1991 Topps Baseball Error/Variations question

[butchie_t]

Thanks Al,

I am using that site too, I just forgot to include it in my op. It is hard to draw a line as to how far to take the 91 set. I know for sure I won’t chase the print code variations. I have quite a few now and 4reals has opened my eyes to more.

I believe the remaining for me will be hard to come by now and I may just have to draw a proverbial line and call it good.

Thanks,

B. T.

[4reals]

Here are the bio box variation numbers on the C sheet that I have identified. Those with a "C" are confirmed. If you look closely at the number, you can make out the card number of the other card it should have been.

(C) Cal Ripken 150 > matched with 351
(C) Danny Gladden 778 > matched with 321
(C) Rich Rodriguez 573 > matched with 231
(C) Mike Jackson 534 > matched with 639
(C) Oscar Azocar 659 > matched with 261
(C) Bobby Cox (Mgr.) 759 > matched with 294
(C) Joe Torre (Mgr.) 351 > matched with 150
(C) Bob Rodgers (Mgr.) 321 > matched with 778
Doug Rader (Mgr.) 231 > matched with 573
(C) Frank Robinson (Mgr.)639 > matched with 534
Bud Harrelson (Mgr.) 261 > matched with 659
(C) Mike Moore 294 > matched with 759

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Thanks Al,

I am using that site too, I just forgot to include it in my op. It is hard to draw a line as to how far to take the 91 set. I know for sure I won’t chase the print code variations. I have quite a few now and 4reals has opened my eyes to more.

I believe the remaining for me will be hard to come by now and I may just have to draw a proverbial line and call it good.

Thanks,

B. T.

Just curious but why wouldn't you include them if you're pursuing a master set? They are the very definition of a variation in that Topps made a deliberate change to a card and/or the printing plate.

Originally Posted by butchie_t

There is a card listed in the BBCVC Vol.2: #573 Rodriguez that has a logo on the back and no logo on the back. Anyone have a no logo version they can take a picture of and show me? All I ever have seen are various examples of a very faint Topps 40 year logo. Never seen one with what is considered no logo.

I have found a handful that are not part of the C* sheet, including Chipper's Draft Pick card (twice). No logo or red area behind the bio information at top.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Just curious but why wouldn't you include them if you're pursuing a master set? They are the very definition of a variation in that Topps made a deliberate change to a card and/or the printing plate.

Well, it comes down to finding them and then paying for them. I’m not inclined to drop a potential grand or more on the remaining cards that are near impossible to find. And the fact that they are not really recognized as error-variations also comes into play. A sampling of the two back errors may be as far as I probably take it.

I have most all but a handful of documented variations. For me, that is the definition of a master set. The others are an excellent find by 4reals but are probably out of reach in many instances. Especially the Ripken.

Other opinions can be different on this subject, and that is ok.

[ALR-bishop]

Butch---I generally agree with your points here, especially since I still don't think anyone has a fully agreed upon master set checklist for 1991

But your term " documented" variations is also an elusive standard because whose documentation one chooses to use can vary as well.

In the end we all set our own parameters for what we collect. Nothing wrong with that

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Butch---I generally agree with your points here, especially since I still don't think anyone has a fully agreed upon master set checklist for 1991

But your term " documented" variations is also an elusive standard because whose documentation one chooses to use can vary as well.

In the end we all set our own parameters for what we collect. Nothing wrong with that

Agree, documented is purely subjective in oh so many ways. So, I picked 3, right or wrong, I picked them. And that is what I am going on. I can do no better than that at this point as no company has really stepped up and said... "yeah verily, these are the chosen ones." So I chose myself.

Sorry for the nebulous use of the word documented. It does take on many a definition. Especially in this hobby.

Oh, and opinions regarding this hobby are as plentiful as the variations/errors too, no problems with that at all. --Cheers!


Regards,

B. T.