New & old 1991 Topps variations scarcity including backs (personal experience).

[Pat R]

I'm still working on a list of new variations and I'm also working on rating the existing variations on Dylans list https://junkwaxgems.wordpress.com/ta...nd-variations/

If there's enough interest in it I will post it when I'm done.

Here's what I have for #9 Darrin Fletcher using ebay, COMC, and my collection

No code 97 total or 85.1%

F* code 17 Total or 14.9%

I'm also doing the backs but I can only do that accurately using my collection this is what I have for the Fletcher

no code
Glow - 20 or 83.3%
no glow - 4 or 16.6%

F* code
glow - 0 or 0%
no glow - 6 or 100%

I don't think the F* was printed with a glow back or it's very scarce if it was.

[Rich Klein]

I'm always looking for additions to our COMC checklist and it's fun to try to figure out the 1991 set (and other sets as well).

In the past few years, we've gotten even better at adding things to our data base

Rich

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I'm always looking for additions to our COMC checklist and it's fun to try to figure out the 1991 set (and other sets as well).

In the past few years, we've gotten even better at adding things to our data base

Rich

Hi Rich, when I get the list completed I will send it to you and you can decide if there are any that you think you might want to include in the COMC listings. If there are any I would be able to provide scans if you want them.

I don't know what you would want to include there are several obstructed writing variations/flaws like the Joyner in my first post and there's also ink/gloss variation/flaws like the two Hatchers on the left with an ink/gloss issue above his left hand (or maybe that's Casper in the stands).

91 Topps Hatcher flaw.jpg

[Pat R]

Before I started seriously researching these I already knew from reading on here and other places the abundance of the variations in the 91 topps but when I started getting deeper in my research it became apparent that it was even more vast than I had thought.

Here's one example. Of the 5 subjects printed with the E* F* print codes I had already known from reading about them that the ones with the E* F* codes were far more common (close to 15:-1: ) than the F* codes (only printed with a non glow back) but the E* F* codes with a non glow back are actually a little more than twice as difficult as the F* codes.

Here are the statistics on the cards I have

E* F* codes with a glow back = 80.097%
E* F* codes with a non glow back = 6.310%
F* codes non glow back only = 13.592%

and to complicate things even more both the E* F* and F* non glow backs are found in a distinct burgundy/plum or bright red back (about 50/50).

[ALR-bishop]

Maybe there is some guy, or woman, at Topps who planned all this and has a master list they are holding to see if Pat ever gets it all fully mapped out

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Maybe there is some guy, or woman, at Topps who planned all this and has a master list they are holding to see if Pat ever gets it all fully mapped out

one can dream

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

one can dream

I will wager these were printed at more than one location and even if someone created a master list for fun at location #1 until they coordinated with location #2 the chance of a master list is slim and none and slim has already taken the last train out of town

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Hi Rich, when I get the list completed I will send it to you and you can decide if there are any that you think you might want to include in the COMC listings. If there are any I would be able to provide scans if you want them.

I don't know what you would want to include there are several obstructed writing variations/flaws like the Joyner in my first post and there's also ink/gloss variation/flaws like the two Hatchers on the left with an ink/gloss issue above his left hand (or maybe that's Casper in the stands).

Attachment 644028

TY and yes there is always a line when it comes to things like this and sometimes the printing flaws and corrections are obvious (1971 Topps Jim Nash and Jim Northrup with the BLOB and no BLOB) is a great example of an easy to list printing issue/correction. Thus, the line is different for everyone. I know people on this board who can tell you the nuance of every 1961-3 Post Cereal/Jell-O/Canadian Post

So, thank you in advance and also thanks to Dylan with whom I've communicated with frequently for years. And Lucky Larry has been great with his exhibit card photos and I've added a few that way as well.

[steve B]

Don't forget the other glow backs, which are a very dark red under UV.
From the smallish sample size I have, they're not at all common.

There's a few other UV oddities, but so few I can't rule out something post production.

Cardstock that either reacts or reflects UV, showing sort of blue white ish, or with white fibers. Only a couple of each, and they could be fiber transfer from a reactive paper.

A glosscoat that reacts green under UV. Only one so far, but I haven't spent hours doing the fronts with the blacklight.

[Pat R]

Hi Steve,

Yeah there is a lot of differences especially under a black light. I haven't figured out a good way to capture some of them in a photo under black light.
The glow backs that were printed late after the corrections have a different look. I don't know if it's different fibers in the paper but they have almost a "dirty" speckled look.

My replies in blue.

Originally Posted by steve B

Don't forget the other glow backs, which are a very dark red under UV.
From the smallish sample size I have, they're not at all common.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here do you have an image you can post?
There's a few other UV oddities, but so few I can't rule out something post production.
I don't know if this has anything to do with what you're talking about but I've noticed the gum can have an effect on the backs under black light several cards in.

Cardstock that either reacts or reflects UV, showing sort of blue white ish, or with white fibers. Only a couple of each, and they could be fiber transfer from a reactive paper.
There's definitely different cardboards found in the same packs usually it's only two sheet codes either the A & B non bold logos or E & F sheets. If it's a full box all the packs in the box follow the pattern.
A glosscoat that reacts green under UV. Only one so far, but I haven't spent hours doing the fronts with the blacklight.

I come across a few cards that have a glossier feel than the rest I'll have to check one under black light next time. I've also had a couple of boxes that had several cards that have a matte finish (all with the same sheet code or codes) with almost no gloss or what seems like no gloss at all.

[Pat R]

I finished documenting the majority of what I have so here are the variations that are below 5% when taking the backs into consideration.
For comparison the Drabek white borders is 1.754% and the Bush no code is 2.439%.

The two that have an asterisk next to them only have one example so I will have to check and make sure I didn't make a mistake on them.

36 Missing parts of company lettering bold logo no glow 4.444%

80 Led league in earned runs in 1990 no glow no bold logo 3.508%

100 101 hits in 1990 no glow no bold logo 3.773%

*167 Harrisburg correct no glow 2.222%

249 Missing parts of company lettering bold logo no glow 2.50%

*277 No pink feather in cap glow 1.923

324 7 home runs no glow no bold logo 4.081%

378 Has 1990 Port Charlotte & Birmingham stat lines no glow 3.921%

454 has Omaha stat line no glow 4.166%

527 #105 Kevin McReynolds no glow 3.921%

599 Has Syracuse stat line no glow 3.571%

687 4.46 ERA in 1990 no glow 4.545% (I'm surprised at this one)

I went back and checked and I do have one #277 Scott Coolbaugh no "pink feather" in cap with a glow back.
The "pink feather" was never partially or fully removed it's just a matter of which back the card has if it's a glow back it will have the "pink feather".
All of the partial "pink feather" examples I have came from the very early print runs with the A* B* sheet codes or the Trebelhorn A* code cards
and the full feather is still found in the very late print runs with all of the corrections made.

I still haven't found the one Tomlin example but I haven't checked all my cards yet.
img644.jpg

I also checked my Comstock cards because I thought the one Cub variation with a non glow back was a mistake on my part so
I didn't initially even list it but I do have only one example so that is another variation that falls below the 5% at 2.702%.

img644 - Copy.jpg

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Hi Steve,

Yeah there is a lot of differences especially under a black light. I haven't figured out a good way to capture some of them in a photo under black light.
The glow backs that were printed late after the corrections have a different look. I don't know if it's different fibers in the paper but they have almost a "dirty" speckled look.

My replies in blue.

I come across a few cards that have a glossier feel than the rest I'll have to check one under black light next time. I've also had a couple of boxes that had several cards that have a matte finish (all with the same sheet code or codes) with almost no gloss or what seems like no gloss at all.

I have to take a picture of the dark red ones. That might be challenging, it's sort of subtle, and needs a light with a lot of output compared to the small ones.

Another project I have to work on is getting the very bright UV lamp going. It's a homemade thing, and has exposed wiring. Not the best idea when working in a dark room.