Originally Posted by deweyinthehall (Post 2412040)

A basic (dumb?) question from someone who already has 50-60 variations in his PC and is wondering how deep into this swamp to go....

Are ALL 792 cards available in light and dark logo versions?

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall (Post 2412040)

A basic (dumb?) question from someone who already has 50-60 variations in his PC and is wondering how deep into this swamp to go....

Are ALL 792 cards available in light and dark logo versions?

Anyone want to speculate what the heck was happening at Topps in late 1990 and early 1991 that caused this insanity?

Originally Posted by Rich Klein (Post 2412376)

Whenever I see a bold/barely visible 91 Topps variation in the COMC Data Base, I do break them out. I was surprised to add a couple in the past couple of weeks.

This overproduced era has some master set challenges with 91 leading the parade. 1991 Donruss and the stripes/pattern variations are up there as well.

Couple of other notes

IIRC -- 1991 Topps was produced at more than one factory because of the sheer volume of cards made. That also caused some of the variations

I think every year from 1987-92 Donruss has variations because the factory sets were made differently than the unopened pack cards.

Also, I know I've run into people who disagree but I'm still wish (and told Topps that back in the day) there had been some stamp to indicate a pack pulled card. The point was how to create extra value. As I pointed out, a friend of mine pulled a 1989 common and what could he do with that card. If the card had a stamp it would have bad more value.

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage (Post 2412531)

I just came across your column on the 1991 Topps E&Vs in the May 1991 Beckett. In it you mention that the Beckett in-house team for E&Vs confirmed several of the variations that Topps notified the hobby media of. One of those was Efrain Valdez' 6-11-66 birthdate variation. Now, I'm sure this info is very fresh and clear and easy to recall some 30+ years later but is there any chance that you can confirm anything pertaining to this card?

Originally Posted by Rich Klein (Post 2412717)

I remember some of what existed 30 years ago or even 20 years ago but if I wrote we had the card, we had the card. Beyond that I have no idea where the card is now. Who knew in 1991 we would still be discussing Valdez more than 30 years later :)

Sounds like the very difficult 2002 Topps Albert Pujols (IIRC the year correctly) where the original back was Placido Polanco but the last 10 percent of the print run Topps told us had Pujols. Yep, on that one I remember we had one of those at Beckett but again no idea where said card would be nowadays

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage (Post 2412719)

The Valdez just drives me nuts and Im not sure why:) There used to be an image on TCDB but apparently they have had issues with photoshopped cards being uploaded before. Just enough lead to keep me concerned 30 years later!

For what its worth, I swear that I saw an ebay completed sale for the corrected Pujols* in 2007 or so. I know there is an old BMB thread somewhere in the internet ether where I posted about it around then too.

*Not the HTA or Liimited or Opening Day, the real deal

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2412801)

I am in the doubtful camp on both Valdez and Pujols but woold gladly be wrong

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2412801)

I am in the doubtful camp on both Valdez and Pujols but woold gladly be wrong

Originally Posted by Rich Klein (Post 2412863)

The Valdes we probably had but there was so many variations in those days that one is a distant memory.

The Pujols not only exists but was confirmed at the time by Clay Luraschi at Topps and I'll always accept Clay's word on things. Plus we have seen those Puhols cards

Rich

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 2412950)

I didn't see it on any of the lists is #659 Oscar Azocar missing the Logo on the back a known variation?

Attachment 610310

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 2412867)

How scarce are the manager cards with the logos?

Attachment 610261

Originally Posted by frankhardy (Post 2412881)

Rich,

I consider you a well respected member of this board and this hobby. I don't know who you are referring to. Is it not possible that he was mistaken correcting the HTA, Opening Day, Chrome, and Refractors? If even 10 or 20 exist, why is there not any evidence of one in existence? And if 10 or 20 exist, why would Topps go through the trouble of correcting it for the flagship regular card? And if more than 10 or 20 exist (just random numbers that I'm pulling out of my head), then surely we would see some out there at some point. I have been searching for over 20 years for just one.

Again. I highly respect your opinion. We may just have to agree to disagree and that's okay.

Originally Posted by frankhardy (Post 2412881)

Rich,

I consider you a well respected member of this board and this hobby. I don't know who you are referring to. Is it not possible that he was mistaken correcting the HTA, Opening Day, Chrome, and Refractors? If even 10 or 20 exist, why is there not any evidence of one in existence? And if 10 or 20 exist, why would Topps go through the trouble of correcting it for the flagship regular card? And if more than 10 or 20 exist (just random numbers that I'm pulling out of my head), then surely we would see some out there at some point. I have been searching for over 20 years for just one.

Again. I highly respect your opinion. We may just have to agree to disagree and that's okay.

Originally Posted by Rich Klein (Post 2413138)

We can and should agree to disagree: Clay L. was at the time the PR contact at Topps and has moved up since then on the corporate ladder. I don't know his exact postion today but he is extremely knowledgeable about the hobby and things related to Topps. We took his word in 2002 and we'll take his word today :)

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 2413093)

I don't know if this has been discussed previously but there is a stray print mark(s) on the #336 Ken Patterson. Depending on the registration it can be a combination of three different blue, pink and/or white marks. From what I've seen all of the Patterson cards with the TM in the middle of the banner have some form of the mark while all of the Patterson cards with the TM high in the banner lack any form of the stray print mark.

Just for a reference on the already documented High TM variation all of my 91 Topps were wax pack pulled in 91 and 1 out of the 10 Pattersons that I have is the high TM variation.

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage (Post 2413179)

Interesting on the print mark.

I think that your ratio may be affected by what packaging types you bought in 1991. I have never encountered any difficulty in locating either TM placement. I'd even stopped pulling his card when I came across them for this reason.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 2413189)

Hey Dylan. If my post came off as suggesting that that's the ratio of the TM placement that's not what I intended. I don't know anything about the Topps packaging but I know guys like you who are very knowledgeable about the Topps products use the packaging/regional information for some of the variations.

All of the 91 Topps that I have came from wax packs that were purchased in Eastern NY and the two back print logo errors that I posted came from those packs.

I actually saved the empty boxes for several years before I finally threw them out. I do still have a box with 25 or 30 unopened packs in it.

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2413224)

My collecting parameters for Topps used to be anything and everything listed in the Standard Catalog from 1948 to 1994.The Catalog was the first place I saw reference to the Pujols and started looking. After 1994 the proliferation of Topps baseball offerings doubled and I limited myself to the base set and any update/traded set ( and later all the Heritage sets).

But that Parameter included Box bottom cards like those pictured by Pat above. They used to be listed in the Catalog as sets until 2011 when SCD dropped post 1980 listings. So at least until 1994, if there were cards on the boxes, I have a set of each :).

Given what Rich and Dylan have posted I will try to remain open minded on the Pujols. But I also know Shane and his absolute dedication to his Cardinal collection and his search for even very rare Cardinal cards ( anyone else have a 55 Topps Hocus Focus Wally Moon ?). So I feel a little like Thomas....a little doubtful until I touch one or someone who has it posts it ;) :)

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2387341)

I have another question for you 1991 Topps collectors. I think this has been previously discussed. It is my understanding that prior to the issue of the set in packs Topps went into the market and got at least 3 full sets of each prior issue. Someone could win a complete run as the grand prize in the instant win game insert contest ( you can collect a set of the instant win cards as well. I have a set minus 3 which I think may have been single issue big winner cards....not sure). Anyone know if the grand prize was collected

I think you could also win a complete set of each the individual sets as well, right ?. Anyone know if all sets were claimed/won ?

Finally you could get individual cards inserted into the 91 packs. ( I do not think 1951 was included). The oversized cards ( 52-56) were not included as inserts and had wo be claimed with winner cards. I think some pos 56 cards with a recognized higher value at the time also had to be claimed by winner card. Not sure. Anyone know if all cards were claimed ? Wonder if some decent value cards still remain out there in unopened packs

The inserts cards I have seen, many possibly bought on the secondary market for the promotion, were not "mint" condition cards

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 2387350)

I opened a ton of 91 Topps wax pack back in the day. I pulled one 88 common out of a pack. Nobody else I actually knew pulled anything out of a pack back then.

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 2387304)

The fun is that there's still room to discover something "new" in 91 Topps.

And with differences of opinion about what's a variation or not, there probably won't be a truly complete list.

For example, I separate out a third version of the backs that under UV is a very dark red. It's reactive, but in an odd way.

I also have set aside cards with what I think are stock differences also UV related. And a couple potential gloss differences.

And my list for varieties that can be seen has stuff that isn't on other lists.

It's a fun set if you're both cheap and insane.

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin (Post 2414279)

Anyone have pics of these two variations? I’ve looked at dozens of each but can’t be sure I actually have the two versions of each. Thanks.

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage (Post 2414319)

What variations?

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin (Post 2414397)

545 Murphy concave/convex bat
673 Olsen helmet variations

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage (Post 2414442)

These two are tricky. The Olson helmet thing may be the result of on an offset or misaligned plate that creates the effect of the A entering the inner border frame. I was always skeptical of it as a true variation but it seemed accepted by everyone else.

To clarify the Murphy, this refers to the piece of burgundy border/frame that touches his bat. The Murphy bat variations should be fairly easy to find, ten+ years ago, I saw both so frequently I stopped pulling them from boxes.

I hope this helps make some sense of these two.

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage (Post 2413179)

Interesting on the print mark.

I think that your ratio may be affected by what packaging types you bought in 1991. I have never encountered any difficulty in locating either TM placement. I'd even stopped pulling his card when I came across them for this reason.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 2418651)

I've found a few new variation that are what I would consider true variations.

Here's one of them. Bob Melvin can be found with missing or incomplete letters in the word company in the copyright line and a correctly printed company in the copyright line.
With the cards I have the correctly printed variation is 4 times tougher.

Originally Posted by aredsfan (Post 2414956)

I've got probably between 10,000 and 15,000 1991 Topps baseball cards now.

I've been snapping up every lot that looks like it has potential on ShopGoodwill.com.

I was down to needing only:
- 2 non-A*B* dark logo variations (120 Joe Carter and 270 Mark McGwire with the . missing before 1987 SLG 618)
- 7 non-dark logo variations (Morgan, Boyd w/black border present, Bush w/no print code, Trebelhorn w/A* print code, Whiten, Checklist 5 with #433 Palacios, and Drabek)
- all (62) of the A*B* dark logo variations.

I had won an auction for an 800-count box of 1991 Topps baseball, but I was having regret because it was going to be over $25 including shipping, and I thought I was going to be throwing away that money. Since I AM a baseball card collector (and a gambler, which goes without saying), I decided to go ahead and pay for the auction. I received the cards today aaaannnnnd.....

I pulled the Bush no print code and the Treblehorn A* print code. AMAZING!

Also, there were a TON of dark logo cards, but not the 120 Joe Carter. I forgot to check the McGwire. I also didn't check any of them for A*B* yet. Will do tonight.

KEEP THE FAITH! :D

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage (Post 2418666)

I think the Melvin definitely counts. At the least it qualifies as an RPD in my book. I'll add it to the checklist. Nice find!

Originally Posted by sthoemke (Post 2418686)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the A*B* cards have errors/variations.