1990-91 Topps Hockey Forum

This forum is for discussions about 1990-91 Topps Hockey cards.

Inappropriate messages may be deleted. See forum rules for details.

Question on pack order of 90-91 Topps and OPC

Posted By

Message

NJDevils

Posts: 6,344
Joined: Sep 2010

Sunday, January 21, 2018 1:58 PM

I thought the Fleer gum was better than Topps. I dont remember what year it was that it was included in their cards before they were prohibited from doing that. Back in h 80s when I was getting back into the hobby I found a brick of Topps gum from he 1960s in a box at my parents house. And when I say brick, I mean brick. If Topps gum was old, you could actually shatter it when dropped, and that was from the same year it was produced. This brick was unshatterable

armac wrote:

As a kid I loved the gum in the packs! And I preferred the OPC gum to the Topps gum. It was fun to see how much gum we could chew at the same time and if we bought enough packs we could split the gum out when it lost its flavor and have more! It was great!

As for sequencing, memories are that it happened but my memories are that it that packs could start at different places which would make the gum and wax be on different cards. But this is a long time ago and would primarily be about OPC.

switzr1

Posts: 6,332
Joined: Dec 2013

Sunday, January 21, 2018 4:50 PM

I had the sequence memorized for 1989-90 Hoops basketball to get the Robinson rookie. You could see right through the wrappers without even trying. I guess 1989 Me is the sort of collector that 2018 Me would complain about today.

vrooomed wrote:

I do believe I have several commons from these sets (and praobably some stars too). They are not easily accessible at the moment and getting the hockey stuff listed here is a lower priority to me.

Edit: I forgot to say that around this time, there were usually patterns to the sequencing of cards, but rarely did the packs mirror other packs (that is, if pack #1 was 24 - 67 - 135 - 2 - 85 - 244 - 38, Pack #2 may be 135 - 2 - 85 - 244 - 38 - 75 - 199, where I have bolded is the same, but the packs started at a different spot in the sequence.) Topps wasn't as "strict" on the sequencing (there were variations of the sequences), whereas Fleer (especially in the 1980s) had everything in a complete sequence. In 1989, I carried with me a "cheat sheet" of the sequencing for baseball to find Griffey RCs (and a couple other hot ones back then) and it worked.

-------------------------------

I'm going to reevaluate how I collect after the new year. It's just getting way too expensive for the new stuff. Sometimes I just want to buy a pack, not a whole box or even blaster.

switzr1

Posts: 6,332
Joined: Dec 2013

Sunday, January 21, 2018 4:54 PM

As far as gum ruining cards, I've found that every pack of 1981 Donruss baseball I have opened in recent years has one guaranteed destroyed card from the gum. It won't come off the card without ripping the picture off with it.

-------------------------------

I'm going to reevaluate how I collect after the new year. It's just getting way too expensive for the new stuff. Sometimes I just want to buy a pack, not a whole box or even blaster.

vrooomed

Posts: 14,979
Joined: Dec 2012

Sunday, January 21, 2018 7:28 PM

There's a HUGE difference between looking at the tops and bottoms of cello packs (or through the wax packs) and physically shifting the cards in the packs with thumbnails.

switzr1 wrote:

vrooomed wrote:

I do believe I have several commons from these sets (and praobably some stars too). They are not easily accessible at the moment and getting the hockey stuff listed here is a lower priority to me.

-------------------------------

-- Dan --

Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).