Desert Shield

[novakjr]

My guess is that they were all printed in one factory, in one shot. So you probably wouldn't have any variations.. And more than likely they weren't printed with the initial release, thus the corrections.

[ALR-bishop]

I tend to agree with David. I have that set, and the regular 1991 set. I have been collecting oddities, variations and errors for a long time in all my Topps sets, and think that no set has more of them, front an back, than the regular 1991 set, which was the 40th anniversary issue. It is a mess from a printing standpoint.

But I think it likely the Desert Shield run was one time with no changes in cards or the printing process. Also, I have had for a long time an ongoing ebay search for "Topps 1991 variation(s)" and never pulled up a listing for a Desert Shield card. It's a great question though and maybe someone else has looked more closely

[cardinalcollector]

I agree with David and Al. It wouldn't be logical at all for any variations to exist in the Desert Shield set. I have all the Cardinals, there are no A*B* variations, and all cards seem to be of the "corrected" variety.

[mcadams]

Interesting topic. I don't collect all of the DS set, but am heavily involved in completing several of the team sets, including the Atlanta Braves. I had a series of email exchanges with PSA several years ago discussing one of the more well known '91 Topps Variations, the Lonnie Smith 136G error.

If you recall, on the back of the original card, Lonnie Smith's 1990 stat line reads that he played 136 games in 1990. The card was later corrected to read that he played in 135 games in 1990. Both versions of the card are easily found from the base 1991 set. However, after searching for over a decade, I could not find the 135 version in the Desert Shield set. I have over 50 copies of the Lonnie Smith DS card, and they are all the 136G version. I also contacted several of the PSA registry players in the set and none of them had ever seen a 135 version either. Because of this information, PSA removed the 135 version from the Desert Shield composite several years ago.

Because the 135 was the corrected version, I've always believe the Desert Shield set was actually made early in Topps printing process, prior to the Lonnie Smith 135G (The "Corrected" version) being printed. I'd love to hear other thoughts.

[Zach Wheat]

Mcadams,

Wouldn't the corrected version...if it exists in the Desert Shield set mean that the set was printed later in the print run or after the 1991 Topps set? I will show the variations at appear to exist in the 1991 set but aren't found in the Desert Shield set when I can tomorrow.

Z Wheat

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Mcadams,

Wouldn't the corrected version...if it exists in the Desert Shield set mean that the set was printed later in the print run or after the 1991 Topps set? I will show the variations at appear to exist in the 1991 set but aren't found in the Desert Shield set when I can tomorrow?

Z Wheat

You may have read that wrong. He was saying that the error(136) is the version in the the DS set.. And that the corrected(135) wasn't, leading him to believe it was from an early print run.

Originally Posted by mcadams

Because the 135 was the corrected version, I've always believe the Desert Shield set was actually made early in Topps printing process, prior to the Lonnie Smith 135G (The "Corrected" version) being printed. I'd love to hear other thoughts.

Corrected or not, Either way, I wouldn't expect there to be variations in the DS release. Sure in the regular issue they're variations(error, corrected, whatnot). But in terms of the DS set, whichever version it is, it's just the card..

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by novakjr

You may have read that wrong. He was saying that the error(136) is the version in the the DS set.. And that the corrected(135) wasn't, leading him to believe it was from an early print run.



Corrected or not, Either way, I wouldn't expect there to be variations in the DS release. Sure in the regular issue they're variations(error, corrected, whatnot). But in terms of the DS set, whichever version it is, it's just the card..

Got it. One of the dangers of reading small print on an iPad. I will have to check the remainder of my cards. The 2 Lonnie Smith cards (Card #306) I have also have "...136 Games...".

It may be hard to verify much of what we speculate since the population of cards is so small. If the print run was in the 2,000-2,500 sets according to popular belief, then that would make the population of each card no greater than a third to quarter as numerous as some of the popular pre-war sets like the Cracker Jacks.