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

[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.

[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.