'71 OPC BB wax busters
blue227
Posts: 185 ✭✭
i know there are a lot of pack busters on this board and wanted to know if anyone had opened any of the GAI graded '71 OPC BB wax packs that have been circulating throughout the hobby and what sort of results they had. i've noticed several GAI 9 packs sell for a little over $100 and was wondering if they're worth opening or if, like most OPC runs, the cards are horribly OC and more valuable if left unopened.
i remember the BBCKid auctioning off a '71 OPC Ryan PSA 9 along with a few GAI packs and figured he must have busted some packs to get the Ryan. Also, i've noticed that most of the packs don't identify the series. does anyone know if what's circulating is primarily from anyone one or two particular series? thx.
i remember the BBCKid auctioning off a '71 OPC Ryan PSA 9 along with a few GAI packs and figured he must have busted some packs to get the Ryan. Also, i've noticed that most of the packs don't identify the series. does anyone know if what's circulating is primarily from anyone one or two particular series? thx.
0
Comments
Quite simply, vintage unopened packs are JUST LIKE THE LOTTERY. There is no way around it. From an "Expected Value" framework, they are almost always more valuable unopened than opened. Especially with OPC cards, where rough cuts and off-center are the rule rather than the exception. Not to mention that any damage that has happened to the pack itself over the last 35 years will invariably affect the few cards contained within.
Just like any lottery - there are always notable winners. The 1952 Topps pack that yielded a #1 Pafko PSA 10 GEM MINT. The 1954 Topps pack that yielded a Ernie Banks PSA 10. BBCKid's 1971 OPC Nolan Ryan PSA 9. But, all said, a typical pack would be expected to yield about 20-35% of the pack's price. It is simply that the outlier examples can be so exorbitant, combined with the fact that unopened pack collectors simply value the rarity of such packs, that they sell for such a premium.
If you win, you win big. But odds are very, very high that you will lose. Even higher that you will lose when you poach a single pack, as opposed to an unopened box or case.
<< <i>blue227:
If you win, you win big. But odds are very, very high that you will lose. Even higher that you will lose when you poach a single pack, as opposed to an unopened box or case. >>
This doesn't make any sense, unless you're suggesting that a single pack is more likely to hold damaged cards. And even then you would have to weight that possibility against the per pack price premium that a box carries over a single pack (assuming the box costs more, per pack, then a single pack).
For example:
Assumptions
cost of 1 pack - $100
probability of gem card - 1 card in 36 packs
So a box costs you $3600, but you recoup $xxx for that PSA 10 Ryan. Buy only one pack and you are most likely out $100.
It's late, so this may or may not make sense.
<< <i>I'm certainly not speaking for mikeschmidt, but I took his comment to mean that the more packs you bust, the greater the chance of pulling that gem card. That one card would then offset your per pack cost. However, since the probability is low that you will pull such a card, you need to bust many.
For example:
Assumptions
cost of 1 pack - $100
probability of gem card - 1 card in 36 packs
So a box costs you $3600, but you recoup $xxx for that PSA 10 Ryan. Buy only one pack and you are most likely out $100.
It's late, so this may or may not make sense. >>
But this would suggest that if the odds of the PSA 10 Ryan are 1/36, then you're guaranteed that PSA 10 Ryan if you buy 36 packs. Which, as we know, you aren't. The next guy could get two PSA 10 Ryans after only buying two packs, or something like that.
I wish I knew more about probability, but I'm pretty sure that if you keep all other factors constant there's no way that a box could be less -EV than a single pack. But (as usual) I could be completely off base.
I'll keep it simple. If you purchase an entire box, it likely has not been searched and gone through. If someone else purchases a box, they might open 4-6 packs from that box. Upon seeing that every cards from the opened packs is extremely off-center and rough cut, they then decide to sell the remainder of the box as individual packs.
If, on the other hand, the 4-6 packs that are opened yield GEM-like commons and stars, they will open up the rest of the box.
My message is this: If you are buying a single pack, there is a likelihood [not 100%, but definitely not 0%] that someone somewhere along the line purchased a box and did not like the results after opening a few packs.
"I'll keep it simple. If you purchase an entire box, it likely has not been searched and gone through. If someone else purchases a box, they might open 4-6 packs from that box. Upon seeing that every cards from the opened packs is extremely off-center and rough cut, they then decide to sell the remainder of the box as individual packs.
If, on the other hand, the 4-6 packs that are opened yield GEM-like commons and stars, they will open up the rest of the box.
My message is this: If you are buying a single pack, there is a likelihood [not 100%, but definitely not 0%] that someone somewhere along the line purchased a box and did not like the results after opening a few packs."
I agree with that. Although in your original post is sounded like you were saying, ceteris paribus, that a box was a better idea than a pack.
Also, if you weren't going to 'keep it simple', what would you add to your explanation?
Have I done something to piss you off?
ex 76 opc , we pulled 3 mint psa 9 hof's including eck. , if I opened 3 random packs , I would have lost all my money , the 3 packs with the hof's covered much of the loses on the other packs.
75 opc , here are the results. the cards came in clusters with 25% good and 75% of the packs yilding nothing
1 31658505 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 643 BRENT STROM N/A 9
2 31658506 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 153 RICK REUSCHEL N/A 9
3 31658507 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 549 BILL BUTLER N/A 10
4 31658508 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 40 BILL SINGER N/A 8
5 31658509 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 633 PAUL CASANOVA N/A 9
6 31658510 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 621 ROOKIE PITCHERS N/A 9
7 31658511 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 615 ROOKIE PITCHERS N/A 10
8 31658512 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 617 ROOKIE INFIELDERS N/A 10
9 31658513 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 440 ANDY MESSERSMITH N/A 9
10 31658514 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 617 ROOKIE INFIELDERS N/A 10
17 31658521 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 529 GARY THOMASSON N/A 8
18 31658522 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 280 CARL YASTRZEMSKI N/A 8
19 31658523 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 589 BRAVES TEAM CLYDE KING, MGR. 8
20 31658524 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 611 YANKEES TEAM BILL VIRDON, MGR. 8
21 31658525 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 554 RICH GOSSAGE N/A 9
22 31658526 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 228 GEORGE BRETT N/A 9OC
23 31658527 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 531 REDS TEAM SPARKY ANDERSON, MGR. 9
24 31658528 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 80 CARLTON FISK N/A 9
25 31658529 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 539 JESSE JEFFERSON N/A 9
27 31658531 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 620 ROOKIE CATCHERS- OUTFIELDERS 9
28 31658532 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 248 RANDY JONES N/A 9
29 31658533 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 80 CARLTON FISK N/A 9
30 31658534 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 650 DAVE MAY N/A 8
31 31658535 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 640 HARMON KILLEBREW N/A 8
33 31658537 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 547 VON JOSHUA N/A 9
34 31658538 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 645 DANNY CATER N/A 8
35 31658539 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 545 BILLY WILLIAMS N/A 8
37 31658541 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 397 BILL FREEHAN N/A 10
ex. 1980 opc , a bunch of crap but with less than 10 gradable cards but in one of the last 3 packs was a psa 10 nolan ryan and psa 9 yaz.
for these reasons , I have to agree that the box route is better. as for 71 opc , I had luck with 1 3rd series pack which I got a psa 9 red sox card and psa 8 reds card in the same pack. I opened 1 other that wasn't any good. the red insert labels are mostly 5 th series would some 1st/2nd mixed. the yellow insert labels are 1st series or 3rd series (steve hart) for the most part.
<< <i>Boopotts:
Have I done something to piss you off? >>
What? No, nothing at all. I've always enjoyed your posts, and think of you as one of the most well reasoned and intelligent posters on these boards. You just said I'll 'keep it simple', so I'm curious as to what you would add to your analysis if you weren't working from this restraint.
I don't think I had anything else extraordinary to expound. Just more theory along the lines of packs being from potentially searched boxes. I've also known dealers who, when busting wax, either a) know the patterns and sell off packs from boxes that don't have good runs or b) they basically stop opening any box as soon as they hit the 'key' card from the set. So if they were opening a 1982 wax box, as soon as they got a Ripken in a box, they would stop opening the rest of the box and move on to the next one.
m
<< <i>having busted many indiviwual packs and boxes from the 60's (packs only) and 70's over the last year , I agree with mikeschmidt. my biggest loses have come from the individual packs for the reasons that 67standup pointed out. you bust 1 pack and get nothing you lose 100% , you bust a box and you get a couple high grade cards that can bail out a bunch of the loses.
ex 76 opc , we pulled 3 mint psa 9 hof's including eck. , if I opened 3 random packs , I would have lost all my money , the 3 packs with the hof's covered much of the loses on the other packs.
75 opc , here are the results. the cards came in clusters with 25% good and 75% of the packs yilding nothing
1 31658505 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 643 BRENT STROM N/A 9
2 31658506 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 153 RICK REUSCHEL N/A 9
3 31658507 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 549 BILL BUTLER N/A 10
4 31658508 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 40 BILL SINGER N/A 8
5 31658509 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 633 PAUL CASANOVA N/A 9
6 31658510 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 621 ROOKIE PITCHERS N/A 9
7 31658511 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 615 ROOKIE PITCHERS N/A 10
8 31658512 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 617 ROOKIE INFIELDERS N/A 10
9 31658513 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 440 ANDY MESSERSMITH N/A 9
10 31658514 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 617 ROOKIE INFIELDERS N/A 10
17 31658521 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 529 GARY THOMASSON N/A 8
18 31658522 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 280 CARL YASTRZEMSKI N/A 8
19 31658523 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 589 BRAVES TEAM CLYDE KING, MGR. 8
20 31658524 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 611 YANKEES TEAM BILL VIRDON, MGR. 8
21 31658525 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 554 RICH GOSSAGE N/A 9
22 31658526 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 228 GEORGE BRETT N/A 9OC
23 31658527 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 531 REDS TEAM SPARKY ANDERSON, MGR. 9
24 31658528 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 80 CARLTON FISK N/A 9
25 31658529 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 539 JESSE JEFFERSON N/A 9
27 31658531 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 620 ROOKIE CATCHERS- OUTFIELDERS 9
28 31658532 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 248 RANDY JONES N/A 9
29 31658533 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 80 CARLTON FISK N/A 9
30 31658534 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 650 DAVE MAY N/A 8
31 31658535 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 640 HARMON KILLEBREW N/A 8
33 31658537 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 547 VON JOSHUA N/A 9
34 31658538 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 645 DANNY CATER N/A 8
35 31658539 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 545 BILLY WILLIAMS N/A 8
37 31658541 1975 O-PEE-CHEE 397 BILL FREEHAN N/A 10
ex. 1980 opc , a bunch of crap but with less than 10 gradable cards but in one of the last 3 packs was a psa 10 nolan ryan and psa 9 yaz.
for these reasons , I have to agree that the box route is better. as for 71 opc , I had luck with 1 3rd series pack which I got a psa 9 red sox card and psa 8 reds card in the same pack. I opened 1 other that wasn't any good. the red insert labels are mostly 5 th series would some 1st/2nd mixed. the yellow insert labels are 1st series or 3rd series (steve hart) for the most part. >>
---------------------------
Thanks, Packcollector, this is the sort of answer i was hoping to get. I know the odds of pulling a great card from a single pack aren't great but i was wondering if people were finding that all those '71 OPC BB wax packs that were circulating had been resealed with obviously handled cards, or if they were yielding consistently OC cards. From your experiences, it seems like the '71 OPC packs you opened weren't tampered with.
I remember there was one BBS member (might have been zef) who wrote about his experience busting a late 70's OPC wax box with terrible results. My first guess was that the '71 OPC packs were probably from the same find which i'd think would make it more likely that they were manufactured around the same time and that if one box from a case yields mostly OC cards that it is very likely that the others do as well.
Then again, with the different series that were made that year, it might be harder to associate on boxes problems with anothers. I am most interested in 3rd series packs since they have the potential to yield a Garvey RC and i'm looking to upgrade my 7. Most of the GAI packs i've seen don't identify the series and most people seem to want packs from the 4th series since it contains the Ryan card. From what i remember, the are aren't too many other (if any other) big $ cards in the 3rd series which would hopefully result in their being sold at discount since their expected yield isn't that high.
If anyone knows of anyone who has some reasonably priced 3rd series '71 OPC BB packs (boxes), i'd appreciate it if they passed word on to me. I saw that BBCExch. has a few on their site but their ask of $250-$300/pack is no where near what they've been selling for on eBay.
<< <i>Okay. Sometimes tone doesn't come across so well. I know I am guilty of that a lot.
I don't think I had anything else extraordinary to expound. Just more theory along the lines of packs being from potentially searched boxes. I've also known dealers who, when busting wax, either a) know the patterns and sell off packs from boxes that don't have good runs or b) they basically stop opening any box as soon as they hit the 'key' card from the set. So if they were opening a 1982 wax box, as soon as they got a Ripken in a box, they would stop opening the rest of the box and move on to the next one.
m >>
Another lovely aspect of the hobby. Honestly, sometimes I think that this hobby has sustained itself in spite of the people who make a living from it. I'm not the most introspective guy, but if I ever find myself jerking around with early '80's boxes, where my master plan is to pull a $25 Ripken card and pass of the dead packs on the next guy I think I'll take a minute and reevaluate.
Vegas works at the macro level, the vacationers work at the micro level.
1977 Topps Star Wars - "Space Swashbucklers"
<< <i>If the process is charted on a graph, you see two types of values. The first value is at a "macro" level, or the overall look of the graph. This is akin to the entire box scenerio. When one opens a single pack, they are no longer on the "marco" level of the chart, but the "micro" level of the chart, which is quite jagged with ups and downs.
Vegas works at the macro level, the vacationers work at the micro level. >>
I think long run and short run, as opposed to macro and micro, are the distinctions you're looking for. With an entire box you're getting closer to the long run, which should mean a gross decrease in variance. Whether that variance carries a positive expected value is another question entirely (in the case of '70 OPC unopened it probably doesn't), but your results should be closer to the expected result given the larger number of trials.