1991 Topps variations

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

A basic (dumb?) question from someone who already has 50-60 variations in his PC and is wondering how deep into this swamp to go....

Are ALL 792 cards available in light and dark logo versions?

No, only cards from the A* and B* sheets can be found with bold 40th logos (minus manager cards) however, players with variations like McGwire, Tettleton, Lilliquist, Ventura, etc can be found in both bold 40th and non bold 40th versions for each variation type.

[Rich Klein]

Whenever I see a bold/barely visible 91 Topps variation in the COMC Data Base, I do break them out. I was surprised to add a couple in the past couple of weeks.

This overproduced era has some master set challenges with 91 leading the parade. 1991 Donruss and the stripes/pattern variations are up there as well.

Couple of other notes

IIRC -- 1991 Topps was produced at more than one factory because of the sheer volume of cards made. That also caused some of the variations

I think every year from 1987-92 Donruss has variations because the factory sets were made differently than the unopened pack cards.

Also, I know I've run into people who disagree but I'm still wish (and told Topps that back in the day) there had been some stamp to indicate a pack pulled card. The point was how to create extra value. As I pointed out, a friend of mine pulled a 1989 common and what could he do with that card. If the card had a stamp it would have bad more value.

[sthoemke]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

A basic (dumb?) question from someone who already has 50-60 variations in his PC and is wondering how deep into this swamp to go....

Are ALL 792 cards available in light and dark logo versions?

Anyone want to speculate what the heck was happening at Topps in late 1990 and early 1991 that caused this insanity?

Because they left the presses running. It is surprising that there aren't more variations due to printing plates that might haveneeded to be replaced during the printing process.

An estimate of 4 million per card:
https://tanmanbaseballfan.com/2015/1...acks-more.html

First time I saw the cards it was a full pallet in a grocery store. Think of all the card shops and shows that constantly sold the cards.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Whenever I see a bold/barely visible 91 Topps variation in the COMC Data Base, I do break them out. I was surprised to add a couple in the past couple of weeks.

This overproduced era has some master set challenges with 91 leading the parade. 1991 Donruss and the stripes/pattern variations are up there as well.

Couple of other notes

IIRC -- 1991 Topps was produced at more than one factory because of the sheer volume of cards made. That also caused some of the variations

I think every year from 1987-92 Donruss has variations because the factory sets were made differently than the unopened pack cards.

Also, I know I've run into people who disagree but I'm still wish (and told Topps that back in the day) there had been some stamp to indicate a pack pulled card. The point was how to create extra value. As I pointed out, a friend of mine pulled a 1989 common and what could he do with that card. If the card had a stamp it would have bad more value.

I just came across your column on the 1991 Topps E&Vs in the May 1991 Beckett. In it you mention that the Beckett in-house team for E&Vs confirmed several of the variations that Topps notified the hobby media of. One of those was Efrain Valdez' 6-11-66 birthdate variation. Now, I'm sure this info is very fresh and clear and easy to recall some 30+ years later but is there any chance that you can confirm anything pertaining to this card?

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

I just came across your column on the 1991 Topps E&Vs in the May 1991 Beckett. In it you mention that the Beckett in-house team for E&Vs confirmed several of the variations that Topps notified the hobby media of. One of those was Efrain Valdez' 6-11-66 birthdate variation. Now, I'm sure this info is very fresh and clear and easy to recall some 30+ years later but is there any chance that you can confirm anything pertaining to this card?

I remember some of what existed 30 years ago or even 20 years ago but if I wrote we had the card, we had the card. Beyond that I have no idea where the card is now. Who knew in 1991 we would still be discussing Valdez more than 30 years later

Sounds like the very difficult 2002 Topps Albert Pujols (IIRC the year correctly) where the original back was Placido Polanco but the last 10 percent of the print run Topps told us had Pujols. Yep, on that one I remember we had one of those at Beckett but again no idea where said card would be nowadays

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I remember some of what existed 30 years ago or even 20 years ago but if I wrote we had the card, we had the card. Beyond that I have no idea where the card is now. Who knew in 1991 we would still be discussing Valdez more than 30 years later

Sounds like the very difficult 2002 Topps Albert Pujols (IIRC the year correctly) where the original back was Placido Polanco but the last 10 percent of the print run Topps told us had Pujols. Yep, on that one I remember we had one of those at Beckett but again no idea where said card would be nowadays

The Valdez just drives me nuts and Im not sure why There used to be an image on TCDB but apparently they have had issues with photoshopped cards being uploaded before. Just enough lead to keep me concerned 30 years later!

For what its worth, I swear that I saw an ebay completed sale for the corrected Pujols* in 2007 or so. I know there is an old BMB thread somewhere in the internet ether where I posted about it around then too.

*Not the HTA or Liimited or Opening Day, the real deal

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

The Valdez just drives me nuts and Im not sure why There used to be an image on TCDB but apparently they have had issues with photoshopped cards being uploaded before. Just enough lead to keep me concerned 30 years later!

For what its worth, I swear that I saw an ebay completed sale for the corrected Pujols* in 2007 or so. I know there is an old BMB thread somewhere in the internet ether where I posted about it around then too.

*Not the HTA or Liimited or Opening Day, the real deal

Don't get me started on how Beckett messed up the BMB because it was a major draw for collectors for years.

Rich

[Pat R]

I haven't went through mine in awhile so I pulled my box of them out and just started going through them. I'm only a few cards in (I started at 792 and I'm going backwards). So far I have two bold logos a Bob Milacki (1 out of the 7 was bold) and a Joel Skinner (1 out of 6). Maybe it's my imagination but the bold logos feel different (thicker maybe) to me.

[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]

[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

[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

[ALR-bishop]

My collecting parameters for Topps used to be anything and everything listed in the Standard Catalog from 1948 to 1994.The Catalog was the first place I saw reference to the Pujols and started looking. After 1994 the proliferation of Topps baseball offerings doubled and I limited myself to the base set and any update/traded set ( and later all the Heritage sets).

But that Parameter included Box bottom cards like those pictured by Pat above. They used to be listed in the Catalog as sets until 2011 when SCD dropped post 1980 listings. So at least until 1994, if there were cards on the boxes, I have a set of each .

Given what Rich and Dylan have posted I will try to remain open minded on the Pujols. But I also know Shane and his absolute dedication to his Cardinal collection and his search for even very rare Cardinal cards ( anyone else have a 55 Topps Hocus Focus Wally Moon ?). So I feel a little like Thomas....a little doubtful until I touch one or someone who has it posts it

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Pat R

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.

I wish I could give info on 1991 Topps with accuracy and certainty but aside from a handful of variations appearing in only one packing type ("picture cards" vs. "bubble gum cards" for example) it really is a big mess and hard to pin everything down. I've had two periods of serious documentation attempts: 2005-2007 and 2023 with a ton opened in between. I keep finding that there is a large number of err/cor combinations for most packaging types. Without opening cases with date stamps, it remains a crapshoot!

[frankhardy]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

My collecting parameters for Topps used to be anything and everything listed in the Standard Catalog from 1948 to 1994.The Catalog was the first place I saw reference to the Pujols and started looking. After 1994 the proliferation of Topps baseball offerings doubled and I limited myself to the base set and any update/traded set ( and later all the Heritage sets).

But that Parameter included Box bottom cards like those pictured by Pat above. They used to be listed in the Catalog as sets until 2011 when SCD dropped post 1980 listings. So at least until 1994, if there were cards on the boxes, I have a set of each .

Given what Rich and Dylan have posted I will try to remain open minded on the Pujols. But I also know Shane and his absolute dedication to his Cardinal collection and his search for even very rare Cardinal cards ( anyone else have a 55 Topps Hocus Focus Wally Moon ?). So I feel a little like Thomas....a little doubtful until I touch one or someone who has it posts it

I appreciate the compliment, Al. I love the "Doubting Thomas" reference from the Bible!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have another question for you 1991 Topps collectors. I think this has been previously discussed. It is my understanding that prior to the issue of the set in packs Topps went into the market and got at least 3 full sets of each prior issue. Someone could win a complete run as the grand prize in the instant win game insert contest ( you can collect a set of the instant win cards as well. I have a set minus 3 which I think may have been single issue big winner cards....not sure). Anyone know if the grand prize was collected

I think you could also win a complete set of each the individual sets as well, right ?. Anyone know if all sets were claimed/won ?

Finally you could get individual cards inserted into the 91 packs. ( I do not think 1951 was included). The oversized cards ( 52-56) were not included as inserts and had wo be claimed with winner cards. I think some pos 56 cards with a recognized higher value at the time also had to be claimed by winner card. Not sure. Anyone know if all cards were claimed ? Wonder if some decent value cards still remain out there in unopened packs

The inserts cards I have seen, many possibly bought on the secondary market for the promotion, were not "mint" condition cards

Originally Posted by bnorth

I opened a ton of 91 Topps wax pack back in the day. I pulled one 88 common out of a pack. Nobody else I actually knew pulled anything out of a pack back then.

I knew I pulled a few but I couldn't remember who they were I only remembered it was nothing great.

When I pulled out the 5k box with my 91 & 92 Topps in it a few days ago the four that I pulled were in it.

img278.jpg

img279.jpg

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

The fun is that there's still room to discover something "new" in 91 Topps.

And with differences of opinion about what's a variation or not, there probably won't be a truly complete list.

For example, I separate out a third version of the backs that under UV is a very dark red. It's reactive, but in an odd way.

I also have set aside cards with what I think are stock differences also UV related. And a couple potential gloss differences.

And my list for varieties that can be seen has stuff that isn't on other lists.

It's a fun set if you're both cheap and insane.

Besides the third version dark red I'm seeing a third version lighter red that so far I've only seen on the C sheet. Like the darker third version this has odd reaction under UV lighting it's not a glow back but the borders have "semi" glow under UV

100_2827.jpg

100_2833.jpg

It's the one on the right in the top photo and in the middle of the bottom photo.

[Pat R]

Here's a recurring variation that I haven't seen posted anywhere yet. Smoltz with a splash/spill variation that also affected some Liebrandt cards who is next to him on the C sheet. Smoltz is on the edge of the C sheet.


Here's two of the variations with a normal Smoltz in the middle and a Liebrandt variation next to a Smoltz

img296 - Copy - Copy.jpg

img296 - Copy - Copy - Copy.jpg

img300 - Copy.jpg

[judsonhamlin]

Anyone have pics of these two variations? I’ve looked at dozens of each but can’t be sure I actually have the two versions of each. Thanks.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

Anyone have pics of these two variations? I’ve looked at dozens of each but can’t be sure I actually have the two versions of each. Thanks.

What variations?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

What variations?

He's looking for the Murphy and Olsen variations.

[judsonhamlin]

545 Murphy concave/convex bat
673 Olsen helmet variations

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

545 Murphy concave/convex bat
673 Olsen helmet variations

These two are tricky. The Olson helmet thing may be the result of on an offset or misaligned plate that creates the effect of the A entering the inner border frame. I was always skeptical of it as a true variation but it seemed accepted by everyone else.

To clarify the Murphy, this refers to the piece of burgundy border/frame that touches his bat. The Murphy bat variations should be fairly easy to find, ten+ years ago, I saw both so frequently I stopped pulling them from boxes.

I hope this helps make some sense of these two.

[steve B]

I'll have to scan them sometime, but I haven't really seen the group with a spot in the 40th logo mentioned.

Not uncommon.

[Pat R]

I am documenting some boxes and before I get too far along on it I was looking for opinions on how I am documenting the packs.

Here's an example of one of the packs I documented

img304.jpg

There is no need to document the backs for every pack because every pack in the box has the same pattern

The above pack came from this box and here's the pattern for that box
img304 - Copy.jpg

If anyone has any suggestions on doing something different let me know.

[Pat R]

I have been alternating opening 4 packs from each box. There are a few patterns in some of the packs from the two different boxes but nothing like when I just opened pack #25 from the cello box right after I had just opened #24 from the wax box.

All of the wax packs have 7 A-C sheet cards in one half and 8 D-F sheet cards in the other half the cello is the reverse of that. Here's the A-C half of each pack in the order that they were in the packs the D-F cards are all different.

Wax.... Cello
265 *A 265 *A
100 *B 100 *B both are the 10 hits variation
315 *C 315 *C
790 *C 244 *A
686 *B 686 *B
96 *A 33 *C
625 *C 700 *C
.>>>>756 *A

Here are the cards. The wax pack cards are on the left or top and the cellos are on the right or bottom


[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]
[/IMG]

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

I remember when I opened a few hundred cello packs the collation was pretty spot on. If you got X, you'd get Y. I also got a number of cello packs with a bright red card back showing through the back of the cello. I can't remember if I opened all of those or not.

Arthur

[aredsfan]

I've got probably between 10,000 and 15,000 1991 Topps baseball cards now.

I've been snapping up every lot that looks like it has potential on ShopGoodwill.com.

I was down to needing only:
- 2 non-A*B* dark logo variations (120 Joe Carter and 270 Mark McGwire with the . missing before 1987 SLG 618)
- 7 non-dark logo variations (Morgan, Boyd w/black border present, Bush w/no print code, Trebelhorn w/A* print code, Whiten, Checklist 5 with #433 Palacios, and Drabek)
- all (62) of the A*B* dark logo variations.

I had won an auction for an 800-count box of 1991 Topps baseball, but I was having regret because it was going to be over $25 including shipping, and I thought I was going to be throwing away that money. Since I AM a baseball card collector (and a gambler, which goes without saying), I decided to go ahead and pay for the auction. I received the cards today aaaannnnnd.....

I pulled the Bush no print code and the Treblehorn A* print code. AMAZING!

Also, there were a TON of dark logo cards, but not the 120 Joe Carter. I forgot to check the McGwire. I also didn't check any of them for A*B* yet. Will do tonight.

KEEP THE FAITH!

[ALR-bishop]

I like posts like this because it makes me feel more normal....only kidding

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

These two are tricky. The Olson helmet thing may be the result of on an offset or misaligned plate that creates the effect of the A entering the inner border frame. I was always skeptical of it as a true variation but it seemed accepted by everyone else.

To clarify the Murphy, this refers to the piece of burgundy border/frame that touches his bat. The Murphy bat variations should be fairly easy to find, ten+ years ago, I saw both so frequently I stopped pulling them from boxes.

I hope this helps make some sense of these two.

Dylan, are you talking about a color shift similar to these Plantier examples where in one the inner frame line extends into the bat and on the other it stops at the bat?

[IMG][/IMG]

[steve B]

It's very slight, but those two black layers are different.

[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]

[Pat R]

Just a note on the Efrain Valdez lines of text variations. All of the two lines of text variations have a small portion of the top of 88 in the Tulsa stats obstructed while it is clear on all of the no lines of text variations.

[JBird]

Scratch that. Deleted my own message. I was incorrect on the year.

[Pat R]

I've found a few new variation that are what I would consider true variations.

Here's one of them. Bob Melvin can be found with missing or incomplete letters in the word company in the copyright line and a correctly printed company in the copyright line.
With the cards I have the correctly printed variation is 4 times tougher.

[IMG][/IMG]

I also found a few variations that are borderline true variations like this Wilson variation.

[IMG][/IMG]

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I've found a few new variation that are what I would consider true variations.

Here's one of them. Bob Melvin can be found with missing or incomplete letters in the word company in the copyright line and a correctly printed company in the copyright line.
With the cards I have the correctly printed variation is 4 times tougher.

I think the Melvin definitely counts. At the least it qualifies as an RPD in my book. I'll add it to the checklist. Nice find!

[sthoemke]

Originally Posted by aredsfan

I've got probably between 10,000 and 15,000 1991 Topps baseball cards now.

I've been snapping up every lot that looks like it has potential on ShopGoodwill.com.

I was down to needing only:
- 2 non-A*B* dark logo variations (120 Joe Carter and 270 Mark McGwire with the . missing before 1987 SLG 618)
- 7 non-dark logo variations (Morgan, Boyd w/black border present, Bush w/no print code, Trebelhorn w/A* print code, Whiten, Checklist 5 with #433 Palacios, and Drabek)
- all (62) of the A*B* dark logo variations.

I had won an auction for an 800-count box of 1991 Topps baseball, but I was having regret because it was going to be over $25 including shipping, and I thought I was going to be throwing away that money. Since I AM a baseball card collector (and a gambler, which goes without saying), I decided to go ahead and pay for the auction. I received the cards today aaaannnnnd.....

I pulled the Bush no print code and the Treblehorn A* print code. AMAZING!

Also, there were a TON of dark logo cards, but not the 120 Joe Carter. I forgot to check the McGwire. I also didn't check any of them for A*B* yet. Will do tonight.

KEEP THE FAITH!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the A*B* cards have errors/variations.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

I think the Melvin definitely counts. At the least it qualifies as an RPD in my book. I'll add it to the checklist. Nice find!

Thank you for all of the junk wax variation lists and for keeping them updated Dylan.

Here's another 91. I don't think it's registration related but maybe it is.

Jim Acker with one variation with the top of his cap just below the black picture frame border and another with it just above the black border. You can also see a slight difference in the team banner/shoe area.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by sthoemke

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the A*B* cards have errors/variations.

Haven't encountered enough copies to say but I would guess with 98% certainty that they do not.

McGwire could possibly be an exception as he can be found with 618 and .618 in the bold 40th, which the A*B* cards are part of. Still doubtful.

[steve B]

Acker is very likely a registration issue.
On one the black is printed fairly far up. You can see this on the top of the Topps logo.