1991 Topps A*B* Sheet Code Variations: Ongoing Checklist

This impressive look at 1991 Topps A*B* variations comes courtesy of JunkWaxGems contributor, Eric, a fellow E&V collector with an impressive collection:

“As if 1991 Topps has not already confounded collectors enough with its broad range of errors, variations, and printing oddities, one print variation may even eclipse the tough-to-find Mark Whiten, Drabek and Hoiles errors in scarcity.

It is well known that the backs of some 1991 Topps cards were printed with both a bold red 40^th Anniversary” design behind the player stats and a more faded version that makes the card back easier to read.  All cards that were printed on the A* and B* sheets can be found with both bold and faded backs.  However, some of the cards from that A* sheet can also be found with an A*B* print designation at the bottom of the back of the card. 

This variation has ONLY been seen on cards with the bold “40^th Anniversary” back and any cards with this variation have proven to be incredibly scarce.  In fact, these cards are so rare that it has been difficult to compile a complete listing.

The following 1991 Topps cards are presently known to be available with the A*B* print designation, although it is possible that other cards from the A* sheet are also available with the A*B* designation:

#13 – Mariano Duncan

#54 – Gary Mielke

#63 – Milt Thompson

#72 – Junior Ortiz

#76 – Jerry Browne

#83 – Daryl Boston

#120 – Joe Carter

#123 – Greg Harris

#153 – Bryan Harvey

#155 – Dwight Evans (error version only)

#170 – Carlton Fisk

#177 – Reggie Harris

#178 – Dave Valle

#190 – Matt Williams

#192 – Rob Deer

#193 – Felix Fermin

#213 – Frank Wills

#216 – Greg Gagne

The Mysterious 1990 Topps Debut ‘X’ Cards

I’ve been meaning to post about this bizarre card for a couple years now but couldn’t locate the scans I saved. In fact, these images are the only I’ve ever seen and were poached from a message board in 2009. Since I am in the mood to do a little bit of detective work, I feel now is the time to shed some light on this very unusual card:

 

 

Not much is known about this card, in fact, I’ve yet to hear any mention of it since it was posted in the legendary Frank Thomas NNOF thread on the Collectors Universe boards.

Here is what we do know:

• Pulled from a 20-set case of 1990 Topps Debut ’89 sets.
• 1990 Topps Debut ’89 features 152 subjects.
• Topps likes to print cards in multiples of 11 (33 Glossy All-Stars, 132 O-Pee-Chees, 792 base set, etc…)

Here is what I think:

152 subjects doesn’t work with Topps’ multiples of 11 sheet orientation, however, 154 does. This leads me to believe that on a single uncut 154 card sheet, you will find all 152 cards plus two of these “corner” cards. Obviously, the same formula can be applied to a theoretical 77 card sheet, but one X card per.

I believe that these cards were intended to be thrown out as printer’s waste but some, apparently very few, made their way into sets.

I do not believe that the X cards were intended to depict a player. Although I did not do the research, Topps claims that this set features every major league debut of the 1989 season, which would explain it’s unusual subject number (152) , which varied each of the subsequent years lending some truth to the claim.

What’s especially odd is that given Topps’ high production run during this era, those two “wasted” spots would seem like something of loss financially. Given how often Topps put advertisements and offer cards in products, why didn’t they use those spots for something useful? Food for thought.

Obviously, all of this could be simply explained with an image of an uncut sheet but until I get a hold of one, where’s the fun in that?

Quick Look: 1990 Score R/T Dave Winfield Unmarked Promo Variation

Take a look at this freshly-discovered promo variation from the 1990 Score Rookie & Traded set. This was discovered just weeks ago in a discussion on 1990s promo cards over at Freedomcardboard.com. A longtime dealer posted an image of Dave Winfield’s card number 1 in the set that by all appearances, seems like the regular issue card (below). Another forum member posted a pic (2nd) of the set-issue showing a difference in photo cropping, something fairly common with early 90s Score issues:

1994 Topps Baseball Errors & Variations: Ongoing Checklist

78a Mel Rojas With print code on back

78b Mel Rojas Without print code on back

79a OF Prospects Clouds visible through shadow inset boxes

79b OF Prospects Solid black shadow inset boxes

109a Delino Deshields Red ‘Expos’ and ‘2b’ on front

109b Delino Deshields Yellow ‘Expos’ and ‘2b’ on front

134a Greg Colbrunn With print code on back

134b Greg Colbrunn Without print code on back

For Sale: Rare (and Interesting) 1980s and 1990s Error & Variation items

My last batch as an eBay seller is up right now and I’m hoping to move some of this over the next week before I stop selling on the site. A recent 60-day review showed me $600 in sales, netted me $140 in pocket and this has been going on this way for over a year with no sign of changing for the better!  So, unfortunately, this current batch of stuff will be my last for the foreseeable future. The good news is, it’s some of the best I have had in a long time. You can check it all out here.

Currently taking lower-than-usual offers on this stuff, after this next week, I will be revamping the “For Sale” page on this site to include a large run-down of available merchandise and will most likely only sell through this site. An occasional “must-auction” item may hit eBay here and again, but my days of selling on their site in any kind of volume are over.

So, please do, check ’em out and make offers, mention JunkWaxGems for free, combined shipping!

Thanks!

1994 Topps Sheet Code Variations – Complete A/B Variations Checklist (132)

Continuing on with my recent spotlighting of post-prime junk era variations (mid 90s and on), here is a look at a recently discovered (2007-ish) variation affecting a previously unknown number of 1994 Topps subjects. 132 of the series one base cards are commonly found without a print code on back – very common for this set, however, each of these subjects also exist with the the much rarer A or B code on back (66 As and 66 Bs).

Scroll Down For Complete List

Quick Look: 1993 Topps Black Gold Foil Variations

Her is a little-known variation that affects one of the few inserts sets from 1993 to retain and even grow in popularity. In 1993, Topps included a special insert called Black Gold featuring 44 of the biggest players at the time. Collector’s could find one of these every other box or so, but on occasion, they could also find “Winner” redemption cards for sets of 11, 22 or all 44 of the cards, since these cards are so popular with player-collectors, the 44 card winner redemption has greatly appreciated in value over the years. Along with the already-documented “switched backs” errors, a blog for another day, a variation in the foil used on these cards can be found.

Most commonly the cards use a holographic gold foil, however, a small sampling of them feature a non-holographic, simple gold foil treatment. In my years of knowing about these cards, I’ve only encountered a handful of examples. Unfortunately, not a single copy of my player, recently-appointed manager of the Chicago White Sox, Robin Ventura.

Quick Look: 1991 Upper Deck Milt Thompson “Bullseye” Error

Here’s a rare sighting, a printing flaw that even Beckett and SCD acknowledge in their catalogs: 1991 Upper Deck Milt Thompson #309A with “bullseye” over 86 stats on back.

Most “fish-eye” printing flaw stuff doesn’t get cataloged and for good reason,as it would be impossible to list each and every printing aberration in mass-produced sets. However, some of them seem to have affected enough of the total print run that collectors from all over were reporting them, Frank Thomas NNOF and Joe Namath’s ‘butterfly’ errors are good examples of this. But see the pattern? These types of errors only get recognition if it affects a key rookie card or star player, something of a double-standard. There are probably a hundred cards out there from the junk wax era, as rare as the Frank Thomas NNOF card, that will never see catalog and subsequently mass-collector recognition, which makes this card an obscure exception to the rule. Very scarce by early-90s Upper Deck production numbers but still, at the end of the day, a printing flaw on a Milt Thompson card.

Quick Look: 1989 Bowman Textured TV Variations

Since I just recently located one of these, I figured it worth a ‘Quick Look.’ First cataloged by Dick Gilkeson in his 1990 Errors & Variations guide, the Father and Sons subset cards from the return-issue of the Bowman brand can be found in two distinct varieties: One showing a texture to the television set and the other showing a smooth t.v. set. So far, I’ve only come across a handful of examples of each the Griffeys and Ripkens, but have yet to find a Stottlemyres or Alomars “textured” example.

Quick Look: 1990-91 Pro Set Paul Gillis “Bloody Nose” Variation

Thanks to one of JunkWaxGems’ contributors, we finally get to shine a spotlight on one of the most elusive Pro Set error cards not mentioning drug abuse or depicting adult content.

The 1990-91 Pro Set NHL release is full of errors, many more than the outstanding amount listed in the price guides. One card has been floating around on want-lists for the last eight or so years, yet still remains uncataloged in the big guides is card number 246 depicting then Quebec Nordiques center Paul Gillis.

Sharp-eyed collectors will notice that the error version lists Gillis’ jersey number as 37, as he clearly wears 23. But another, more interesting change shows Gillis’ nose bleeding on the error version while the stream of blood has been airbrushed away on the correction.

This card is truly under-the-radar for most variation and Pro Set collectors but once it gets the proper exposure and eventual recognition in the guides, I can see this extremely scarce “bloody nose” variety reach levels similar to the Fred Marion “Belt” error and potentially to the Manley “Substance Abuse” error. Until proven otherwise, this is a truly rare Pro Set issue and most-certainly the rarest of it’s hockey issues.