Wax Pack - Legit...or resealed?

Anybody out there really good at spying tampered or resealed was packs? I have some doubts about these two wax packs but I can't quite tell from the roller marks, etc.. It may be tough to see in the pics but what about the corner folds, etc.? If you can give me a guess based on some experience I would greatly appreciate it!











0
Comments
Besides the corners (which are not looking good, way too loose and extra folds), the packs do not pass the "puffy test".
Look at the profile pictures, especially pic #2 of the first pack and the last picture. It is "puffy". It should not be "puffy". Packs are puffy at the factory, but once they're stacked in a box, they flatten out and develop a recognizable look to them. Eveyone talks about the seal and the corners, but nobody talks about the edges. If you have any late 80's stuff sitting around, look at the pack in profile. You'll see what i mean.
<< <i>Does anyone catch the "irony" (pun intended) with the iron-on illustration on the back? >>
////////
That was my first thought!
Or Regional Canadian Baseball Issues?
Come be a contributor to the OPC Baseball Wiki. It's free and easy!
OPeeChee.Wikispaces.Com
With regard to the roller seal on back: when packs came off the production line they were essentially "sealed" with a thin sheet of hot wax, so if the pack is authentic, the horizontal roller wax marks on the back should run untouched and not be broken. If a pack is opened up, it is very difficult (though not impossible) for recreate that natural seal on back, once it is broken..And since many resealers buy wrappers on the secondary market, original roller seals are tough to replicate for these pack factory guys..In addition, a number of these resealers using heating elements to "seal" or reseal the back on back, which will further distort or damage the original roller marks on an authentic pack.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I agree with summerof68 that the roller seal is the key element to consider but one would really have to be familiar with the appearance of the roller seal from seeing other examples from that era to make a better guess. Those packs simply won't look the same as more modern examples so it's like comparing apples and oranges to some extent.
Does anyone have any packs from back then for comparison?
<< <i>Really bad reseals...almost as bad as it gets..As packcollector said, you can see the original outline of the pack in the crease in the wrapper. Unfortunately, there are far better fakes than these on the market, too..
With regard to the roller seal on back: when packs came off the production line they were essentially "sealed" with a thin sheet of hot wax, so if the pack is authentic, the horizontal roller wax marks on the back should run untouched and not be broken. If a pack is opened up, it is very difficult (though not impossible) for recreate that natural seal on back, once it is broken..And since many resealers buy wrappers on the secondary market, original roller seals are tough to replicate for these pack factory guys..In addition, a number of these resealers using heating elements to "seal" or reseal the back on back, which will further distort or damage the original roller marks on an authentic pack. >>
That's great information - Thanks!
<< <i>Does anyone have any packs from back then for comparison? >>
I do and to me these look as phony as a $3 bill. I wouldn't touch them.
Plus you've got Duncan, Manny and Grote weighing in. That alone is more than enough opinions to make an intelligent decision.
Run!
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's