1991 Topps Baseball Forum

I was hoping someone can clarify the Topps 1991 set for me.  Specifically, within the inserts and parallels, there is a Dark Logo parallel set.  However, when I click on it, there are only certain cards from the 1991 set listed there.  There is also a note about Panels A&B being darker, wasn't sure what panel A and B were (I casn see the darker logo on the back of the card though).

Since there are only a few cards listed in the Dark Logo variation parallel, is it a parallel or are these variations?  If it is a parallel, shouldn't all the cards in the set be listed there with blank photos if no one loaded them?

Only certain cards were affected, 2 sheets (of 6 sheets) to be exact. So it's a "partial" parallel.

Dark Logo is considered a partial parallel and, as such is listed as a parallel. There are plenty of examples of partial parallel sets listed here. And yes, I can see the argument if you threw 91D, 88D and others to be entered yet as the devil's advocate 

Cool, thanks guys!

Alrighty, we have Partial Parallets. Good to know. thx.

Hey stumpy, maybe if you paid  attention to the site posts, you would have read my last reply about backing off, but you guys keep going on and on.

If IRs come your way, do the research before you reply, re: Parallel sets for Topps Glossy All-Stars; gray backs and white backs and I have both sets. Since you declined them, I'll see what ADMIN says.

Good Day

To avoid any confusion: Stump didn't close out any of those IRs. I did. He left a comment on one of them. In case anyone was curious:

IR #1 was about replacing the back images in the 1985 set that are discussed in the other lengthy forum post. I closed it out with a comment "If you want to replace scans you can. Admin won't remove these images as only images in the wrong location are being moved/removed anymore." This is a perfectly logical explanation that doesn't require research. You propose an IR to remove an image for any reason other than "Wrong location", and it doesn't get removed, it doesn't go to Admin, it doesn't do anything except get tagged as "Needing Replacement". Personally, I'm not going to go through and submit 12 IRs (because that's what it would take, not one) to tag 12 images as "Needing Replacement" when there's nothing wrong with them. If you have a better image, feel free to upload it. No one is stopping that. Plenty of good scans are being overwritten in all categories for the "zoom" feature anyway.

IR #2 was about the Gray vs White stock on the 1985 Topps Glossy All-Stars. You suggested listing them as a parallel. Stump's comment was "I don't see a gray back. I see a bad scan of a less than mint card.  Not every card in the world is a variation or error". Again, I closed it out because I did my research. Nowhere is this "variation" mentioned. There is one image you shared in the other post that comes from an eBay auction, and still doesn't look like a variation nearly as much as it looks like shadows and less than mint cards, but that's neither here nor there. Research was done, just like it is on every IR that comes in. If you want to provide further proof (including the sets that you say you have, and not someone else's eBay auction), then you could have a legitimate discussion about it. But simply claiming that is a parallel and should be added is not going to work.

Oh, and last thing. You tried to put a dig at someone, everyone, anyone in the comments for 1986 Topps, despite you referencing 1985. Just an FYI. Anyway - point is that Stump didn't deny a single IR about this stuff, I did. So if that's an issue, take it up with me, not him.