1991 Upper Deck Football Forum

Hi Bob,  I am in the same boat.  I was recently informed of these hologram variations and now have to reinput my cards.  My eyes are also getting older.  I use a what was called a "third hand" magnifing glass, which is always by my desk light.

This is what I am doing.

The base set is just UPPER DECK written many times,  If you look very closely you will find  "91" scattered around.

The 92 variation is what is used on the 1992 set hologram-  which is the UPPER DECK logo in the diamond pattern.

The 90 variation is the one I have a problem with,  It does have line of UPPER DECK in it but it does have "90" in it.  It is also more colorful in the hologram.  (I just throw the cards that dont fit into the first two catagories into this pile until I have time to check them out more thoughly)

George

Hi George, thanks....my Review, so stupid me understands. lol.

a>91 base set = w/ a 91 and Upper Deck written around. Even upside down or scattered about?

b>92 variation set = Upper Deck in Diamond Pattern, not as in baseball diamond?

c>90  variation set = Upper Deck w/90 and more colorful.

What if you see Upper Deck but no number, either 91 or 90?

What does the Factory Set have? a,b,c.?

~Bob~

Bob, correct, correct (Diamond UD Logo is better wording for that) and correct. If you don't see a year in the hologram, it's most likely 1991. The way the "91 layer" was spaced means it didn't always end up in the hologram b/c of the small size of the hologram.

I have no idea about the factory set though. I would think they would all have the 1991 hologram, but they could be just as mixed as the packs were.

I sure wish I'd had a magnifying glass when I was sorting all of my 1991 UD MLB and NFL cards. That would have helped. I have one on a flexible stand now but that was forced by the 1991 Topps Micro set.

Thank you, thanks, I now know what I'm looking for now. However, I'm adding a note to the '91s and returning to them after more reorganizing. Eyesight check.....bbbllluuurrryyyy! lol.

I see, I see....not really after looking at these. lmao 

But really, I followed the "what to look for" with my extras [I have a FSet as well] using a poor magnifying glass. When my Magnifying Glasses I arrive, I will try the the "3 box toss method" and see what variations I have. I'm sure to have a fair amount of each variation. Gotta figure the FSet is the"91"?

Hopefully I can put this issue to rest.

The 1992’s are the easiest to identify, they have the UD baseball diamond logo.

The 1991/1990’s can be identified in three different ways (from easiest to hardest):

• You see the year 91 or 90.
• If “Upper Deck” is stacked and doesn’t repeat itself in a straight line (either right side up or upside down) then you have a 1991. If you can read “Upper Deck” in a straight line, they you have a 1990.
• If the ‘leg’ in the “R” is diagonal and originates from the ‘stem’ it is a 1991. If the ‘leg’ of the R is curved and does not originate from the ‘stem,’ then you have a 1990.

Keep in mind not every hologram is the same, some may have large gaps, or they may be upside down. There may also be layers of foil that are combined that do not make neat patterns. Some holograms are easier to view than others, you may need to manipulate the light source significantly to see it (or more of it). The 1990’s are also much rarer.

Thanks Bounty 13, Now that really helps in the sorting process. Great pics. ~BOB~

I feel like this set, and the other sports sets with hologram differences, would benefit from a similar handling as the recent work done on the Donruss baseball sets. Having it set up with variations as opposed to parallel sets would allow someone to have a complete set on the site with varying hologram differences.

I believe I am in agreement with "tenlbpain" on this one . Being listed as variations at least puts all of them under one roof , albeit now a rather large set (3 x base set#) but not unprecedented. Plus it saves from bouncing back and forth between separate sets now should one choose to break a potentially "full set" into as many as 3 partial sets. I suppose this will be a slightly divisive issue between the "one card of each is enough" crowd and the "purists"

I'd like to add another "crowd", the "fuzzy-myopics" among us who cannot see very well even with magnifying glasses.