Menu Note


Use the menu below if you'd like to search for posts that relate to your interests. Note - this was just created on 12-30-20 so I will need to link the posts in the coming weeks. Until then, you can scroll down to the labels on the right to find the same information.


Thursday, February 28, 2019

Maybe I Should Sell My Unopened 1970 Kellogg's Packs?

I found that the pack-busting site vintagebreaks.com has a 1970 Kellogg's six-card pack available.  Once six people pay for a random spot the pack will be opened.  The cost per card - $30.  For those too tired to do the math, that's $180 for the pack. 

I have a decent number of packs, but I don't think that I've paid more than $30 for any pack.  Should I be selling my duplicates to these folks?

The pack has Tommy Harper on the front.  Harper is card #74 in the set.  Based on that I am going to guess that the only stars possible in the pack are as follows - Harmon Killebrew, Bob Gibson and Joe Morgan.  Denny McLain was a star then but he's not considered a star now.


This is the pack from my collection, not the one on the website.

Give me your best guess as to who will be the six cards.  I will follow this and let you know which six cards are pulled from this pack.

My guess - Harper, Harrelson, Lolich, Perry, J., Gibson, Bunker.  Cards that won't be in the pack - all cards from #1 to #59.

I need to get my old backup file restored so I can look at the 1970 Kellogg's sheets. 




4 comments:

  1. Wow. $180 for a pack? If I had these packs and could get $180 for each one, I'd sell them... then turn around and buy a complete set.

    ReplyDelete
  2. D.Wilson, w. Horton, Harrelson, Chance, J. Morgan , Perry

    ReplyDelete
  3. They've got a great business model if there are people willing to pay $30 for a 1 in 6 chance of taking that Tommy Harper. What a great idea. Sell that and buy an entire set.

    If they sell for $180 I wonder what their price is for buying packs?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark - we both had the same range, but we both only got a few correct.

    ReplyDelete