1993-94 topps black gold winners

[4reals]

Here are a few interesting tidbits regarding these I discovered as I researched them for my Dodgers team sets. Most is common knowledge but I uncovered a few things others may not be aware of and have a couple questions perhaps others can help me with.

1993 was the first year for the black gold winners. Winner cards were randomly inserted into packs, you could receive an A-winner, a B-winner, a C-winner, or a D-winner card. You could also receive an A/B winner card, a C/D winner card, or an ABCD winner card. These cards possessed redemption rules on the back and had an expiration date for redemption.

When you redeemed your card you would get packs in return along with a copy of the card you redeemed. This redeemed version of what you sent in the mail now had a checklist of names on the back (instead on redemption rules) and could be differentiated on the front with a printed "certified" just above the winner logo. So, there are at least two variations of each winner card.




I say there are "at least" two variations of each card because it has been discovered that the foil used on the front of these cards appear in both a reflective and non-reflective foil. Since Karros is the only Dodger in the '93 set it is the only example I have to show. In the picture below the card on the left is a "certified" loose single that I obtained that came from an A-winner pack. It has non-reflective foil. The card on the right is actually an unopened pack of "A-winner" cards. You can see through the pack that like the first card it is "certified" but has reflective foil. That is, the diagonal topps stamp within the foil is somewhat camouflaged. My question is does this foil variation occur in the unredeemed/non-certified variations as well?




Another variation not documented in any publication (as far as I can tell) is that the back of the "certified" A/B-winner card has an error on the checklist of names. A 0. appears where it should say 10. and a 1. appears where it should say 11. My question is, does a correct variation exist for this card? I have not seen one.




Lastly, another undocumented error appears for the A-winner card. For the unredeemed/non-certified variation the A-winner players appear with a C-winner logo as seen in the pic below. I have a couple extras of these if someone wants to trade. Questions I have for this error is does it appear with both types of foil (reflective and non-reflective) and does it appear as an error on "certified" (or redeemed) cards as well?




Any input would be helpful. Any time we deal with what I call "compound errors" or "compound variations", that is, errors on top of errors or variations on top of variations, it can get confusing.

For the record, 1994 black gold winners have the certified and non-certified variation, but no other variations that I can tell. I am looking for a '94 Black Gold ABCD-winner card in both the certified and uncertified variations if anyone has them. Thanks!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 4reals

I say there are "at least" two variations of each card because it has been discovered that the foil used on the front of these cards appear in both a reflective and non-reflective foil. Since Karros is the only Dodger in the '93 set it is the only example I have to show. In the picture below the card on the left is a "certified" loose single that I obtained that came from an A-winner pack. It has non-reflective foil. The card on the right is actually an unopened pack of "A-winner" cards. You can see through the pack that like the first card it is "certified" but has reflective foil. That is, the diagonal topps stamp within the foil is somewhat camouflaged. My question is does this foil variation occur in the unredeemed/non-certified variations as well?

It also looks like the card in the winner pack has no white border between the black background and upper foil section, and does have a thin black outline around the top of the upper foil.

Not that I'd want to make it even more complex.....

Steve B

[4reals]

Great eye Steve, you're right, I never caught that before.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by steve B

It also looks like the card in the winner pack has no white border between the black background and upper foil section, and does have a thin black outline around the top of the upper foil.

Steve B

Steve, after looking more closely at my pack to examine the points you made I came to the conclusion that the white bar is actually there, it is just partially covered over by unaligned registration on the application of the foil during the print process. The whole foil section should have been applied higher up which would have made the white bar separating the black from the foil larger and would have also covered up the black on the top which ends up looking like a border line.

[ALR-bishop]

I have a set of both. Was blissfully unaware of all this other "stuff". For both of my sets my A/B/C/D/AB/CD and ABCD cards are certified with CLs on back. My 94 ABCD card is below, as is my 93 A card.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 4reals

Steve, after looking more closely at my pack to examine the points you made I came to the conclusion that the white bar is actually there, it is just partially covered over by unaligned registration on the application of the foil during the print process. The whole foil section should have been applied higher up which would have made the white bar separating the black from the foil larger and would have also covered up the black on the top which ends up looking like a border line.

I thought that might be what it was, but changed my mind when I looked at the lower border. If the foil was low enough to erase the upper one the lower one should be much larger. (Or if the left one was foiled high the lower border should be missing.)

It's hard to measure on screen, but using my calipers on the flatscreen it does look like the spacing between the upper and lower halves is larger on the left card.

I wonder if the foil was done in two passes, one for upper one for lower?

Of course that would not only wipe out the spacing as a variety, but would open up the possibility of reflective foil on one half and less reflective on the other........

I have a couple of these, I'll have to get them out to check.
And I have a feeling I'll be buying a few more at some point.

Steve B

[4reals]

Here's another variation that popped up on the B-winner card (unredeemed). The copyright line is missing.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1993-Topps-B...item27d29f1beb

[Julz24]

I saw this thread and decided to add my own experience. I dug around for my 1993 Topps Black Gold Set - Certified Winner cards.

Back then - I sent away for and received the following: 44 player cards, Winner ABCD, Winner A, Winner B, Winner C, Winner D. For some reason I never received an A/B or C/D Winner card?? Or were A/B and C/D cards only issued in 94?

More interestingly, the copyright information for player cards 1-22 appear on the bottom of the card. But cards 23-44 have no copyright info?? I posted a picture of cards 22 and 23...

So were the missing copyrights ever corrected?? And/Or were any of cards 1-22 printed without copyright??

[ALR-bishop]

I have an A/B and C/D card with both my 93 and 94 set.

My 93 player cards are the same as yours in regard to the CRs. All my 94s have the CRs

[Julz24]

Ok, interesting. So the copyright info must be UER.

At any rate, it looks like I'll be looking for a C/D card for my Griffey Collection.

[frankhardy]

I am a Cardinals team set collector so have these cards, except for the 1994 ABCD "not redeemed" and the ABCD "certified. I have everything else.

As far as the "reflective" foil, are you sure that you are holding the card at the correct angle? Maybe the foil on that particular card just isn't as reflective as the others. All of mine reflect to one degree or the other. Just a thought.

With the A/B "certified" checklist, mine matches yours with messed up numbers. I do not know of a corrected version, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. My guess is that there is no other version because these cards are not very common to begin with.

With the A Winner Players being on a C Winner Label, I have not heard of this and would love to trade. I will be sending you a PM and would love to also discuss team set collecting.

Edited to comment on Steve's observation: My A Certified Winner matches the picture meaning that it does not have a the white border. Good catch.

Edited to comment on Joe's following observation: I agree that the white border is there and the foil covers it up. It is hard to see, but you are right.

[frankhardy]

I think it is kind of funny that the SCD catalog from 2007 lists the 1994 Black Gold Winner ABCD as having a value of $0.75. I think it would go for just a little bit more than that!

[Miniduff]

The 93 unredeemed abcd winner still sells pretty well actually. $12+

[cardinalcollector]

I recently picked up a nice lot of these looking for CERTIFIED copies of C, D, CD, and ABCD WITHOUT copyrights. I'm not sure if they exist or not. Unfortunately they all had copyrights.

I'll give these away free to anyone who needs them for their collection, just tell me what you need and send me an e-mail or PM. First come first serve.

If anyone has CERTIFIED copies of C, D, CD, and ABCD WITHOUT copyrights, I am looking for one of each.

All of these have the reflective foil, copyrights, and are the certified copies. All of the A/B cards show Lankford as #0 instead of 10, and Larkin as #1 instead of 11 on back.

I have the following to give away:

A (10 copies)
B (8 copies)
C (8 copies)
A/B (8 copies)

As a side note, all of my 1994 winners, certified and non, have the copyrights.
I also believe that the 1994 ABCD certified card is far and away the hardest winner card to find. It took me 15 years to find one and I paid dearly for it.
Any other observations are welcome.

Regards,
Randy

[ALR-bishop]

Finally completed all the possible checklists for these two sets ( 93 and 94), 14 for each set, A/B/C/D/AB/CD/ABCD, certified and not certified ( not redeemed).
Some of the not redeemed cards can be pretty pricey

[Peter_Spaeth]

There's a 5 year statute of limitations on bumping threads so you just made it under the wire.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Ok, these are cool, and I totally missed them! I have read and re-read this thread, consulted Google, and checked ebay. After all of that, I am still a little foggy.

So, there's 44 in the set, and each card in the set has at least one variation/winner card (if that's the correct way to put it) accordingly?:

Winner A (1-11)
Winner B (12-22)
Winner C (23-33)
Winner D (34-44)
Winner AB (1-22)
Winner CD (23-44)
Winner ABCD (1-44)

So, for example, the first 11 players in the set would have four cards: the regular, Winner A, Winner AB, and Winner ABCD? Are the unused redemption checklist cards considered part of the "set?"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Ok, these are cool, and I totally missed them! I have read and re-read this thread, consulted Google, and checked ebay. After all of that, I am still a little foggy.

So, there's 44 in the set, and each card in the set has at least one variation/winner card (if that's the correct way to put it) accordingly?:

Winner A (1-11)
Winner B (12-22)
Winner C (23-33)
Winner D (34-44)
Winner AB (1-22)
Winner CD (23-44)
Winner ABCD (1-44)

So, for example, the first 11 players in the set would have four cards: the regular, Winner A, Winner AB, and Winner ABCD? Are the unused redemption checklist cards considered part of the "set?"

I thought all the player cards are the same and the letters just referred to the group of player cards you would get in a sealed pack for redeeming the particular winner card, but I could be wrong. So, for example, with an ABCD winner card, you could redeem it for all 44 regular cards, but there was no difference between a player card in that pack and a player card in, say, an A pack.

So the total is 44 player cards, 7 unredeemed winner checklist cards, and 7 redeemed winner checklist cards that came with the sealed packs.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought all the player cards are the same and the letters just referred to the group of player cards you would get in a sealed pack for redeeming the particular winner card, but I could be wrong. So, for example, with an ABCD winner card, you could redeem it for all 44 regular cards, but there was no difference between a player card in that pack and a player card in, say, an A pack.



So the total is 44 player cards, 7 unredeemed winner checklist cards, and 7 redeemed winner checklist cards that came with the sealed packs.

Oh, so there are 44 cards and then there are A, B, C, D, AB, CD, and ABCD winner/ redemption cards. I was thinking there were multiple player cards. Now I get it. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Oh, so there are 44 cards and then there are A, B, C, D, AB, CD, and ABCD winner/ redemption cards. I was thinking there were multiple player cards. Now I get it. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The way you got the player cards was to redeem a winner card.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The way you got the player cards was to redeem a winner card.

Right, thanks.

One final question while I am obsessing over cards that can be had for about $1:

What is up with the Bonds from the 1994 Black Gold set #27? Why is it copyrighted 1993 on the reverse like the 1993 version?

Ebay item 153653763119

273880609680



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

https://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/..._Bonds/2076268

Some were printed with 1993 dates, some were corrected with 1994 (maybe the pack inserted vs. the redemptions?). Most of the sets during that time were printed in the winter where the designs may have been copyrighted just before printing in 1993, and some corrected for printing the following year. It's not just the Bonds, it's most cards in the set.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

https://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/..._Bonds/2076268



Some were printed with 1993 dates, some were corrected with 1994 (maybe the pack inserted vs. the redemptions?). Most of the sets during that time were printed in the winter where the designs may have been copyrighted just before printing in 1993, and some corrected for printing the following year. It's not just the Bonds, it's most cards in the set.

Thank you! "Mystery" solved!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

I hope Peter is right, because that is what I have, 44 player cards and 2 versions of each winner card for each year. The winner cards have pictures of the player cards on the front. The backs differ, checklists on the redeemed cards and advertising and offer on the un redeemed cards. ( and certified or no certification on front). You can find examples of the winner cards and player cards on ebay. The sets are very nice and inexpensive unless you are foolishly determined to get all 14 winner cards, like me. Took almost 5 years

Peter---I need to talk to Leon about putting the 5 year bump rule up next to the need for a name in a post