Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Mechanical error?

Gemyanks10Gemyanks10 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
Good afternoon,

I was looking around eBay this morning and found this:myurl

I can't find any information that Topps produced 15-card cello packs in 1992, and was wondering if this was a mechanical error on the flip. It's a pop 1 so if it is a mechanical error, it's misleading.
All I have found is that Topps produced standard wax packs, jumbo packs, rack packs and Christmas holiday factory sets for 1992. Thanks for any help guys.


Jimmy

Edited for spelling.
Always looking for OPC "tape intact" baseball wax boxes, and 1984 OPC baseball PSA 10's for my set. Please PM or email me if you have any available.

Comments

  • dennis07dennis07 Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭
    I opened a million of those --well maybe not a million-- back in the day. That looks like a regular 1992 Topps wax pack to me.
    Collecting 1970 Topps baseball
  • timpatgtimpatg Posts: 319


    << <i>I opened a million of those --well maybe not a million-- back in the day. That looks like a regular 1992 Topps wax pack to me. >>



    I agree. Just looks like a mislabel
  • Gemyanks10Gemyanks10 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭
    It looks like a standard 1992 Topps pack to me as well, thanks for the replies reaffirming I'm not missing something. It should be a pop 7 then not a pop 1.
    Always looking for OPC "tape intact" baseball wax boxes, and 1984 OPC baseball PSA 10's for my set. Please PM or email me if you have any available.
  • GrimsterGrimster Posts: 286 ✭✭✭
    Yup, just a mislabel.

    I had a 1991 stadium club pack that was a wax pack but was labeled a cello pack. Never got it corrected as it wasn't a huge deal for me.

  • baz518baz518 Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭✭
    Didn't the 92 packs come in both wax and cellophane wrappers? I'll double check later, but I think that's the case... if that's not right, then it was an issue right around that same time. IIRC, one of traded series was the same way.... packs were either wrapped a wax wrapper or cellophane wrapper.
  • Gemyanks10Gemyanks10 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Didn't the 92 packs come in both wax and cellophane wrappers? I'll double check later, but I think that's the case... if that's not right, then it was an issue right around that same time. IIRC, one of traded series was the same way.... packs were either wrapped a wax wrapper or cellophane wrapper. >>




    I have absolutely no idea, and would love to know the answer to that question. I looked earlier and all I could find online, as well as in the Beckett Almanac were that 1992 Topps baseball cards were produced in standard 15 card packs..the Almanac words it as a "plastic wrap pack", jumbo packs, racks and factory sets. I was never aware of wrapper differences in 1992, Although I think in 1992 or 1993, didn't Topps start using a different style wrapper altogether instead of the standard wax they were using up until that time? If there are 2 styles of wrappers for 1992, that's news to me and would love to know..thanks for any help.


    Jimmy
    Always looking for OPC "tape intact" baseball wax boxes, and 1984 OPC baseball PSA 10's for my set. Please PM or email me if you have any available.
  • baz518baz518 Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Didn't the 92 packs come in both wax and cellophane wrappers? I'll double check later, but I think that's the case... if that's not right, then it was an issue right around that same time. IIRC, one of traded series was the same way.... packs were either wrapped a wax wrapper or cellophane wrapper. >>




    I have absolutely no idea, and would love to know the answer to that question. I looked earlier and all I could find online, as well as in the Beckett Almanac were that 1992 Topps baseball cards were produced in standard 15 card packs..the Almanac words it as a "plastic wrap pack", jumbo packs, racks and factory sets. I was never aware of wrapper differences in 1992, Although I think in 1992 or 1993, didn't Topps start using a different style wrapper altogether instead of the standard wax they were using up until that time? If there are 2 styles of wrappers for 1992, that's news to me and would love to know..thanks for any help.


    Jimmy >>




    I'll dig out some packs tonight and see... it was either 91 or 92 that they switched from the traditional wax packs to something that looked (and was wrapped) like a wax pack, but a cellophane wrapper was used. It wasn't until 1994 that they switched to the more modern cellophane/foil pack crimped at the top and bottom (like 83 Michigan test packs).
  • Gemyanks10Gemyanks10 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭







    << <i>I'll dig out some packs tonight and see... it was either 91 or 92 that they switched from the traditional wax packs to something that looked (and was wrapped) like a wax pack, but a cellophane wrapper was used. It wasn't until 1994 that they switched to the more modern cellophane/foil pack crimped at the top and bottom (like 83 Michigan test packs). >>




    Ok I really appreciate that. Understood about the mylar "1983 Michigan test" wrapper starting in 1994. What's throwing me off here is that the pop report has 6 WAX packs in a 10, and just one CELLO pack, the one I linked in a 10, but no matter where I look, including eBay, every single pack looks the same. Whatever style wrapper they used in 92 was also very easy to see through. I can see what card is face out just by looking at all the scans on eBay lol.
    Always looking for OPC "tape intact" baseball wax boxes, and 1984 OPC baseball PSA 10's for my set. Please PM or email me if you have any available.
  • jackstrawjackstraw Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭
    I am not a wax collector and just wondering why would anyone submit such a pack for grading? Maybe to go with a graded set?
    Collector Focus

    ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
  • Gemyanks10Gemyanks10 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I am not a wax collector and just wondering why would anyone submit such a pack for grading? Maybe to go with a graded set? >>




    That's a very good possibility. 1992 is my "cut-off" year for collecting, and one of about 500 projects I'm working on is to obtain one graded wax and or cello pack in a PSA 10 from each major set from 1992 to as far back as I can go. It's a project I'm just working on passively. With certain years, if the price is right, I'll take as many as I can get. I like the way they display next to each other in the man cave and eventually, when the project is complete, I will upload pictures here image Once you get back into the 70's it seems though, that PSA 10 packs are so rare that I will probably have to settle for 8's and 9's.

    Always looking for OPC "tape intact" baseball wax boxes, and 1984 OPC baseball PSA 10's for my set. Please PM or email me if you have any available.
  • baz518baz518 Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭✭
    Well, I was off... and I don't have a huge sampling to study (although I looked into this when I started my Topps pack run). The 90 Topps Traded packs came in wax and cellophane variety (base set was wax only). 1991 base set came only in wax packs, while 91 Topps Traded packs were cellophane only. In 92, all packs went to cellophane (still resembling wax). Both 93 series had same design as 92, but dark blue and red backgrounds. 1991 was the last traditional cello pack for Topps, with 90 and 91 having solid color cellophane on front... they went to jumbos after that.

    So all that being said, you're correct it's a mechanical error... no wrapper variation and no "cellos" in 92.
  • Gemyanks10Gemyanks10 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭
    Thank you very much for that information. Hopefully this glitch in the pop report will be changed. I'm inclined to now e-mail the set registry people and have this changed. There is a "false sense of rarity" going on lol. I know it's 1992 and not 1952, but it's still a mistake and it's being marketed as a pop 1, even though it's technically a pop 7....
    Always looking for OPC "tape intact" baseball wax boxes, and 1984 OPC baseball PSA 10's for my set. Please PM or email me if you have any available.
  • dennis07dennis07 Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭
    Everyone is entitled to mistakes but this is one PSA probably shouldn't make. I guess the fact that it was a '92 they just took the word of the submitter
    and didn't do their due diligence.
    Collecting 1970 Topps baseball
  • dytch2220dytch2220 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭
    I don't see a mistake here. This is a cello pack, not a wax impregnated paper pack, which there were in 1992 also.
    The N8 Collection: PSA Registry Sets & Showcases
  • baz518baz518 Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I don't see a mistake here. This is a cello pack, not a wax impregnated paper pack, which there were in 1992 also. >>



    The mistake isn't how it's labeled (although one could argue cello packs describe a type of pack, rather than the material used to wrap it)... I think the mistake is that they labeled the same packs two different ways.
Sign In or Register to comment.