1991 Topps DS Poly Pack Wrappers

[Zach Wheat]

Has anyone ever opened (to confirm true DS cards are inside) a 1991 Topps Pack wrapped in polypropolene wrappers?

It occurred to me that Topps was experimenting with a number of production methods (wrappers, last year of gum)/printing (UV brightener) during the production of this set (and therefore has a lot of variations) including wrapping card packs in polypropolene wrappers instead of wax paper.

I have seen a number of DS packs - but they are all wrapped in wax. Anyone?

-Z

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Has anyone ever opened (to confirm true DS cards are inside) a 1991 Topps Pack wrapped in polypropolene wrappers?

It occurred to me that Topps was experimenting with a number of production methods (wrappers, last year of gum)/printing (UV brightener) during the production of this set (and therefore has a lot of variations) including wrapping card packs in polypropolene wrappers instead of wax paper.

I have seen a number of DS packs - but they are all wrapped in wax. Anyone?

-Z

Did they use polypropylene wrappers on the regular issue and if so what is the difference?

[jacksoncoupage]

I cant speak for DS with certainty but I do believe that they all came from wax/paper packs.

As for the regular cards, I have not observed any major difference in contents between poly or wax wrapper packs. I think the same combinations of err/cor cards can be found in both, save for the possibility of a few rarer variations only found in specific types of packaging.

[steve B]

I would like to mention that while the 91s are the most obvious, the backs reacting to UV or not goes back much farther, at least the mid 1980's.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by steve B

I would like to mention that while the 91s are the most obvious, the backs reacting to UV or not goes back much farther, at least the mid 1980's.

Thanks Steve, didn't know that. Why do you think they printed some of the set with UV brighteners added to the red ink and some of the set without?

One of the oddities of the set.

[4reals]

All of the stat back box variations I found were discovered in jumbo cellos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Thanks Steve, didn't know that. Why do you think they printed some of the set with UV brighteners added to the red ink and some of the set without?

One of the oddities of the set.

JMHO. I doubt they even considered that there were UV brighteners in the ink. It just matched what they needed and they used it.

A complete WAG on my part.

Butch.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by 4reals

All of the stat back box variations I found were discovered in jumbo cellos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ugh, thanks Joe. ;-)

If the boxes of cellos that I have left are jumbo, I know what I will be doing this weekend. "Lookin' for Cal in all the wrong places, searching for Cal in so many faces."

Butch

[steve B]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

JMHO. I doubt they even considered that there were UV brighteners in the ink. It just matched what they needed and they used it.

A complete WAG on my part.

Butch.

That would be my thinking too. Multiple plants, some using ink with a brightener, some not.
To make it worse, there are some that react with a very dark red color. under specific UV wavelengths. They're much less common, although it is possible I just didn't get batches from the right source.

Why that is for sets that are older I'm not sure. It's much less pronounced, and affects green as well as orange.
I plan on going through all years after the holidays to get an idea of how far back this goes. I do know that many sets have dull or bright back colors under normal light.