1991 Upper Deck Football Forum

I don't think that card #'s 501 and above had only the 1992 hologram backs. I have three #517s. Two have the words "upper deck" and one has the diamond logo. My understanding is that the words are '91 holos and the diamond is '92. I've also read on other forums that there are '90 holos (same used in '90 UD baseball but cut in football shape) and '91 UD NHL holos used in this set. I'm splitting my collection into words and diamonds my ability to give a crap about the differences in holograms is fading fast.

I wasn't even aware of this.  I only have one 1991 Upper Deck baseball card, and I was happy to find that it has the standard hologram.

Just my two cents on this subject-  feel free to disagree with me but I kind of think that something like this is silly to have listed as a parallel or variation.  It seems to me that Upper Deck didn't change the holograms for the sake of being a new card to chase.  It sounds like they just used whatever holograms they had on hand.  

For me, this is something I would probably just ignore all together and consider all of the variations the same card.  Like I said, if they had manufactured the different hologram for the purpose of making an actual different card, then I would want to differentiate them.  

My opinion is that these would be best unlisted and just be something that collectors are aware of but not really something that is officially classified as a different set.

Feel free to school me. haha

I'm with Switzr1 on this one.   If someone collects these, great.   Me, I just need one of each card.    And I would like to echo the eyesight thing.   I may have put some of these cards out there years ago and maybe not  but not ruining my old eyes over this.    I will just avoid inputting anything to these sets so I don't foul up anything

  Also in looking at the baseball set, it says 1991 Upper Deck - 1992 Upper Deck "Diamond Logo" Hologram as a parallel set.  It contains 800 cards but only a dozen or so are on the checklist

switzr1 wrote:

Wow, I though that the 1990 Topps No Disclaimer backs were bad.  I assumed that when you spoke of these, the whole hologram was shaped differently, not the design within the hologram. Now I see from that link what you're actually talking about!  I'm glad I never took an interest in micro-managing my collection where variations are concerned. Not a criticism of those who do. Just a criticism of my eyesight.

Like sahal, I question if this is really a parallel set since it wasn't produced as such. Unlike the 1990 Topps set where two distinct print runs were conducted to make both disclaimer and non-disclaimer backs. If the different hols had to be anything, I think a variation would be better. I'll do my part and replace all my wrong scans.

Ignorance is bliss, yet it causes headaches sometimes. This reminds me, Chad, of the 1990 Topps disclaimer and asterisks, too. It wasn't until I traded a few from that set that I realized there was a difference. I've had to redo trades because that set wasn't logged in correctly, and I've considered going in and updating it, but I've decided to do it as people request them in trade.

It's also reminiscent of the sparkle cards that Topps put out. My eyesight's really challenged on that much less looking at a hologram.

I understand spaz's perspective, and appreciate it, honestly, but I question if this fuels the card companies to making more of these variations, parallels, etc.

It seems like I really need to put this info out in this thread. I had NOTHING to do with these hologram variants being added to the TCDB!!! I only ran across the variant CL's while trying to add my own cards to the DB. I didn't add the CL's or variants (aka - parallels). They were already here when I started adding my cards. Once I ran across them, I wanted confirmation and information. I do believe that the variants should be listed here though AND b/c there are so many for any card, they should be catalogued correctly. This only happened for a short time with the hologram variations across the sports that UD released cards in the early 1990's.

This site is about being as specific as possible and if the 1990 Topps NFL Disclaimer Backs should be listed separately, so should these cards.

You quoted an earlier post without reading the later posts. I already got that worked out with ADMIN days before you even replied.

cnangle wrote:

I don't think that card #'s 501 and above had only the 1992 hologram backs. I have three #517s. Two have the words "upper deck" and one has the diamond logo. My understanding is that the words are '91 holos and the diamond is '92. I've also read on other forums that there are '90 holos (same used in '90 UD baseball but cut in football shape) and '91 UD NHL holos used in this set. I'm splitting my collection into words and diamonds my ability to give a crap about the differences in holograms is fading fast.

spazmatastic wrote:

It is not the same person adding the same scans. It's different people adding their own scans when the original scan gets removed. I did PM one well-known member about his error in posting the wrong scan. We were both polite and he acknowledged his mistake. I really just want to figure this out. It has really locked me into a stationary position with adding the last few hundred cards I have in my collection that aren't listed here yet. Plus, I will have to go back through my traders and make sure I have the correct cards listed, based purely on a little hologram on the back of the card!

I was notified by Admin over the weekend that card #'s 501 and higher ONLY had the 1992 hologram on the backs. So at least that explains why those cards aren't listed for the "back-parallels". That info does help a bunch.

switzr1 wrote:

Is the same person continually adding the wrong scans? Could you PM them and ask them to stop?  I don't know anything about these variations, and don't know how there could be a 1990 version if they didn't have FB in 1990.  Sounds very frustrating from your end.

Thanks for clarifying Spaz. I did read all the posts to this thread as well as dozens of other forums / blogs / threads concerning '91 UD issues and the various holo versions in an attempt to understand and accurately upload scans and input my collection for trading. I had to read through the thread a couple times to fully understand what you were describing.  I am not being critical of your work on this set or placing any blame for how these cards are listed on the database. To those who are new to this set (I'm exclusively a Topps collector), not only is the set confusing, but how they are listed in the database is confusing as well. If you don't know about the different holo backs you could be 200 cards into image upload before you realize your making a mistake. After spending more time than I care to admit reading about this set, I finally feel I have enough information to understand my own collection. 

I agree that the differences should be listed. There are collectors out there that do want a card with each holo version. I don't agree with calling them a parallel set. I only say that to express my opinion.  If we as community or ADMIN ever decide to change how they are listed, then I may present an argument why I believe these are similiar but different from 1990 Topps disclaimer backs and should not be listed as a parallel set.

For now I'll fix my remaining image mistakes and add what I can to the "1992 holo version". I look forward to putting this set in my rearview mirror and beginning my sort and inventory of Score baseball. BTW, Joshua, I finished adding about 3k 1982-1995 Donruss baseball to my trade list. Lots of Astros in there.

I think they should be listed as parallels (even though weren't meant to be by UD) for two major reasons. Can you imagine how massive the CL for 1991 UD would be if all three versions were combined into one CL? Plus, no one with a complete set could accurately add their set with one click. They would have to click every third card thoughout the 2400 card CL.

Oh for sure this post will awaken the dead ! lol.

After adding my '91s years ago, my reorganizing has brought me full circle back to them again. I must admit a relatively simple set has gotten very confusing.

I see spaz and chad did alot of work on these. I'm just going to ask a few questions:

1. How many hologram variations are there, I see 3 sets? although up to 5 variations have been mentioned in blogs.

2. What exactly are the difference detween the 3 different holograms? [in plain english, please. What's on site is even more confusing.] On my HC set I just looked over, I see the 91, I see Upper Deck written every which way, even upside down. What else am I looking for?

3. Is there a difference between HC sets and Factory sets? Do Factory sets have the same hologram?

I would like to put this set to bed and move on. My eyes need a break anyway....magnifying glasses are a must, really?.....Also to be truthful it's almost impossible without the NEW MAGNIFIER to tell which hologram is which in the scans anyway. 

PLEASE, any help? ~Bob~