1991 Topps Baseball Forum

I beleive this was discussed previously but I think it is worth new consideration.  I have sorted through all of my cards from this set and have determined that there are 255 cards in this set that have the dark logo on the back. They are all the cards from print sheets A & B except those of 9 managers (managers' cards have no logo on the back).  I now have a complete checklist of all of these cards, many that are not shown in the database having the VAR.

I beleive that this should be entered as a subset of the 1991 Topps Base set.  Before the naysayers hit reply to voice their "no, never", there is precedence of a similar case with the 1982 Topps Blackless entry that is entered as a parallel set to the base set (even though only half of the cards are known to be "blackless".

Right now, if you go to the 1991 Topps set and click on Errors / Variations, the list is way too long and the real errors / variations get lost in the list that includes the dark logo VAR.  If those were placed in their own subset list, the list would be much, much shorter.

Thoughts?

Having seen these in person, and having several, I see that there is clerarly a difference, and it's not "just a printing thing".

I agree that treating it the same at the 1982 Topps "blackless" is appropriate. Please clear with Admin.

 Having not see the 1982 "blackless", I cannot comment on them.   As for the 1991, I don't think they should be a parallel as there was no intent for it to be one.   To me, it is just an "ink thing".

Are you saying that a parallel is only a parallel if there is intent? :)

Yes indeed,  Dan.    Otherwise, it should be a variation/error or whatever..   I am sure there are a thousand other opinions different then mine in some form.

Are heard Topps did this on purpose as part of the 40th celebration. Don't know if that's true or just a rumor.

Word is that it was intentional unlike the 1982 Blackless.  My point is that there are too many with the same "Variation" to not make it a subset.  It is one of the few VAR that I made a point to collect.

Do you mean "parallel"?  Here's the previous forum about this topic.

sandyrusty wrote:

Word is that it was intentional unlike the 1982 Blackless.  My point is that there are too many with the same "Variation" to not make it a subset.  It is one of the few VAR that I made a point to collect.

This is a tricky issue - parallel or not.  To me, a parallel should be of the whole set.  Iin both this one and the 1982 Blackless, only 1/3 and 1/2 respectively are paralleled.  But it does not make that much difference on what we call it; I just think that there are substantially enough cards from the set that fit this VAR to make it its own set.

For this type of thing I need to see very good comparisons and examples (with photos that can be enlarged) of what the "variant" or "error" is. I am not as familiar with the "blackless" variants as I am of this 40th Anniversary variant. I'm still not sure I've seen a good example of the Anniversary variant.