1961 Fleer Basketball Wax Pack Sale--Wowza!

flatfoot816

they do not come up very often--and with the surge in the Wilt rookie and others from this iconic set--I am always in the market for more wax packs.

but this price was staggering.....almost $7K for a GAI-8.5 with tears

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-Fleer-Basketball-Five-Cent-Wax-Pack-GAI-8-5-NM-MT-PWCC-/142144663340?hash=item21187b6f2c:g:Qr4AAOSwLF1X-~c~

mrmint23

PWCC auction states Perhaps the all important Wilt Chamberlain rookie is held within. However the GAI flip states Chamberlain on back?

bishop

My only basketball set

coinspacks

looks like the seller took a $3k loss...
here is the same pack (same serial number).
https://sports.ha.com/itm/basketball/1961-fleer-basketball-5-cent-wax-pack-gai-nm-mt-85-with-chamberlain-on-back-/a/7160-80362.s?ic4=OtherResults-SampleItem-071515

rtimmer

Wow what an awful listing not putting Chamberlain in the title and then saying "perhaps" when you can fairly clearly make out a decent part of chamberlain in the scan really reduced the end pricing.

Also who ever sold this took a bath on it too looking like they bought it for over $10k very recently. When I started this past thread I wondered why the pack sold twice so closely and with this being a 3rd sell at a big loss the red flags are waving.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/969567/top-5-basketball-pack-sale

Whomever has that lone PSA graded Chamberlain pack must be pretty happy these days!!

ugaskidawg

If I was the consignee, I'd be pissed with that listing.

vols1

The Chamberlain way off center. It looks like there is no border at all.

bighurt2000

How could the person who owned this pack let this listing go with no mention of Wilt Chamberlain
on the back in the title? Only thing I can think of is they didn't know it was listed?

How good is PWCC with letting the consignee know when items are going to be listed? Also how are
they on communications with consignees when a listing is wrong can they end or fix said auction with
in 24 hrs.?

This was a bad oversight on PWCC and the seller. My thoughts is the consignee thought they were
going to make money on this pack more eyes and all on eBay. If it were my card this listing error would
not have happened and if so I would be looking for some kind of compensation. Wilt Chamberlain on the
back is clearly stated on the pack the consignee shouldn't have to mention this to PWCC.

James

grote15

My thoughts is the consignee thought they were
going to make money on this pack more eyes and all on eBay.

That would be a risky assumption.

bighurt2000

My thoughts is the consignee thought they were
going to make money on this pack more eyes and all on eBay.

That would be a risky assumption.

That is my assumption but it shouldn't have been a -$3000 assumption
PWCC turned this potential profit into a big loss. Will never know now if
the buyer would have made money on this pack or there reasons for selling.

James

grote15

I do agree PWCC could have done a better job at providing details about the pack with the listing.

That said, as Manny stated in the OP, $7,500 for an 8.5 with tears (likely relegating it to a NM 7 grade) is a strong price for this pack, so $10K+ seems to be overpriced from the start, and perhaps not the best gauge as to the pack's true value, which may be somewhere in between. I'd also say that since the Wilt is clearly MC as it shows through the wrapper, the value would (and should) be lower than for a pack with a Wilt RC showing on back that is not clearly miscut.

ZTarg

You all really believe that the person who consigned the card wasn't the high bidder here? The fees on a 7K sale are easier to palate than a 3K loss. So now he's into the pack for 10K plus whatever the fees from this "sale" are.

baz518

Consignee probably didn't mind no mention of the back card because they probably didn't want people to look at the back. Being that miscut almost negates the fact of who it is, I'd rather have a centered common showing on the back and hold out hope there was a Wilt within.

bishop

Pack

bishop

flatfoot816

well truth be told I didn't even know there was a Wilt on back---just looked at the description. That was a quick flip for sure. And does anyone think more people look at PWCC versus Heritage? Interesting debate for sure

rtimmer

@baz518 said:
Consignee probably didn't mind no mention of the back card because they probably didn't want people to look at the back. Being that miscut almost negates the fact of who it is, I'd rather have a centered common showing on the back and hold out hope there was a Wilt within.

If it were mine I'd be upset even the worst looking Wilt rookie makes it more valuable and desirable than the best centered common or even another more desired card like an Attles rookie. I think it goes for atleast $9k on it worst day with a good write up.