![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, you heard right - I have just bought another National Chicle pack from 1935. This one I am almost certain has the Bronko Nagurski card on top. I studied all 36 cards and decided that the card could be either 34, 35 or 36.
But my conclusion is that based on what I see, it is Nagurski. What would you do? Grade the pack and leave it intact? Open the pack and grade the card? Just add it my inventory and showcase it as is. I know there will be others who would say to “try and x-ray or CT scan it”. But in my opinion that is cheating and that’s not what our hobby is all about - except for those that see a way to make a quick buck. There are also those that say it’s only a one card pack and you should be able to see the card through the wrapper, but that’s not always that easy / these are wrappers that are 90 years old - I can’t see the card through the majority of them even with a magnifying glass and good light. But if you are an expert on packs and want to offer an opinion, I can send you a picture from my phone. Steve Dynamictwo@aol.com P.S. Could be one of the key finds in football card history - not likely another one will ever be found or exists in unopened pack form. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello Sir and incredible item. Given your 3 choices the one for me, keep pack as is and enjoy it in its original state. A large part of collecting is the mystery and intrigue along with the lore of different pieces, your pack checks all the boxes as is. If you get a chance a photo would be awesome.
__________________
H Murphy Collection https://www.flickr.com/photos/154296763@N05/ |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Awesome Steve! Keep as is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes thank you for your input - I usually feel that when presented with such a decision, I always opt to keep as is.
Update: A number of experts agree, including me, that the top card is 100% Nagurski, either real or reprint. That is the issue that concerns me as that card has been reprinted and it’s not very difficult to acquire a reprint. Short of opening the pack, is there any other way to determine the age of the contents? Thanks again to all!! Steve |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
leave as is. wow.
__________________
Baseball is our saving Grace! |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
( h @ $ e A n + l e y |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Okay / let’s tackle that question - I don’t grade my packs because I have seen too many packs ruined by the grading system. Yes it legitimizes the insides but if you are mostly keeping them anyway there is no need for me personally to grade them.
If I can grade them and they come back graded in the exact same condition with no tears or crumpling, I am all in. Also, since I jumped into collecting and then selling my dups, I have sold more packs than anyone can truly imagine. I have sold to collectors who do submit them for grading and those that don’t and I have sold them to pack breakers. While I have not personally sent them in for grading, I have been approached by auction houses to grade them and then put them up for auction, and I may test that out soon. But I have also been selling comics and cards for 50 years so my age also dictates how much more I want to dive in as I am doing fine as is. Only reason to grade my packs is I could sell a ton more of them. Maybe soon. Any more questions? I am always open and ready to text, email or talk on the phone. Thanks, Steve |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Grading the packs makes them more easily sellable and obviously at a higher price. Just like grading of cards does the same or authenticating an autograph.
If you worry or suspect the pack may have been opened and a reprint placed in the pack and resealed that would be a particularly bad outcome. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am the first one to admit that I can sell a ton of packs by grading them. so instead of selling 20-30 packs a year, I will sell 100-200 packs a year. Sounds great but I still want them to come back to me in the exact same condition that they left me. Is that too much to ask from professional graders? When they guarantee me they will not damage my packs - I am all in. As a collector, I collect the pack, and while I care about the contents, I am more interested in the condition of the wrapper and then the contents are secondary. But I hear you all and I am always open to change. We will see.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Does no one authenticate without slabbing? Seems like a really easy way to answer all your questions.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I have seen you list packs you have on hand from time to time and it is quite impressive. Chase
__________________
( h @ $ e A n + l e y |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chase, Thanks - I appreciate your comments. Not everyone gets it - but you do. There may be a time when I sell everything as I am concerned that this year may be one where I may have to pass the National for health reasons for only the second time in 40+ years. As of now I will be one of the wall booths (5th one in) as you enter the show. Anyone can stop by and check out my display which will have the Nagurski pack for viewing. Also I haven’t stopped buying - I bought 17 packs in the past 4 months that are not yet on my for sale list - which include many 1 cent dups that I will showcase in late July. Stay safe, Steve
Last edited by Steve_NY; 04-11-2025 at 11:05 PM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Sale: 1935 National Chicle Nagurski PSA 2.5 | hcv123 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 09-07-2024 04:19 PM |
35 National Chicle Bronko Nagurski | investinrookies | Football Cards Forum | 8 | 05-03-2024 02:34 PM |
WTB 1935 National Chicle Nagurski | ezez420 | Football Cards Forum | 0 | 09-20-2018 08:02 AM |
1935 National Chicle Bronko Nagurski SGC | sycks22 | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 0 | 11-15-2011 08:39 PM |
1935 NATIONAL CHICLE #34 BRONKO NAGURSKI PSA 3 | Archive | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 0 | 03-06-2006 07:23 PM |