1991 Topps variations

[ALR-bishop]

I am in the doubtful camp on both Valdez and Pujols but woold gladly be wrong

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I am in the doubtful camp on both Valdez and Pujols but woold gladly be wrong

I don't know if Im ready to give up on Valdez but I have several times over the years only to get pulled back in.

Even if my memory isn't to be trusted or I imagined a sale for the Pujols back then, how do we explain the corrected Loretta in the 2002 set? It seems unlikely to me that Topps issued a very late photo correction on his card but didn't do the same for Pujols.

To date, I know of just five copies circulating. Only one of those turned up since posting the blog on it two years ago.

[frankhardy]

(In my Paul Harvey voice).... "For what it's worth...."

Even if the 2002 Mark Loretta card was corrected (which I think it was) ..... There is no doubt in my mind that the Pujols was ONLY corrected for the HTA, Opening Day, Chrome, and Refractors. The HTA set has a version for Polanco back and a Pujols back. I know because I have both.

Ironically, I have been collecting Cardinals team sets since that very year of 2002. A couple of years into my collecting I became aware of the possibility of a Pujols corrected back for the regular card. I have scoured nearly the entire earth and I have yet to even see a scan or a picture, much less the real card. I do not believe one exists. Surely to goodness gracious at least one would have surfaced by now.

As for the comment of scouring nearly the entire Earth, I was exaggerating a little bit. I have literally scoured the entire Earth.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I am in the doubtful camp on both Valdez and Pujols but woold gladly be wrong

The Valdes we probably had but there was so many variations in those days that one is a distant memory.

The Pujols not only exists but was confirmed at the time by Clay Luraschi at Topps and I'll always accept Clay's word on things. Plus we have seen those Puhols cards

Rich

[Pat R]

How scarce are the manager cards with the logos?

img202.jpg

[frankhardy]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

The Valdes we probably had but there was so many variations in those days that one is a distant memory.

The Pujols not only exists but was confirmed at the time by Clay Luraschi at Topps and I'll always accept Clay's word on things. Plus we have seen those Puhols cards

Rich

Rich,

I consider you a well respected member of this board and this hobby. I don't know who you are referring to. Is it not possible that he was mistaken correcting the HTA, Opening Day, Chrome, and Refractors? If even 10 or 20 exist, why is there not any evidence of one in existence? And if 10 or 20 exist, why would Topps go through the trouble of correcting it for the flagship regular card? And if more than 10 or 20 exist (just random numbers that I'm pulling out of my head), then surely we would see some out there at some point. I have been searching for over 20 years for just one.

Again. I highly respect your opinion. We may just have to agree to disagree and that's okay.

[Pat R]

I didn't see it on any of the lists is #659 Oscar Azocar missing the Logo on the back a known variation?

img206.jpg

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I didn't see it on any of the lists is #659 Oscar Azocar missing the Logo on the back a known variation?

Attachment 610310

Originally Posted by Pat R

How scarce are the manager cards with the logos?

Attachment 610261

Your two cards are related. They are both from C* sheets that mistakenly were printed with the red plates of a different sheet (A B D E F). So where Azocar was on that sheet, the misprinted red plate belonged to a manager card. And visa versa for the MGR you have. These are print flaws, very cool ones at that.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by frankhardy

Rich,

I consider you a well respected member of this board and this hobby. I don't know who you are referring to. Is it not possible that he was mistaken correcting the HTA, Opening Day, Chrome, and Refractors? If even 10 or 20 exist, why is there not any evidence of one in existence? And if 10 or 20 exist, why would Topps go through the trouble of correcting it for the flagship regular card? And if more than 10 or 20 exist (just random numbers that I'm pulling out of my head), then surely we would see some out there at some point. I have been searching for over 20 years for just one.

Again. I highly respect your opinion. We may just have to agree to disagree and that's okay.

I do understand your logic here. I have seen enough strange decisions from Topps and other companies ca. the junk era that I am hardly surprised when something turns up that has remained hidden for decades.

And I understand that the existence of the Loretta doesn't prove a Pujols, but it certainly lays out some real consideration for it. Why him and not Pujols. And the card that I saw back in 2007 or 2008 on ebay was absolutely not a parallel of any type but the base card, which is why it was so remarkable. Even back then, I strongly doubted its existence. Could it have been a manipulated photo or some other shenanigans, absolutely but I am in the camp that some of these were made. Whether they ever made into the hobby through the normal channels (wax, factory sets) is another question.

[Pat R]

I don't know if this has been discussed previously but there is a stray print mark(s) on the #336 Ken Patterson. Depending on the registration it can be a combination of three different blue, pink and/or white marks. From what I've seen all of the Patterson cards with the TM in the middle of the banner have some form of the mark while all of the Patterson cards with the TM high in the banner lack any form of the stray print mark.

Just for a reference on the already documented High TM variation all of my 91 Topps were wax pack pulled in 91 and 1 out of the 10 Pattersons that I have is the high TM variation.

[IMG][/IMG]

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't know if this has been discussed previously but there is a stray print mark(s) on the #336 Ken Patterson. Depending on the registration it can be a combination of three different blue, pink and/or white marks. From what I've seen all of the Patterson cards with the TM in the middle of the banner have some form of the mark while all of the Patterson cards with the TM high in the banner lack any form of the stray print mark.

Just for a reference on the already documented High TM variation all of my 91 Topps were wax pack pulled in 91 and 1 out of the 10 Pattersons that I have is the high TM variation.

Interesting on the print mark.

I think that your ratio may be affected by what packaging types you bought in 1991. I have never encountered any difficulty in locating either TM placement. I'd even stopped pulling his card when I came across them for this reason.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Interesting on the print mark.

I think that your ratio may be affected by what packaging types you bought in 1991. I have never encountered any difficulty in locating either TM placement. I'd even stopped pulling his card when I came across them for this reason.

Hey Dylan. If my post came off as suggesting that that's the ratio of the TM placement that's not what I intended. I don't know anything about the Topps packaging but I know guys like you who are very knowledgeable about the Topps products use the packaging/regional information for some of the variations.

All of the 91 Topps that I have came from wax packs that were purchased in Eastern NY and the two back print logo errors that I posted came from those packs.

I actually saved the empty boxes for several years before I finally threw them out. I do still have a box with 25 or 30 unopened packs in it.

100_2818.jpg

img197.jpg

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Interesting on the print mark.

I think that your ratio may be affected by what packaging types you bought in 1991. I have never encountered any difficulty in locating either TM placement. I'd even stopped pulling his card when I came across them for this reason.

This is a good example of what I have been working on for years with the T206 print flaws. Despite being printed decades apart and with very different printing methods there are some areas like the print flaws that produce similar patterns in relation to sheet layouts.

I was looking through a pack that I opened while I was having coffee this morning and I recognized the mark (I think it's some form of an alignment mark) and location on the Tom Browning card. It's the same mark and in the same location so I knew it had to have some relation to the Ken Patterson card and when I checked the F sheet Browning is in the same vertical row 3 cards down.


[IMG][/IMG]

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by frankhardy

Rich,

I consider you a well respected member of this board and this hobby. I don't know who you are referring to. Is it not possible that he was mistaken correcting the HTA, Opening Day, Chrome, and Refractors? If even 10 or 20 exist, why is there not any evidence of one in existence? And if 10 or 20 exist, why would Topps go through the trouble of correcting it for the flagship regular card? And if more than 10 or 20 exist (just random numbers that I'm pulling out of my head), then surely we would see some out there at some point. I have been searching for over 20 years for just one.

Again. I highly respect your opinion. We may just have to agree to disagree and that's okay.

We can and should agree to disagree: Clay L. was at the time the PR contact at Topps and has moved up since then on the corporate ladder. I don't know his exact postion today but he is extremely knowledgeable about the hobby and things related to Topps. We took his word in 2002 and we'll take his word today

[frankhardy]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

We can and should agree to disagree: Clay L. was at the time the PR contact at Topps and has moved up since then on the corporate ladder. I don't know his exact postion today but he is extremely knowledgeable about the hobby and things related to Topps. We took his word in 2002 and we'll take his word today

Thanks for the gracious attitude. I'm sure he is very knowledgeable and I'm not saying I am more knowledgeable than him or anyone else. For my own sake I'm just going to refuse to believe one exists until I see one. To me logic would dictate that some evidence would show up besides someone's word that could have been confused easily by the HTA correction.

Also I would like to add that I sure hope one doesn't exist because if I ever found one it would probably put me back a dollar or two! LOL