1962 Topps Baseball Unopened Wax Pack PSA 7 NRMT !!

stevek

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330455646813&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

I almost pulled the trigger on this - I'm surprised it didn't sell at this price?

jmoran19

I was watching that pack too. I think people were scared off because it didn't have the series noted.

Bosox1976

yum.

milbroco

Oh why couldn't this be available when I got my tax return..............
Bob

gecko109

<< <i>Oh why couldn't this be available when I got my tax return..............
Bob >>




No offense intended dude.....but if you need a "tax return" to be able to afford a $400 pack of cards....perhaps you shouldnt even be thinking of buying a $400 pack of cards. Just sayin.

stevek

<< <i>I was watching that pack too. I think people were scared off because it didn't have the series noted. >>



Interesting - You probably noticed they had a PSA 6 for $299 that didn't sell either, perhaps for the same reason.

stevek

<< <i>yum. >>



I'll second that motion - would have been fun to do a live bust here...one of these days.......

mccardguy1

<< <i>

<< <i>Oh why couldn't this be available when I got my tax return..............
Bob >>




No offense intended dude.....but if you need a "tax return" to be able to afford a $400 pack of cards....perhaps you shouldnt even be thinking of buying a $400 pack of cards. Just sayin. >>



Are you f-in kidding me?? are you back? didnt you leave? Oh thats right, that was the other forum you ran away from like a sissy! Why dont you leave this one like you did the other one?

Who are you to tell someone if he should be buying something or not? Seriously...mind your own freaking business and go rent another corvette so you can brag some more!

jmoran19

<< <i>

<< <i>I was watching that pack too. I think people were scared off because it didn't have the series noted. >>



Interesting - You probably noticed they had a PSA 6 for $299 that didn't sell either, perhaps for the same reason. >>



Yep, that one had a tear in the wrapper at the top as well, PSA really needs to address that as a lot of us pack collectors won't send in wax packs anymore.

leathtech

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I was watching that pack too. I think people were scared off because it didn't have the series noted. >>



Interesting - You probably noticed they had a PSA 6 for $299 that didn't sell either, perhaps for the same reason. >>



Yep, that one had a tear in the wrapper at the top as well, PSA really needs to address that as a lot of us pack collectors won't send in wax packs anymore. >>



I'm surprised its' taking PSA so long to figure this out - there has to be away to seal the pack in tighter to hold the gum from sliding into the rapper.

grote15

Nice looking pack...would have liked to have seen a scan of the back, too...boy how the value of vintage packs has declined over the last few years...I remember when a GAI 7 1962 pack would fetch $600+ easy on ebay even with series unknown..

Zulu

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I was watching that pack too. I think people were scared off because it didn't have the series noted. >>



Interesting - You probably noticed they had a PSA 6 for $299 that didn't sell either, perhaps for the same reason. >>



Yep, that one had a tear in the wrapper at the top as well, PSA really needs to address that as a lot of us pack collectors won't send in wax packs anymore. >>



I'm surprised its' taking PSA so long to figure this out - there has to be away to seal the pack in tighter to hold the gum from sliding into the rapper. >>




Has PSA figured out how to seal the wax packs, so they do not tear? Or is it still a problem?

Brian

bking

Putting my engineer's hat on - I'm not sure what they CAN do. The need is to secure the gum so it doesn't move around, and there are only two ways to do that AFAIK - by pressing the gum securely against the cards or by fixing the edges of the gum using some sort of "framing'. The former would most likely damage the first card and perhaps the package due to the pressure, and the latter would not only do the same but would also likely detract from the visual appearance of the pack due to the extra structure.

So, what we're left with is: either risk damaging the pack in order to prevent damaging the pack, or surgically remove the gum via a slit at the end. Now, who would be OK with that?

Griffins

Bking, I'll respectfully disagree. I think the issue here is that PSA invested a lot of money in a badly flawed design and molds for this holder, and isn't about to change it. That being said, I think GAI's holder protects the pack better by putting a bit of pressure on the face of the pack. While it is not perfect, it's not as rigid and packs don't seem to be destroyed as often.
I'd love to see PSA's packs redesigned, both for function and aesthetics. It would seem they were going for a holder that would work for a variety of purposes, but isn't ideal for any of them. I would hope if and when they do get it right they will consider one that will protect the pack on every surface (sides, front, and back) and showcase the pack, and not the holder. As it is the pack is a relatively small percentage of the display, and there is too much space for the holder. Looking at the best products PSA has, the T3/T9 holder and the coin holder, and you see how the card/coin is the focus and not all the plastic. Hopefully if they can engineer a pack like that that also protects the product we'll finally have something in which to encase our packs.

CNote

You think PSA would be for the molds? I doubt that...whatever company in China makes these covered that cost, because they probably make 1000 other pre-fab plastic cases for companies: DVD cases, CD jewel boxes, limitless blister packed cases.

Griffins

Joe cited the cost of tooling up for a pack holder as one of the reasons they wouldn't be grading packs, when he was asked about it at the registry luncheon in Cleveland in '04.
The amortization of the mold for the T3/T9 holder was also given as a reason for the higher cost of slabbing cards in that holder, and was later lowered, presumably when the volume picked up.

otwcards

While it would not be the definitive solution, perhaps a clear or nearly clear, pliable, compressive type of insert place at the back of the pack to press the front slightly securing the gum. While the back of the pack might be slightly obscured, it would reduce the looseness of the gum to freely float and rip the wax pack.

The compression insert would be able to be used in a varying degree of pack applications since the pliability would allow for thinner or thicker packs in a holder with a one size channel. Alas, it would be a temporary solution, but would save pack buyers a lot of frustration when buying a NM/MT vintage pack only to receive it with gum tears that are the fault of no one other than the inadequacies of the slabbing.

grote15

I agree with Griffins.

I look forward to the holder's redesign at some point as the tears in the wrappers caused by loose gum when the pack is in transit is a frustrating issue for the unopened collector, especially in the case where you buy a pack with an intact piece of gum and it breaks up and tears the wrapper during shipping, which happens quite a bit, lowering the value of the pack, unfortunately, despite the grade on the flip.

BunchOBull

A polysleeve under a slight vacuum would work wonders.