5 years, 99% as a buyer.
However, I do have a problem with "retractors", and from the looks of Brent's e-mail, I'm hoping E-bay makes it more difficult for them.
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
No one can say PWCC is not responsive to collector concerns. I'm happy to see they will no longer accept Christmas racks on consignment. Can we assume that selling other packs believed to be re-sealed (even when this is disclosed) will also stop?
<< <i>the thing i don't understand is why PWCC continues to list the xmas racks because it raises this type of headache with very little concern.
i mean they probably account for maybe 1/10 of 1 percent of all of their gross sales. Why put up with this headache for that?
edited** just saw the response above, good job! >>
Good job indeed! Glad to see this powerful seller responding to the community and taking appropriate action.
I hope eBay goes back to showing full user IDs and full bidding histories exposed again. I believe this kind of transparency is paramount to a safer business environment.
Brett did a great job of communication. I think he won himself and his company some brownie points and will surely reap the rewards.
Now can we get PSA to do the same thing. Communication lines are open, but answers usually are not. I think PSA would do itself some favors and Beckett also, if they would develop this type of system (Q&A, updates,etc). They do a good of job of policing things that they don't want to talk about, but it may end speculation and rumors if they would just tells us some reasons, explanations, etc.
<< <i>I'm not that hard to locate, I'm confident that if you try AT ALL you can figure it out >>
excellent, blocked . thanks >>
I'm not clever enough to read between the lines here. Can you please share the eBay ID? >>
Same as his forum name here? >>
Wise man here
And for anyone who wants to "block" me, consider this...
I collect almost EVERYTHING, vintage cards, modern cards, unopened boxes and cases, raw cards, graded cards, autographs of all kinds and all mediums, authenticated or not, baseball, football, basketball, hockey, politics, etc. etc. etc.
I'm primarily a buyer, although I do sell some things from time to time mostly so I can buy other things. No one has EVER had an issue with me in terms of payment, delivering my end of a trade or receiving something I sold in the exact condition it was described as being.
I could list a dozen or more people I've transacted with here in the past year, buying and selling and trading with perfect feedback - no issues whatsoever. I could reference my eBay feedback, my iTrader at other sites and so on, but that really wouldn't matter would it?
Yeah - I'm exactly the kind of bidder/buyer you don't want. I try to get educated about the item, I ask questions to make sure understanding is clear between both parties about what I'm getting/selling, I pay on time, I ship quickly, I send tracking numbers, I'm responsive to PMs and emails, you know - the normal unreasonable type of behavior that makes people not want to do business with me.
So please, if those sorts of behaviors aren't what you're looking for, BLOCK AWAY! Just know the only person you're really hurting is yourself, because you're not going to get any of my bids/purchases which virtually ensures you get less than for your items than you otherwise might. Makes perfect sense!
Back to the non-sarcasm for a moment...It's this kind of nonsense that makes this and other forums nearly unbearable for reasonable people to try and participate in, and is no doubt a huge reason why people like Brent and others don't come around frequently if at all. And that's ultimately bad for all of us, and the hobby.
Yeah - I'm exactly the kind of bidder/buyer you don't want
the one that tries to set up/promote group rips through a 3rd party of his own stuff?
don't wanna hijack this thread w/ past stuff, so getting back to this...
i talked w/ brent prior to his reply, not really pertaining to this thread, but w/ a usps shipment that went awol. afterwards we hit on this thread a lil bit. i just didn't want to post anything prior to his response. however, as stated he knocked out my concern with being able to use a carrier of our choice and the shipping snafu.
as for the post, i thought he did a good job executing his response to everyone's concerns and good to see he will stop listing the xmas racks.
Not sure if Brent will lurk and just not post further, but I agree with others. Well done on accepting feedback and responding appropriately! Hopefully eBay listens.
Re: bounce, I think the past breaks have been addressed and don't require further discussion. I don't know why some would block him for having an opinion they don't agree with, but suum cuique. I've had some request my eBay ID to block me as well for past comments.
<< <i>Yeah - I'm exactly the kind of bidder/buyer you don't want. I try to get educated about the item, I ask questions to make sure understanding is clear between both parties about what I'm getting/selling, I pay on time, I ship quickly, I send tracking numbers, I'm responsive to PMs and emails, you know - the normal unreasonable type of behavior that makes people not want to do business with me.
So please, if those sorts of behaviors aren't what you're looking for, BLOCK AWAY! Just know the only person you're really hurting is yourself, because you're not going to get any of my bids/purchases which virtually ensures you get less than for your items than you otherwise might. Makes perfect sense! >>
I wish to block you not because the type of buyer you are but purely based on the fact that you think it is ok to screw people because they didn't spend a ton of time researching what they were buying and therefore are someone I would just prefer not to deal with regardless how quick or how much you pay. Excuse me but if a casual collector comes along and says cool, a 1952 topps rack pack and says cool a thousand bucks seems reasonable for one of the early issue of topps you consider them fools for not being educated. It is bad enough the scammers are out there taking advantage of collectors, now the premier consignment seller is out there aiding their cause and adding credibility to the scammers. Card collecting is supposed to be fun and for many people that is what it is and they don't spend all their time researching, they make the wrong assumption that the top seller of sports cards would not encourage scammers buy validating their items and that the top seller would not have anything to do with an item that is a total hoax.
steve hart came across a bunch of bad late 60's racks at a national several years back. instead of passing them with some wordy description like PWCC, he warned everyone to stay away from them and be on the lookout. This is the type of person I want to deal with , not someone who thinks it is someone elses problem for being too stupid to not figure it out.
Extreme kudos to Brent, but I'm not a bit surprised by his response. He could have easily ignored our collective concerns or told us all to go kick rocks, but instead he confronted key issues head-on by creating this thread and absorbing all of the input contained herein. Take a moment to think about all the times we've been confronted with a gargantuan elephant in the room that a) is forever exempt from discussion, and b) no one will even contemplate doing a thing about.
PACKCOLLECTOR - will you please at least acknowledge you're putting those words in my mouth? because it's certainly not what i said. i never called anyone a fool, i never said it wasn't someone else's problem, none of that. i didn't call anyone a fool. those are all YOUR WORDS and trying to ascribe them to me.
you're not really listening to anything i'm saying or a lot of what i typed, or maybe you just disagree and that's fine. you could do it without being so disagreeable, though, and that's honestly my major issue with this board in general. it's virtually impossible to have a civilized discussion/debate on this board on anything anymore, which is just sad. again, it costs ALL OF US because it happens that way.
as far as the racks go, you and others are assuming that everyone that bids on those racks is getting screwed, and i don't assume that. i actually think there are knowledgeable collectors out there who have decided these are worthy collectibles - whether i agree with them or not makes no difference. i honestly don't think it's amateur collectors spending $1,000 a rack, apparently many of you do think that. neither one of us can prove it definitively, but in my view just plain common sense would say that someone starting a collection isn't likely to come firing out on something at $1,000 an item. that's not how i started, and i'd venture to guess that's not how most people here started. and i can almost guarantee anyone spending $1,000 on a collectible did at least SOME research before that dropped that money down.
from the consignment perspective, there's a whole host of ways PWCC could alter descriptions or otherwise if they wanted to keep selling them, and maybe they should have done that or maybe they just decide it's not worth the headache. i said that very thing in an earlier post, looks like that's what happened. fine, it's his business and his decision.
I also think it's imperative that a buyer get educated, and it's not always the sellers responsibility to educate them. if you're going to spend your money, i think you should do whatever you need to do to get comfortable about what it is your buying and what it's worth. that's on YOU, not on the seller. some seller's help with that, again PWCC maybe could have done better in that regard and i never said one way or another. you just assumed i thought it was all fine, again that's not what i said. i put the other side of the argument that it's just not clear cut and that there is obviously a market for these things, if for no other reason than the mystery of their origin and what MIGHT be included.
we don't actually know these racks are a "scam" - in fact there are some that have stars on top. there are TONS of questions about these things, granted, but there are no definitive answers at all. people have made decisions about them, BOTH WAYS so don't act like there's only one true story because there isn't. and that's OK - that's just part of the hobby.
BEGSU - don't state things to make it seem like it was only my stuff and that somehow i'm a tainted person because of it - that's equally ridiculous as blocking my bidder ID because of a difference of opinion. and even if it was, the 3rd party actually helps bring some separation and security to it for the buyers, but you just want to ignore that part and that's fine. doesn't make you right.
LARKIN - well stated, it has been dealt with and it doesn't need to be redone.
anyway - i'm back to the A&G auto thread, that guy has some cool stuff if you haven't seen it yet
when someone bids on a fake item and you blame then that they did not get educated before bidding, I interpret that as you implying they are a fool, my bad.
there is a reason people bid with auction houses and top sellers like brett and that is because they trust them to do the legwork. not dupe them with fake crap. brett is no different than any of the shamed auction house by listing these items that he knows 100% are fake made up crap.
<< <i>i honestly don't think it's amateur collectors spending $1,000 a rack, apparently many of you do think that. >>
I think this where you being mostly a buyer has led to the your conclusion. I have no problem with that. I sell a lot of different kinds of sports collectibles and you would be surprised how many times that i have sold between $1,000-$5,000 to new collectors. It happens way more than you would think when someone comes into money and wants to get into collecting or someone with money who collects starts to branch out their collecting interests. The horror stories that people have shared with me about how much money they were scammed by pack resealers before they realized what was going is near unbelievable. These packs are no different. I don't think anyone would come on here and say that buyers are paying $500 for resealed wax packs for the collectibility of them. This is why I have such a problem with someone who is supposed to be the top consignment seller pimping fake packs, by him putting his reputation behind them , it leads to new collectors thinking these are not something that were made last month and then put on eBay but rather a good collectible until they start talking to someone and find out they were duped
It is completely erroneous to believe that any knowledgeable collector would bid on these xmas racks believing them to be "worthy collectibles". Obviously, that is the primary reason Brent will no longer be accepting them on consignment and I think he made the correct decision in reaching that conclusion.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Many thanks to Brent for his reponse. Thanks to PSA for allowing this thread to continue to a conclusion that will satisfy many of the people who have taken time to respond thoughtfully. The Dude
Agree with Brent/PWCC or not, like him or not, believe him or not, you have to give him kudos for coming here and tackling issues and questions. Too bad more big consignors would not (attempt to) be more transparent about their business since we all, as collectors, have a stake with what happens in the hobby.
<< <i>Agree with Brent/PWCC or not, like him or not, believe him or not, you have to give him kudos for coming here and tackling issues and questions. Too bad more big consignors would not (attempt to) be more transparent about their business since we all, as collectors, have a stake with what happens in the hobby. >>
<< <i>It is completely erroneous to believe that any knowledgeable collector would bid on these xmas racks believing them to be "worthy collectibles". Obviously, that is the primary reason Brent will no longer be accepting them on consignment and I think he made the correct decision in reaching that conclusion. >>
I completely agree with this opinion. I highly doubt there are any knowledgeable collectors buying these unless they had ulterior motives or could get them cheap to fill out sets. Just the numerous amount of knowledgeable collectors here whom have criticized these packs with such strong conviction should be sufficient reason to think that no reputable dealer should be carrying these. >>
I suspect that somewhere Mark Murphy is laughing his arse off at what he started. And probably thinking--"crap, I should've kept selling those rare Christmas racks"
<< <i>Yeah - I'm exactly the kind of bidder/buyer you don't want. I try to get educated about the item, I ask questions to make sure understanding is clear between both parties about what I'm getting/selling, I pay on time, I ship quickly, I send tracking numbers, I'm responsive to PMs and emails, you know - the normal unreasonable type of behavior that makes people not want to do business with me.
So please, if those sorts of behaviors aren't what you're looking for, BLOCK AWAY! Just know the only person you're really hurting is yourself, because you're not going to get any of my bids/purchases which virtually ensures you get less than for your items than you otherwise might. Makes perfect sense! >>
I wish to block you not because the type of buyer you are but purely based on the fact that you think it is ok to screw people because they didn't spend a ton of time researching what they were buying and therefore are someone I would just prefer not to deal with regardless how quick or how much you pay. Excuse me but if a casual collector comes along and says cool, a 1952 topps rack pack and says cool a thousand bucks seems reasonable for one of the early issue of topps you consider them fools for not being educated. It is bad enough the scammers are out there taking advantage of collectors, now the premier consignment seller is out there aiding their cause and adding credibility to the scammers. Card collecting is supposed to be fun and for many people that is what it is and they don't spend all their time researching, they make the wrong assumption that the top seller of sports cards would not encourage scammers buy validating their items and that the top seller would not have anything to do with an item that is a total hoax.
steve hart came across a bunch of bad late 60's racks at a national several years back. instead of passing them with some wordy description like PWCC, he warned everyone to stay away from them and be on the lookout. This is the type of person I want to deal with , not someone who thinks it is someone elses problem for being too stupid to not figure it out. >>
I'm glad you brought this up, because the one thought that keeps coming to my mind as I read this thread is an item such as this:
Let me be clear here: by no means am I comparing this to a Christmas rack pack or a clearly bogus 1971 rack pack. But, I have been in the hobby for nearly 40 years and have been a near daily reader of these boards for a long time. I consider myself an above-average educated collector if not very educated. That being said, it wasn't until the last year or so that I realized that a "1974 Topps Baseball Unopened Wax Box" may not actually not an unopened wax box, but a box containing 36 unopened packs (could be from multiple boxes). We can argue all day about whether those are the same thing, but to me they are not even close (I know this has been discussed before). Is there any reason that the unopened wax box descriptions couldn't specify exactly what the buyer is getting? Is this really any different with regards to "buyer be educated"?
This question is not directed specifically at pack collector, I'm just curious how everyone feels.
Comments
<< <i>That rack, being an obvious counterfeit, should not have been accepted for consignment by PWCC.
As a leader in this industry, they should have refused it, rather than help perpetuate its existence and future sales. >>
true as well. so i don't know anymore...
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like I picked a good time to sign on. Inaugural post.
First, love this forum. Learned a lot from reading these threads and have changed my investing strategies because of it. So Kudos to everyone who shares their opinions and coherent thoughts.
X-mas packs by PWCC. IMO, PWCC should stay out of the X-mas pack business. But I've read the disclaimer, seems pretty clear; buyer beware. I find it hard to believe that someone buying vintage unopened baseball card packs is not intelligent enough to know what these packs mean and what the probability is of landing a low pop/star (0%). >>
first of all, welcome and solid first post! 2nd of all, ^^ sums it all up. it's not like his description even hints at the fact that these could even possibly be legit. ray charles could even tell by his description used. I for one, don't think he should be touching them w a 10 foot pole, but then again there seems to be a market for them regardless of the authenticity and description. you got the guys out there that simply open them up looking for gradeable cards, you got guys that just want to display a 52 rack pack in their man cave and so on and so forth. it's obvious that there is a market for them and it's not my/your's/his place to figure out why these things sell like they do. as long as the description doesn't even hint that they are legit, then I don't see a problem with it. it's not like he's saying "possible 52 mantle inside".
again, i wouldn't do it but not my call either... >>
Actually, it does say this: "Perhaps the all important Mantle is hidden within". This needs to be removed from the listing, agreed. I'm guessing this was written by their listing discriptionist, not Brent. Not sure what PWCC commissions are on these X-mas packs, but this shouldn't be an economic decision for them, it's about their Brand. Maybe they made a few hundred dollars selling these packs over the last year. Not worth it. Maybe the owner is a big consignor for them, so they feel obligated to list them. The PWCC Brand is well received in the card world, these packs don't help, their tainted IMO.
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From what I can see Brent does run an extremely strong business, with many positives, so I hope he strongly addresses the issues that have been raised in this thread.
According to his OP Brent should be following up in two days on Wednesday. >>
the only real issue is around the Xmas racks. >>
I don't have a dog in the fight, but this is incorrect. Several people have raised concerns about the accuracy of scans and even more than that have expressed concern about shilling. Just because these aren't issues TO YOU doesn't mean they're not issues on which a portion of hobbyists are seeking clarification. I have bought from PWCC with no complaints and would probably do so again. But to say only one issue has been raised in this thread is blatantly false, even if those complaints are not mine. >>
Correct. I just got a dog of a card that frankly, looked better in the pwcc scan. No big deal, as it's a cheapo card and I'll just chalk it up to stuff happens. However it's an interesting mix when the terms clearly state, if you have a problem with the grade given, your issue is with the card grading entity, and not pwcc. So take a card that got a gift grade (in my case, a topps 8 that has more in common with a 6, due to the corners) -- a fuzzy on the corners scan, and a policy of no unquestioned returns, and I've learned my lesson -- buyer beware, just as has always been the case.
<< <i>Actually, it does say this: "Perhaps the all important Mantle is hidden within". This needs to be removed from the listing, agreed. I'm guessing this was written by their listing discriptionist, not Brent. >>
After all he has been told about the Christmas Racks, if this is going to be blamed on a "listing descriptionist" then he is an incompetent manager on top of everything else. It his business, its his responsibility.
<< <i> Not sure what PWCC commissions are on these X-mas packs, but this shouldn't be an economic decision for them, it's about their Brand. Maybe they made a few hundred dollars selling these packs over the last year. Not worth it. Maybe the owner is a big consignor for them, so they feel obligated to list them. The PWCC Brand is well received in the card world, these packs don't help, their tainted IMO. >>
Incredibly the brand doesn't get tainted by this nonsense. Look at the defenses of this behavior in this very thread. Just above originalsbest is talking about a scan that is better than the card.
Go to the Net54 thread as well. Someone there has found an active auction that the previous winner of a card is the current high bidder. Look at the entire thread, but specifically Post #52 in the below link:
null
So the only real issue is around the Xmas Racks......
...and the 1971 racks
...and the unrepresentative scans
...and the apparently continuing schill bids
Thats all!
<< <i> Actually, it does say this: "Perhaps the all important Mantle is hidden within" >>
Not that I doubt you, but, I looked at the 52 rack linked in this thread and saw no such
claim, can you please link for us? Perhaps I missed it.
Thanks
<< <i>
<< <i> Actually, it does say this: "Perhaps the all important Mantle is hidden within" >>
Not that I doubt you, but, I looked at the 52 rack linked in this thread and saw no such
claim, can you please link for us? Perhaps I missed it.
Thanks >>
Link
<< <i>Several people have raised concerns about the accuracy of scans... >>
Yes, and he already replied to that. You either take him at his word or you don't, but anyone who has ever used scanners or cameras or iPhones or whatever the case may be would know that there is not a universal setting to make every picture look good. The accusation that's out there says he was "juicing" scans on purpose - he said he wasn't. If someone doesn't believe him, that's not justification for continuing the supposed "issue". He's addressed it - move on.
<< <i>...and even more than that have expressed concern about shilling.
This is probably one of the most useless conversations. Undoubtedly there is bad bidding behavior in his auctions, with that many items there is no doubt it happens. But again, he's already addressed this issue, including admitting to a practice years ago that he doesn't allow any longer. Either you believe him or you don't, but he's already addressed it and if you read the list of issues he's suggested taking to eBay this is the sort of behavior he's working to be able to police better, but he needs some assistance from them to do that. He has very little to gain by allowing schilling to occur in his auctions - if it was really that rampant, he would undoubtedly be losing customers/bidders which costs way more than the extra bit of proceeds he would get on an upped auction price.
<< <i>...doesn't mean they're not issues on which a portion of hobbyists are seeking clarification. >>
I submit to you that everything EXCEPT the XMas racks thought process has already been addressed or clarified, however the only answer that's going to satisfy certain people is to never sell them again. Maybe that ends up being the answer, but it's just not that clear cut on these. No one really knows the origin, they're absolutely authentic cards but they were probably repackaged by someone else and are not authentic from the Topps factory.
<< <i>Is it always up to the buyer to be educated enough to know they're buying something homemade and most probably worthless, or should the seller be responsible enough to make sure that they don't sell items that will easily mislead buyers? >>
YES, it is ABSOLUTELY up to the buyer to get educated, especially when it's a public auction site with pretty limited barriers to participation.
While some say the descriptions are misleading, that's opinion and not a fact. References to whether a Mantle is included or not is just "salesmanship" auction description, so unless he knows whether they are or are not in there then it's really just a question of whether you like the write up or not. It's too easy to just say "I got duped" when you don't do your homework. He's advertised these things as being authentic cards (and there's really no dispute to that is there?) in unathenticated packaging - is that really not clear enough? The people that are bidding are doing so based on their perceived value of the packs - same as with anything else collectible or otherwise.
<< <i>The problem with the Xmas racks (the original ones, that is) is that nobody can say for certain what they really are
or are not. The only things that can be said for certain is that they were not packaged by the Topps company as
part of their regular yearly production and distribution.
To me, I wouldn't waste my time with an Xmas rack but I see nothing wrong with offering them for sale
as long as they are accurately described.
On the other hand, I have very serious concerns over the following rack:
1971_PWCC_Rack
which is a 100% CERTAIN counterfeit.
Then you have racks like this:
1971_Suspect_Rack
which no one, as yet, had been able to make a definitive statement about being authentic (BTW, both myself and cpamike examined
this rack in person and had some serious reservations about it due to several yellow flags we identified). >>
I'm so glad to be completely divested of 'unopened' packs. It's like living in The Matrix.
Which makes me think about the following quote in the '52 rack "Please bid accordingly...[the rack] has not been professionally authenticated"
Wouldn't this lead one to believe that the pack could be professionally authenticated?
This is not salesmanship. It's skirting with fraud.
Regardless, it appears there are many seasoned collectors here who not only think that the Xmas rack descriptions that PWCC is using are misleading, but that the sale of them is altogether wrong (some have used much more colorful language).
I think you can clearly see what's going on with those listings, so I'm a little confused by your position. Don't you want collectors to be happy, instead of getting duped into buying packs that aren't what they think they are?
Also, as far as facts go, I can say that I've contacted PWCC about an item, with a polite and poignant question regarding sed item, and have never heard back. I've heard others on the forum say similarly. By stark contrast Probstein123 has always replied to me quickly.
<< <i>bounce, have you consigned or are you currently consigning items to PWCC?
Regardless, it appears there are many seasoned collectors here who not only think that the Xmas rack descriptions that PWCC is using are misleading, but that the sale of them is altogether wrong (some have used much more colorful language).
I think you can clearly see what's going on with those listings, so I'm a little confused by your position. Don't you want collectors to be happy, instead of getting duped into buying packs that aren't what they think they are?
Also, as far as facts go, I can say that I've contacted PWCC about an item, with a polite and poignant question regarding sed item, and have never heard back. I've heard others on the forum say similarly. By stark contrast Probstein123 has always replied to me quickly. >>
I've never consigned anything to them, I've only bid and all my experiences have been good to date. That goes back probably 2 years or so. And my wins during this time have ranged anywhere from a $10 card to close to $12,000. I've also had good experience with responses, maybe that's just a one off for me specifically but I don't think painting the picture that they aren't responsive is accurate. They are responsive at least in my case.
As far as the racks go...everyone is assuming people are being "duped", and I'd actually argue that most of them are not being duped. I suspect most of the people bidding good money on these actually know what they are, and have made their decision around value and collecting them. There's no way to prove either side of this correct, though, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the "market will set the price".
That's where education comes into play. If you do your homework on them, then you'll have a better idea of what you're buying and you adjust your bid accordingly. As long as the descriptions aren't blatantly false, and I don't see anything that leads me to believe they are, then he's made a business decision to accept them. Sure it might be easier to just stop, but I don't see any reason for him to stop just because a bunch of CU people don't like it.
It's all just opinion related to these racks - same as it's opinion related to whether a card is in the right holder or whether it's "high end" for a grade. How many auctions have we seen that say a card is "high end"? PWCC is now "authenticating" cards as high end. PSA issues autograph authentication based on opinion, it states it right there on the certificate.
Are those really any different? I don't think they are, and I don't think most collectors actually think they are. Is there some "salesmanship" going on here? Yeah, definitely there is. But for me, it ultimately gets back to education and value assessment - and anytime I'm bidding I'm doing that for myself and bidding accordingly.
And no, I don't bid on the XMas racks because I have no idea what could be in there. Then again, I've seen some with stars on top and back and if I was going to bid on those, I might bid a slight premium over what I thought the individual card raw would be worth and that's it. I'm sure there are others who value those much more than I do with a higher premium. So be it. That doesn't make Brent a bad guy or deceitful seller, and doesn't make the other auction houses who take them good guys because they won't.
<< <i>
<< <i>bounce, have you consigned or are you currently consigning items to PWCC?
Regardless, it appears there are many seasoned collectors here who not only think that the Xmas rack descriptions that PWCC is using are misleading, but that the sale of them is altogether wrong (some have used much more colorful language).
I think you can clearly see what's going on with those listings, so I'm a little confused by your position. Don't you want collectors to be happy, instead of getting duped into buying packs that aren't what they think they are?
Also, as far as facts go, I can say that I've contacted PWCC about an item, with a polite and poignant question regarding sed item, and have never heard back. I've heard others on the forum say similarly. By stark contrast Probstein123 has always replied to me quickly. >>
I've never consigned anything to them, I've only bid and all my experiences have been good to date. That goes back probably 2 years or so. And my wins during this time have ranged anywhere from a $10 card to close to $12,000. I've also had good experience with responses, maybe that's just a one off for me specifically but I don't think painting the picture that they aren't responsive is accurate. They are responsive at least in my case.
As far as the racks go...everyone is assuming people are being "duped", and I'd actually argue that most of them are not being duped. I suspect most of the people bidding good money on these actually know what they are, and have made their decision around value and collecting them. There's no way to prove either side of this correct, though, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the "market will set the price".
That's where education comes into play. If you do your homework on them, then you'll have a better idea of what you're buying and you adjust your bid accordingly. As long as the descriptions aren't blatantly false, and I don't see anything that leads me to believe they are, then he's made a business decision to accept them. Sure it might be easier to just stop, but I don't see any reason for him to stop just because a bunch of CU people don't like it.
It's all just opinion related to these racks - same as it's opinion related to whether a card is in the right holder or whether it's "high end" for a grade. How many auctions have we seen that say a card is "high end"? PWCC is now "authenticating" cards as high end. PSA issues autograph authentication based on opinion, it states it right there on the certificate.
Are those really any different? I don't think they are, and I don't think most collectors actually think they are. Is there some "salesmanship" going on here? Yeah, definitely there is. But for me, it ultimately gets back to education and value assessment - and anytime I'm bidding I'm doing that for myself and bidding accordingly.
And no, I don't bid on the XMas racks because I have no idea what could be in there. Then again, I've seen some with stars on top and back and if I was going to bid on those, I might bid a slight premium over what I thought the individual card raw would be worth and that's it. I'm sure there are others who value those much more than I do with a higher premium. So be it. That doesn't make Brent a bad guy or deceitful seller, and doesn't make the other auction houses who take them good guys because they won't. >>
One shouldn't really have to do their homework when buying from an expert-esq seller like PWCC, should they?
Selling the Christmas racks is bad. The descriptions on the racks are even worse.
<< <i>One shouldn't really have to do their homework when buying from an expert-esq seller like PWCC, should they? >>
Yes, every single time, buyers should do their homework. Every...single...time.
And why can't someone explain why there are always multiple bidders on those racks? Do you really think that those people have no idea what they're bidding on?
With prices hitting near $1,000 at times, you really think people have no clue what they're bidding on? That's just not believable, folks. Sorry.
Thank you for your responses to this thread and for providing suggestions for both improving eBay and for improving PWCC Auctions. I have separated our responses into two sections. The first provides my responses to your feedback about improving PWCC Auctions. The second provides my approach to incorporating your feedback in my conversations with eBay later this week.
I have said before that I try to limit my involvement in message boards in order to ensure an open, uninfluenced discussion. As such, I don’t plan to revisit this thread. If you have follow up questions or feedback, please send to me by email (brent@pwccauctions.com).
Thank you,
Brent Huigens
PWCC Auctions
brent@pwccauctions.com
Section 1: Feedback to improve PWCC Auctions:
Concerns over consignor-issued reserves in 2009-10
Raised by 20CAG
This was first discussed several years ago on this and the Net54 message boards. The reserve option was a highly restrictive service we offered over a narrow period of time, ending in 2010. It was used by very few consignors because our requirements were strict:
1) Consignors had to get PWCC approval to place reserve bids in advance
2) The reserve amount had to be conservative relative to the market value (also required approval)
3) The consignor still had to pay our fees, as well as eBay, in the event that the reserve was not met.
I estimate that no more than 100 (perhaps has few as 50) reserves were ever placed in 2009-10 and the vast majority were eclipsed by the bidding. Not making excuses for this program because we regret having it, but it was never used to wrong bidders, eBay, or the hobby.
Concerns over the cost of shipping, our approach to packaging, and recommendations to use FedEx rather than USPS
Raised by MULLINS5, begsu1013
In order to keep shipping costs low, we use a packaging approach which includes multiple layers of envelopes. This includes a bubble mailer and a rigid outer envelope. This approach was developed over a decade of optimizing our shipping. We feel this approach results in not only an appropriate cost but also is very effective in protecting cards. Complaints of damage in shipping are extraordinarily rare.
We ship USPS because they offer the lowest rates. Generally speaking, most buyers prefer low cost above all else. However, we offer shipping through FedEx if buyers request it. Items over $3k are shipped USPS registered due to its unmatched safety and security.
Suggestions that we stop selling Christmas Rack Packs in our Auctions due to concerns over their legitimacy
Raised by packCollector, MULLINS5, CocoaBeachDodgers, Gemint, Galaxy27, Gregf, Griffins, 70ToppsFanatic, Dodgerfanjohn, Cincyredlegs, Dpeck100, bishop, grote15, hammered, Sdub, dennis07, begsu1013, and thedudeabides
We have discussed this internally and ultimately agree with the feedback from this and other forums. As such, we will no longer broker Christmas Rack Packs in our auctions, starting with Auction #6. Out of respect for our consignors who have already submitted these items to our current auction, we will sell the items we have already in house.
Suggestion that we support zooming in/out on images in our listings
Raised by mintonlypls
We use an image size of 150 dpi because we feel this is most representative of how the card looks when actually holding it in your hand. In special circumstances (high value, unique issues, etc.) we can and do provide higher resolution scans upon request.
Concerns about bid manipulation (shilling)
Raised by Tabe
9 times out of 10, bidding behavior that appears suspicious is actually legitimate, and just the result of eccentric bid behavior by trusted and proven users. However, we acknowledge there is still room for improvement which was the reason I started this thread; please refer to the next section of this post which summarizes the recommendations I intend to make to eBay to increase transparency in bidding and seller’s ability to limit bids from eBay users with prior bad behavior.
I encourage folks to contact me regarding any auction which they feel shows signs of suspicious behavior at brent@pwccauctions.com. I will always investigate and respond to these inquires. We very much appreciate everyone’s time in helping us police the market place.
Section 2: Feedback to improve the service provided by eBay:
Suggestions to restore bidder usernames in bid history and enabling sellers to restrict bidding for things like unpaid items, bid retractions, and low feedback
Raised by LarkinCollector, 1all, Golfcollector, bounce, Mtcards
We agree about restoring bid history and usernames. It makes it difficult to ask the community to police bidding when usernames are truncated. However, more important than providing bidder IDs is providing a Bidder Defect Report, summarizing things like number of bid retractions, number of unpaid items, etc.
If such a report is created, eBay should also put in place the ability for sellers to enable or disable bidders based on certain metrics in the Bidder Defect Report. For example, sellers could then prohibit bidders who have an unacceptable number of bid retractions, unpaid items, or low feedback.
Right now, eBay does not have the functionality to allow sellers to do these things. This is one of my main suggestions to eBay.
Comment that it is unacceptable to retract a bid for any reason other than a data entry error
Raised by Dpeck100
You are correct. It’s true that not all bid retractions are illegal. There are some situations where bid retractions are needed. For example, a bidder mistakenly bids $10,800 rather than $108 because of an error in the decimal place. The difference between legal and illegal bid retractions is that a legal bid retraction requires that the correct bid amount be reapplied after the retraction. eBay already tracks this, they just don’t enforce it, so we hope to change that.
Suggestion that when a bid is retracted, that all of that user’s bids are retracted for that item, high bid is adjusted back down, and that user is not allowed to place any further bids on that item
Raised by LarkinCollector
This is a good suggestion. If a bidder has an illegal bid retraction (see above for definition of an illegal bid retraction), all bids for that user should be removed and the price should be adjusted accordingly. That bidder should be restricted from placing future bids on that item. Great feedback.
Question raised for eBay about why once an auction reaches a certain amount the bidder needs to be approved first
Raised by MULLINS5
This is also a really good point – thank you for raising this flag. You’re right – new bidders on expensive items may see certain restrictions until that bidder develops an established history of bidding on eBay. We don’t know what algorithm eBay uses to develop and define these restrictions. In some cases this is a good reason to place bids earlier on a high value items (i.e. 10 mins before item closes) to provide yourself time answer any extra eBay verification pages prior to the auction closing.
Questions about the ramifications of PayPal separating from eBay
Raised by bounce
We believe that the separation of eBay and PayPal will feel more subtle than folks may suspect. While the companies will soon be financially independent, their exchange of information will remain as intimate as prior to the split.
In reality, eBay is by far PayPal’s largest single client and the quality of service that PayPal will provide eBay will remain high, In some ways, the service could get better because resources can be more streamlined to serve each company independently and no longer be burdened by bureaucracy.
We too are cautiously optimistic, but expect the transition to be a smooth one. Rest assured PWCC and other sellers are tracking this very closely with eBay.
Comments about seller’s ability to address negative feedback
Raised by Mtcards
We agree that the feedback system needs revision, and the good news is that eBay agrees wholeheartedly. We will all soon see improvements to how feedback is treated. Generally speaking it is the belief of eBay that feedback should play a smaller role in marketplace.
Comment about the challenges of using IP addresses to identify suspicious bidding behavior
Raised by PMKAY
Agreed – you are absolutely right. But, we have to start somewhere. Bottom line is that if people want to take advantage of the system, they will find a way. But we feel that we have to make it as difficult as possible.
PWCC Marketplace
market@pwccmarketplace.com
833-333-7922
bounce , can you please post your ebay id. I want to be sure not to do business with you in the future. thank you
<< <i>brett,even though you won't read this, thanks for the responses
>>
For sure, thank you for the responses.
Great news that the racks will be discontinued and I agree that the ones on eBay should ride as it is only fair.
You entered the lion's den and got hammered. I think we all see how much you care for your business.
Thanks again for your professionalism. As I said early on, I'll still recommend your service over the others out there.
<< <i>brett,even though you won't read this, thanks for the responses
bounce , can you please post your ebay id. I want to be sure not to do business with you in the future. thank you >>
I'm not that hard to locate, I'm confident that if you try AT ALL you can figure it out
You need to pick your battles. X-mas packs are not the third rail of American card collecting. There is far more unopened fraud on e-bay then one can imagine.
I do have serious doubts about folks stating they can't get a hold of Brent or someone at PWCC, or that the scans are "manipulated". Never had that problem, and I've been dealing with PWCC for about 5 years, 99% as a buyer.
However, I do have a problem with "retractors", and from the looks of Brent's e-mail, I'm hoping E-bay makes it more difficult for them.
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
<< <i>I'm not that hard to locate, I'm confident that if you try AT ALL you can figure it out >>
excellent, blocked . thanks
i mean they probably account for maybe 1/10 of 1 percent of all of their gross sales. Why put up with this headache for that?
edited** just saw the response above, good job!
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not that hard to locate, I'm confident that if you try AT ALL you can figure it out >>
excellent, blocked . thanks >>
I'm not clever enough to read between the lines here. Can you please share the eBay ID?
<< <i>the thing i don't understand is why PWCC continues to list the xmas racks because it raises this type of headache with very little concern.
i mean they probably account for maybe 1/10 of 1 percent of all of their gross sales. Why put up with this headache for that?
edited** just saw the response above, good job! >>
Good job indeed! Glad to see this powerful seller responding to the community and taking appropriate action.
I hope eBay goes back to showing full user IDs and full bidding histories exposed again. I believe this kind of transparency is paramount to a safer business environment.
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not that hard to locate, I'm confident that if you try AT ALL you can figure it out >>
excellent, blocked . thanks >>
I'm not clever enough to read between the lines here. Can you please share the eBay ID? >>
Same as his forum name here?
Now can we get PSA to do the same thing. Communication lines are open, but answers usually are not. I think PSA would do itself some favors and Beckett also, if they would develop this type of system (Q&A, updates,etc). They do a good of job of policing things that they don't want to talk about, but it may end speculation and rumors if they would just tells us some reasons, explanations, etc.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not that hard to locate, I'm confident that if you try AT ALL you can figure it out >>
excellent, blocked . thanks >>
I'm not clever enough to read between the lines here. Can you please share the eBay ID? >>
Same as his forum name here? >>
Wise man here
And for anyone who wants to "block" me, consider this...
I collect almost EVERYTHING, vintage cards, modern cards, unopened boxes and cases, raw cards, graded cards, autographs of all kinds and all mediums, authenticated or not, baseball, football, basketball, hockey, politics, etc. etc. etc.
I'm primarily a buyer, although I do sell some things from time to time mostly so I can buy other things. No one has EVER had an issue with me in terms of payment, delivering my end of a trade or receiving something I sold in the exact condition it was described as being.
I could list a dozen or more people I've transacted with here in the past year, buying and selling and trading with perfect feedback - no issues whatsoever. I could reference my eBay feedback, my iTrader at other sites and so on, but that really wouldn't matter would it?
Yeah - I'm exactly the kind of bidder/buyer you don't want. I try to get educated about the item, I ask questions to make sure understanding is clear between both parties about what I'm getting/selling, I pay on time, I ship quickly, I send tracking numbers, I'm responsive to PMs and emails, you know - the normal unreasonable type of behavior that makes people not want to do business with me.
So please, if those sorts of behaviors aren't what you're looking for, BLOCK AWAY! Just know the only person you're really hurting is yourself, because you're not going to get any of my bids/purchases which virtually ensures you get less than for your items than you otherwise might. Makes perfect sense!
Back to the non-sarcasm for a moment...It's this kind of nonsense that makes this and other forums nearly unbearable for reasonable people to try and participate in, and is no doubt a huge reason why people like Brent and others don't come around frequently if at all. And that's ultimately bad for all of us, and the hobby.
the one that tries to set up/promote group rips through a 3rd party of his own stuff?
don't wanna hijack this thread w/ past stuff, so getting back to this...
i talked w/ brent prior to his reply, not really pertaining to this thread, but w/ a usps shipment that went awol. afterwards we hit on this thread a lil bit. i just didn't want to post anything prior to his response. however, as stated he knocked out my concern with being able to use a carrier of our choice and the shipping snafu.
as for the post, i thought he did a good job executing his response to everyone's concerns and good to see he will stop listing the xmas racks.
Re: bounce, I think the past breaks have been addressed and don't require further discussion. I don't know why some would block him for having an opinion they don't agree with, but suum cuique. I've had some request my eBay ID to block me as well for past comments.
<< <i>Yeah - I'm exactly the kind of bidder/buyer you don't want. I try to get educated about the item, I ask questions to make sure understanding is clear between both parties about what I'm getting/selling, I pay on time, I ship quickly, I send tracking numbers, I'm responsive to PMs and emails, you know - the normal unreasonable type of behavior that makes people not want to do business with me.
So please, if those sorts of behaviors aren't what you're looking for, BLOCK AWAY! Just know the only person you're really hurting is yourself, because you're not going to get any of my bids/purchases which virtually ensures you get less than for your items than you otherwise might. Makes perfect sense! >>
I wish to block you not because the type of buyer you are but purely based on the fact that you think it is ok to screw people because they didn't spend a ton of time researching what they were buying and therefore are someone I would just prefer not to deal with regardless how quick or how much you pay. Excuse me but if a casual collector comes along and says cool, a 1952 topps rack pack and says cool a thousand bucks seems reasonable for one of the early issue of topps you consider them fools for not being educated. It is bad enough the scammers are out there taking advantage of collectors, now the premier consignment seller is out there aiding their cause and adding credibility to the scammers. Card collecting is supposed to be fun and for many people that is what it is and they don't spend all their time researching, they make the wrong assumption that the top seller of sports cards would not encourage scammers buy validating their items and that the top seller would not have anything to do with an item that is a total hoax.
steve hart came across a bunch of bad late 60's racks at a national several years back. instead of passing them with some wordy description like PWCC, he warned everyone to stay away from them and be on the lookout. This is the type of person I want to deal with , not someone who thinks it is someone elses problem for being too stupid to not figure it out.
Check, check.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
PACKCOLLECTOR - will you please at least acknowledge you're putting those words in my mouth? because it's certainly not what i said. i never called anyone a fool, i never said it wasn't someone else's problem, none of that. i didn't call anyone a fool. those are all YOUR WORDS and trying to ascribe them to me.
you're not really listening to anything i'm saying or a lot of what i typed, or maybe you just disagree and that's fine. you could do it without being so disagreeable, though, and that's honestly my major issue with this board in general. it's virtually impossible to have a civilized discussion/debate on this board on anything anymore, which is just sad. again, it costs ALL OF US because it happens that way.
as far as the racks go, you and others are assuming that everyone that bids on those racks is getting screwed, and i don't assume that. i actually think there are knowledgeable collectors out there who have decided these are worthy collectibles - whether i agree with them or not makes no difference. i honestly don't think it's amateur collectors spending $1,000 a rack, apparently many of you do think that. neither one of us can prove it definitively, but in my view just plain common sense would say that someone starting a collection isn't likely to come firing out on something at $1,000 an item. that's not how i started, and i'd venture to guess that's not how most people here started. and i can almost guarantee anyone spending $1,000 on a collectible did at least SOME research before that dropped that money down.
from the consignment perspective, there's a whole host of ways PWCC could alter descriptions or otherwise if they wanted to keep selling them, and maybe they should have done that or maybe they just decide it's not worth the headache. i said that very thing in an earlier post, looks like that's what happened. fine, it's his business and his decision.
I also think it's imperative that a buyer get educated, and it's not always the sellers responsibility to educate them. if you're going to spend your money, i think you should do whatever you need to do to get comfortable about what it is your buying and what it's worth. that's on YOU, not on the seller. some seller's help with that, again PWCC maybe could have done better in that regard and i never said one way or another. you just assumed i thought it was all fine, again that's not what i said. i put the other side of the argument that it's just not clear cut and that there is obviously a market for these things, if for no other reason than the mystery of their origin and what MIGHT be included.
we don't actually know these racks are a "scam" - in fact there are some that have stars on top. there are TONS of questions about these things, granted, but there are no definitive answers at all. people have made decisions about them, BOTH WAYS so don't act like there's only one true story because there isn't. and that's OK - that's just part of the hobby.
BEGSU - don't state things to make it seem like it was only my stuff and that somehow i'm a tainted person because of it - that's equally ridiculous as blocking my bidder ID because of a difference of opinion. and even if it was, the 3rd party actually helps bring some separation and security to it for the buyers, but you just want to ignore that part and that's fine. doesn't make you right.
LARKIN - well stated, it has been dealt with and it doesn't need to be redone.
anyway - i'm back to the A&G auto thread, that guy has some cool stuff if you haven't seen it yet
there is a reason people bid with auction houses and top sellers like brett and that is because they trust them to do the legwork. not dupe them with fake crap. brett is no different than any of the shamed auction house by listing these items that he knows 100% are fake made up crap.
<< <i>i honestly don't think it's amateur collectors spending $1,000 a rack, apparently many of you do think that. >>
I think this where you being mostly a buyer has led to the your conclusion. I have no problem with that. I sell a lot of different kinds of sports collectibles and you would be surprised how many times that i have sold between $1,000-$5,000 to new collectors. It happens way more than you would think when someone comes into money and wants to get into collecting or someone with money who collects starts to branch out their collecting interests. The horror stories that people have shared with me about how much money they were scammed by pack resealers before they realized what was going is near unbelievable. These packs are no different. I don't think anyone would come on here and say that buyers are paying $500 for resealed wax packs for the collectibility of them. This is why I have such a problem with someone who is supposed to be the top consignment seller pimping fake packs, by him putting his reputation behind them , it leads to new collectors thinking these are not something that were made last month and then put on eBay but rather a good collectible until they start talking to someone and find out they were duped
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Agree with Brent/PWCC or not, like him or not, believe him or not, you have to give him kudos for coming here and tackling issues and questions. Too bad more big consignors would not (attempt to) be more transparent about their business since we all, as collectors, have a stake with what happens in the hobby. >>
^^^
I agree 110%
<< <i>we don't actually know these racks are a "scam" - in fact there are some that have stars on top. >>
You're saying that a Christmas rack with a star on top increases the chance that it's legit??
<< <i>
<< <i>It is completely erroneous to believe that any knowledgeable collector would bid on these xmas racks believing them to be "worthy collectibles". Obviously, that is the primary reason Brent will no longer be accepting them on consignment and I think he made the correct decision in reaching that conclusion. >>
I completely agree with this opinion. I highly doubt there are any knowledgeable collectors buying these unless they had ulterior motives or could get them cheap to fill out sets. Just the numerous amount of knowledgeable collectors here whom have criticized these packs with such strong conviction should be sufficient reason to think that no reputable dealer should be carrying these. >>
+1
+1
<< <i>
<< <i>Yeah - I'm exactly the kind of bidder/buyer you don't want. I try to get educated about the item, I ask questions to make sure understanding is clear between both parties about what I'm getting/selling, I pay on time, I ship quickly, I send tracking numbers, I'm responsive to PMs and emails, you know - the normal unreasonable type of behavior that makes people not want to do business with me.
So please, if those sorts of behaviors aren't what you're looking for, BLOCK AWAY! Just know the only person you're really hurting is yourself, because you're not going to get any of my bids/purchases which virtually ensures you get less than for your items than you otherwise might. Makes perfect sense! >>
I wish to block you not because the type of buyer you are but purely based on the fact that you think it is ok to screw people because they didn't spend a ton of time researching what they were buying and therefore are someone I would just prefer not to deal with regardless how quick or how much you pay. Excuse me but if a casual collector comes along and says cool, a 1952 topps rack pack and says cool a thousand bucks seems reasonable for one of the early issue of topps you consider them fools for not being educated. It is bad enough the scammers are out there taking advantage of collectors, now the premier consignment seller is out there aiding their cause and adding credibility to the scammers. Card collecting is supposed to be fun and for many people that is what it is and they don't spend all their time researching, they make the wrong assumption that the top seller of sports cards would not encourage scammers buy validating their items and that the top seller would not have anything to do with an item that is a total hoax.
steve hart came across a bunch of bad late 60's racks at a national several years back. instead of passing them with some wordy description like PWCC, he warned everyone to stay away from them and be on the lookout. This is the type of person I want to deal with , not someone who thinks it is someone elses problem for being too stupid to not figure it out. >>
I'm glad you brought this up, because the one thought that keeps coming to my mind as I read this thread is an item such as this:
1974 box
Let me be clear here: by no means am I comparing this to a Christmas rack pack or a clearly bogus 1971 rack pack. But, I have been in the hobby for nearly 40 years and have been a near daily reader of these boards for a long time. I consider myself an above-average educated collector if not very educated. That being said, it wasn't until the last year or so that I realized that a "1974 Topps Baseball Unopened Wax Box" may not actually not an unopened wax box, but a box containing 36 unopened packs (could be from multiple boxes). We can argue all day about whether those are the same thing, but to me they are not even close (I know this has been discussed before). Is there any reason that the unopened wax box descriptions couldn't specify exactly what the buyer is getting? Is this really any different with regards to "buyer be educated"?
This question is not directed specifically at pack collector, I'm just curious how everyone feels.