1991 Topps variations

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Pat R

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.

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

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.

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.

100_2818.jpg

img197.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

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

[frankhardy]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

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

I appreciate the compliment, Al. I love the "Doubting Thomas" reference from the Bible!

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Pat R

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.

I wish I could give info on 1991 Topps with accuracy and certainty but aside from a handful of variations appearing in only one packing type ("picture cards" vs. "bubble gum cards" for example) it really is a big mess and hard to pin everything down. I've had two periods of serious documentation attempts: 2005-2007 and 2023 with a ton opened in between. I keep finding that there is a large number of err/cor combinations for most packaging types. Without opening cases with date stamps, it remains a crapshoot!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

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.

This is a good example of what I have been working on for years with the T206 print flaws. Despite being printed decades apart and with very different printing methods there are some areas like the print flaws that produce similar patterns in relation to sheet layouts.

I was looking through a pack that I opened while I was having coffee this morning and I recognized the mark (I think it's some form of an alignment mark) and location on the Tom Browning card. It's the same mark and in the same location so I knew it had to have some relation to the Ken Patterson card and when I checked the F sheet Browning is in the same vertical row 3 cards down.


[IMG][/IMG]

[Pat R]

Just a note on the Efrain Valdez lines of text variations. All of the two lines of text variations have a small portion of the top of 88 in the Tulsa stats obstructed while it is clear on all of the no lines of text variations.