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

[Pat R]

I have found several new 91 Topps variations some of which I think could be possible adds to the master checklist. I will post scans here and let Dylan decide if he wants to add any of them to the
master checklist that he keeps on his site.

I will start with these three and post more periodically.

Wally Joyner with the same RPD in company as Bob Melvin and Donnie Hill.
[IMG][/IMG]

Hector Villanueva wit an RPD in San in his San Juan birthplace
[IMG][/IMG]

Someone can double check me on this one. All of the Baltimore players have a yellow patch in the O in Orioles from the team banner but Dave Gallagher can be found
with two different variations one with the yellow patch and one without it.

[IMG][/IMG]

[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 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

[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

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

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

I agree 100% Rich. I think there are far to many discrepancies that in my eyes can only be explained by them having been printed in more than one location.

[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.

[Pat R]

Flaws

91 Topps flaws pg1.jpg
91 Topps flaws pg2.jpg
91 Topps flaws pg3.jpg
91 Topps flaws pg4.jpg
91 topps flaws pg5.jpg


[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Zach Wheat]

Interesting info. The 1991 Topps set probably has more variations and print defects than any other set. Compiling a complete master set would truly be an accomplishment.

It seems, based upon initial looking at this set the non-glow backs occurred first. After printing some of the Desert Shield set, which was thought to occur early in the print run, they added brighteners to the red ink. I actually have card(s) with brightener and no brightener on the same back.

Variations and print defects are seemingly unlimited

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Interesting info. The 1991 Topps set probably has more variations and print defects than any other set. Compiling a complete master set would truly be an accomplishment.

It seems, based upon initial looking at this set the non-glow backs occurred first. After printing some of the Desert Shield set, which was thought to occur early in the print run, they added brighteners to the red ink. I actually have card(s) with brightener and no brightener on the same back.

Variations and print defects are seemingly unlimited

I think the glow backs and the non glow backs were printed in two different places and I actually think the base set was printed in at least three different places.

There a number of variations that are only found on either a glow back or a non glow back and it doesn't matter if it's an early pack/box before any
corrections were made or a late pack/box after all of the corrections were made the variation is based on the glow or non glow back.

91 Topps glow-no glow variations.jpg

[richtree]

I had this sojo as the error --


26a Luis Sojo large gap between BLUE JAYS and registration symbol in team banner

26b Luis Sojo small gap between BLUE JAYS and registration symbol in team banner


but I haven't seen both error/corrected side by side ----

is one much more rare ?

[ALR-bishop]

I remember getting those trademark location differences on a few, Patterson and Searcy come to mind, but not this one...and I am done looking for 91 differences at this stage in my life

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by richtree

I had this sojo as the error --


26a Luis Sojo large gap between BLUE JAYS and registration symbol in team banner

26b Luis Sojo small gap between BLUE JAYS and registration symbol in team banner


but I haven't seen both error/corrected side by side ----

is one much more rare ?

If it exists the small gap between Blue Jays and registration symbol is the rare variation. I haven't seen one and when I asked about it I didn't get any replies. The only variation that I've seen on the Sojo is the gap in the circle around the registration symbol is smaller on some examples.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Pat R

If it exists the small gap between Blue Jays and registration symbol is the rare variation. I haven't seen one and when I asked about it I didn't get any replies. The only variation that I've seen on the Sojo is the gap in the circle around the registration symbol is smaller on some examples.

It does exist but it is very minor in difference. I used to sell the pairs many years ago but stopped pulling them once they stopped selling.

Currently I have just a fraction of 1991 Topps that I used to but I will dig around and see if I can pull together both versions.

This one on COMC is the smaller space version, as far as I can tell:

[IMG][/IMG]

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

It does exist but it is very minor in difference. I used to sell the pairs many years ago but stopped pulling them once they stopped selling.

Currently I have just a fraction of 1991 Topps that I used to but I will dig around and see if I can pull together both versions.

This one on COMC is the smaller space version, as far as I can tell:

[IMG][/IMG]

Because it was on the list I was looking for more than a Minor difference. I thought it was going to be more like Ducey, Patterson and the others that are on the list.

There are probably dozens of examples with minor differences in their registration and trademark positions. I keep the recent cards I purchased in separate boxes but in a
quick check of my old cards I only had to look a few cards in to find an example with a minor difference. In my eyes these Kelley examples are easier to detect than the Sojo.

91 topps registration symbol.jpg

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Because it was on the list I was looking for more than a Minor difference. I thought it was going to be more like Ducey, Patterson and the others that are on the list.

There are probably dozens of examples with minor differences in their registration and trademark positions. I keep the recent cards I purchased in separate boxes but in a
quick check of my old cards I only had to look a few cards in to find an example with a minor difference. In my eyes these Kelley examples are easier to detect than the Sojo.

Attachment 647522

Interesting that these two are both E* players.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Interesting that these two are both E* players.

I don't think there is any sheet relationship. I had all of the recent boxes I opened separated and I just started breaking them down and putting all of the cards together.

Here are two Duncan registration variations from the A* sheet.

91 Topps Duncan registration variation.jpg

[Pat R]

All off the #53 Mike Sharperson cards with a glow back have a white mark in the upper left outside blue border while none of the non glow backs have the mark
which adds to the thought that the fronts for the glow and non glow backs were printed separately.

The top group are glow backs and the bottom group are non glow backs

[IMG][/IMG]

[Pat R]

I don't know if it was intentional or accidental but when Topps made the 26 corrections that they announced in early 1991 they ended the glow and non glow bold logos that were printed on the A* and B* sheet subjects.