Make sure you check out the forum tips and tricks section!
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
What stickers were in the pack you opened? And how was their condition?
Yicks and Lipoff. Knight's move compliant.
So would that be considered a descending knight's move? I seem to recall a discussion from way back where you had never seen a descending move except in diecut packs.
Now on ebay....the ever elusive 3rd blue!!!
Those look sweet Dave. All appear to be in really pristine condition. I imagine we are looking at a lot of hard work.
News flash! Another unopened pack that I was almost certain did not exist has surfaced! In 13 years of paying attention, the only blue 8th series packs that ever turned up were 85-fold with wall poster ad.Years ago I acquired two 8th blues that had the 85-fold no ad wrapper. Greg did not think this pack existed, and borrowed one of mine to scan it. However, once I became educated, both of these packs were clearly re-sealed fakes, and no other example ever showed itself.Until last week, when Kruk Cards auctioned the lot shown below. While they were mislabeled as 7ths, the checklist showing said otherwise. I also believed they were real because of the source and the fact that both packs had nearly identical qualities. I was the only bidder. It's great to be the only one who knows/cares about this stuff!Received them today, and opened the one with the loose flap. Everything 100% legit. Another wacky mystery cleared up!(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)
Pack #7: 1973 2nd Series 21-fold pack with ludlow back showing(Image removed from quote.) (Image removed from quote.)This pack originates from a find by Greg Grant around 12 years ago. Pretty cool that not only did a stash of lud packs survive unopened, but the backs were actually showing to prove it! I think there are around 30 of these floating about in the hobby.
If you look carefully you can see the "snap back" text and the "REMOVABLE" text from the black Ludlow back.
Still can't see it, but I'll take your word for it.. I guess I have worse eyes than I thought.
The "to remove snap back" line is right next to the pack seal...the V from "removable" is right next to the quacker can.(Image removed from quote.)
Pack #73: 1979 Test Pack(Image removed from quote.) (Image removed from quote.)I've never really had a feel for how rare this pack is. On the one hand, they seem to turn up now and then on ebay. On the other hand, with several collectors going for the singles to complete sets, several seem to get opened as well. So it's anyone's guess how many are still unopened.
I've never seen these sets. Are they just like the normal reissues?
They look very much like normal 1st and 2nd series white backs from 1973, only the die cuts are different, usually featuring sharper corners than the originals. Here is the write up:http://www.wackypacks.com/stickers/testpack/
What is the current theory on the purpose/source of the square cut band-ache that is on my uncut strips from series 1 and that I also found in the wild as a single card and I hear others have also found them. Must have been part of some set....
Total mystery as far as I know. Some connection to the cloth series die cut?
What is the evidence that it is not part of the 1979 set? I believe there was an uncut sheet sold by Toppsvault that was presented as the 1979 test set sheet but was that pure speculation by ToppsVault guys doing the best they can to figure out what some of the stuff was?
......... but was that pure speculation by ToppsVault guys doing the best they can to figure out what some of the stuff was?
This statement has proven true in my experience with the 79-80 Topps Vault reissue items. For example I recently inquired on a Wormy Packages production photo that was listed as a 1979 reissue piece. The Topps Vault cert verified this. I asked the seller what the dimensions were and he instructed his staff to send me the "dimensions" and instead they sent me the actual item. It turned out to be a good thing because upon closer inspection I realized this was from the Album set and not the 79 reissue set. I promptly mailed it back to him. There is also a wrapper proof I have that is mislabeled I think. There are other examples but I cant think of them at the moment.
Based on titles pulled from packs it does seem to correlate with the mail-in poster.Evidently, some kind of white backed test sheet was produced based on the cloth sheet, with that layout and die cuts. Your strips come from this sheet. I guess there must be different die cuts on many of the titles, do your strips bear this out?
I am not really sure what you are asking in terms of the strips bearing this out. All corners are square in my strips, corners are not square on cloth stickers so I don't see the correlation between the two.
These infamous strips and the cloth sheet do not share the same configuration. Why are you correlating these square cut cards to cloth series at all? It seems much more logical they are related to the 1979 test set. Just because people didn't pull a band-ache doesn't mean it wasn't part of that set. Does this suggest that all the write-ups, poorman copyrights and websites are theories and that one is no more fool proof than the others?
I haven't discussed this stuff in ten years and my memory is a bit fuzzy. I see now that the cloth sheet is not configured like the strips, which are configured like the die cut sheet. Still, I don't think the strips are related to the 1979 test. Band-Ache wasn't used in the OPC 1st series or the wall poster, suggesting it was already C&D'd back then. Also, the correspondence between the wall poster and test set is pretty compelling.
I have no idea what you're talking about anymore "Tom," but I've forgotten most of what I ever knew about hardcore wacky research. I'm not speaking on this anymore, please refer all questions to Fanatical & Sickly.
Here's the distinction you're missing "Tom." I have never put a theory out there as fact when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. My article that you keep referring to is just a collection of observations of changes made in the sheet configurations. Any speculation as to the reasons for those changes is presented as speculation.Rusty's discussion of the "die cut test set" is written in such a way that someone who didn't know better would think what he's presenting is factual. It is speculation that is not identified as speculation. I really have a hard time believing you can't see the difference.