Wax vs. cello is one better?

MrNearMint

I was checking out 84 topps on bbce and noticed that 84 topps wax and cello boxes are only $5 apart. Is one "better" than the other? Which one is more sought after, which one would hold value better?

And I'm not just talking about 84 topps, I mean wax vs. cello in general.

What's everyone's opinions?

cjaccardi

cello , the gum ruins the cards

bziddy

I thought cellos crushed more corners.

cjaccardi

i opened up some 1987 topps wwf cards a couple of days ago and some whole packs were ruined with cards being black from gum mold. I have 3 trash bags full of cards that are black or full of wax

Raulsmaster

<< <i>i opened up some 1987 topps wwf cards a couple of days ago and some whole packs were ruined with cards being black from gum mold. I have 3 trash bags full of cards that are black or full of wax >>



Although this happens w some product, wax has yielded many more 10's by percentage in my time and I've experimented plenty

Mefer

I think it depends on what your purpose is. If you are looking for 10s, wax wins hands down. If you are looking to preserve unopened, a nice star card on top of an unopened cello has a lot more pop in my book.

grote15

<< <i>I thought cellos crushed more corners. >>



For 1970s cellos, this is most certainly true, but in the 80s, Topps often wrapped cellos very loosely in some years, so the corners are better protected in those packs. The gum is not usually an issue in either pack though unless it is fused to the card and leaves a stain.

addicted2ebay

Had success with both. With a cello at least you can tell how the centering will be.

bigdcards

Cellos have been more expensive forever, but I have noticed the gap closing quicky. I dont think people in the unopened market are thinking about the cards that much anymore, so the number of cards is mattering less and less. I like wax boxes, so it's been nice, but I don't think the big gap will come back.