91 Topps Variations

[ALR-bishop]

Jackson--I agree with you in general about the 1991 set having more variants than any other Topps set. And to your point there are few master 1991 sets I would say there may be none. But that could depend on one's definition of a master set. As far as I know there is no accepted hobby definition of a master set. What is yours ? Would your definition be different for pre and post 1980 sets ? What would be your definition of a master set for any Topps Heritage set ? What would be your definition of a master 1991 Topps set ? Do you have a generic definition that would apply to all sets ?

I do have my own criteria which I apply to all my sets but it breaks down somewhat on the more modern sets. I have a Topps run from 1948 to 2015. I consider my set master if I have all variations listed in SCD, Becketts and The Registry. Additions can happen. iI do collect non listed/recognized variants in my sets, but view them as extras.

The gray area for me comes when a variant gains wide hobby recognition but is not listed in one of those sources, such as the 52 House yellow Tiger. I collect those but do not count them as part of a master. Another gray area, applicable to the 1991 set as well, are stock color and back differences. In or out. Someone might say you need the red and black cards from the
1st series of the 1952 set, but do you need the 52 and 54 gray backs, or the 56, 59 and 60 gray and white backs, or the 53 white and black bios ?

Not attempting to be argumentative. Everyone can have their own view . If a master set includes all variant cards, or cards that differ in any way from their counterparts, including unintended recurring or non recurring print defects, then I think there are exactly no master sets out there anywhere

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Jackson--I agree with you in general about the 1991 set having more variants than any other Topps set. And to your point there are few master 1991 sets I would say there may be none. But that could depend on one's definition of a master set. As far as I know there is no accepted hobby definition of a master set. What is yours ?

Oh, I agree entirely that even if a consensus was reached on criteria, when it comes to the 1991 issue, there will continue to be additions. That said, I should specify that a 1991 Topps set with the well-known errors (Comstock, Chamberlain, stats), all the advanced errors (Ventura, Tettleton, Coolaugh, et al) and all the key rarities (Whiten, Hoiles, Drabek, Boyd, Morgan, Bush and A*B* codes) plus the Bold 40th parallel and the Sweepstakes set (or as close as one can get) is the approximate of a master set in my example. The bigger point was that there would fewer of those "advanced" 1991 Topps sets than Desert Shield sets.

I have long argued that collecting all the variations for your junk era sets is the only thing that will set them apart in value from the sets without, even 20-40 years from now while they still hold their $5-20 value.

[judsonhamlin]

Question on the 1991 sweepstakes cards- are they consecutively numbered from start to finish or are there gaps in the transition from A to B to C to D prefixes?

[mouschi]

Riddle me this:
Regarding the glow light test. Based upon this pic:



would you say there are 4 glow back variations?

Also, for you 1991 topps variation collectors - do you all consider the pink # variation a true collectible variation?



Also, does anyone out there have either of the 2 cansecos (regular and all star versions) that don't glow ... or glow and have the lighter cardboard background?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by mouschi

Riddle me this:
Regarding the glow light test. Based upon this pic:



would you say there are 4 glow back variations?

Also, for you 1991 topps variation collectors - do you all consider the pink # variation a true collectible variation?



Also, does anyone out there have either of the 2 cansecos (regular and all star versions) that don't glow ... or glow and have the lighter cardboard background?

I suppose you could call that four different. I count the dark logo sort of as a set of its own.
I can't really tell if you've spotted the other back that reacts to UV. The ones I have are
Totally non-reactive both cardstock and ink.
Ink does not react cardboard reacts slightly white.
Ink reacts bright orange cardboard does not.
Ink reacts bright orange cardboard reacts slightly white.
Ink reacts a very dark red cardboard does not react.

The brightness of the reaction may be a bit variable. It gets hard to tell unless you're using enough UV to rule out variable distance and angle from the light source.

The reactive cardboard is also tricky as certain things can make it do that. Some stains, and fiber transfer from a reactive white paper like some envelopes or printer paper. I believe it's for real as I've picked up a handful from different sources, but at least one of those had water damage that wasn't easily visible.

And if you are please take precautions. Overexposure to UV can make some people temporaily ill - nausea etc, And UV is also bad for the skin and eyes. So depending on the power and wavelength maybe even gloves and a pair of the special "sunglasses" they use in some labs. (UV at a cartain wavelength and power is used to sterilize some things)

I also think the pink numbers are a real variety rather than an overinking or dry plate like the 61s

Steve B

[benlee66]

Here are some scans of the wrong-backs I mentioned. Wrong-background is a better term. I've heard them mentioned before, but seen no examples except the one on ebay (Mike Morgan I believe). Get to hunting! (sorry, COMC has been checked)

[steve B]

I have a couple of the 91 topps with the manager back on a players card or players back on a managers card. I'm still not sure if it's because they got the sheet layout wrong or just printed the blue part on the wrong reddish sheets. Either would probably be hard to find since it's a pretty major mistake.

On the Azocar, can you make out the number in the reddish ink part behind the blue?

And I wonder if we could get those into any of the player registries

Steve B

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

Question on the 1991 sweepstakes cards- are they consecutively numbered from start to finish or are there gaps in the transition from A to B to C to D prefixes?

Consecutive. 12345-12610. Definite short prints. Possible double or triple prints.

[judsonhamlin]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Consecutive. 12345-12610. Definite short prints. Possible double or triple prints.

I checked and have a D12611 code card, so is that previously unknown.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I checked and have a D12611 code card, so is that previously unknown.

No, it was a mistake on my part. I believe that is the last card, both my working sets have it as well.

[Rookiemonster]

Don't forget about the rare football backs