Is 1991 Fleer the worst set (all in all) from the "junk wax" period?

BBCgalaxee · Oct 28, 2015

95 Fleer literally checks off every spot on my "shouldn't ever be on a baseball card" checklist.

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

RStadlerASU22 · Oct 28, 2015

In general from their 1981 inception, Fleer made quite a lot of not really attractive sets.

Ryan

jbhofmann · Oct 28, 2015

Damnit, Puckett in 91 is not what I thought either.

91 Benito Santiago, there!

linuxabuser · Oct 29, 2015

JoshHamilton said:
In terms of color and eye appeal, it isn't even the worst Fleer set. 1995 has that distinction. Hell, it might not even be the ugliest 1991 Fleer set. The football version is HIDEOUS.

My vote goes to 1992 Donruss. What a boring, uninspired, bland design. No rookies of note (seriously, John Jaha, Rey Sanchez and Rod Beck were the "highlights), subpar action shots, blah. You could give me a speedball and a set of 1992 Donruss and I'd end up asleep

My last laugh of the day, and somehow the best laugh of the day.

RStadlerASU22 · Oct 29, 2015

JoshHamilton said:
In terms of color and eye appeal, it isn't even the worst Fleer set. 1995 has that distinction. Hell, it might not even be the ugliest 1991 Fleer set. The football version is HIDEOUS.

My vote goes to 1992 Donruss. What a boring, uninspired, bland design. No rookies of note (seriously, John Jaha, Rey Sanchez and Rod Beck were the "highlights), subpar action shots, blah. You could give me a speedball and a set of 1992 Donruss and I'd end up asleep

Agreed 92' is one of the worst base sets there is. However with the DKs and Elites/SS the overall appeal isn't as low. (I'm speaking from a box break perspective). Then if you add in 92 Donruss Previews and DK Jumbos that were made, the overall Donruss product of 92 was stronger IMO.

Ryan

tribefan26 · Oct 29, 2015

gt2590 said:
'92 was worse IMO.

Especially after the Rookie Sensations cards died down...

I agree with his - I think the 1992 are much worse.

Austin · Oct 29, 2015

1991 Fleer has some beautiful insert sets. But the yellow base set is hideous.

I agree with JoshHamilton and Galaxee that 1995 Fleer is one of the ugliest sets ever made. The garish '95s show how desperate Fleer was in the mid-90s to draw attention to their base brand.
Then in '96, Fleer went the opposite direction with the minimal look and dull no-gloss finish.

But Fleer got it right with Ultra. Most of Fleer's '90s Ultra cards were some of the most beautiful cards of that decade.

magicpapa · Oct 29, 2015

RStadlerASU22 said:
Agreed 92' is one of the worst base sets there is. However with the DKs and Elites/SS the overall appeal isn't as low. (I'm speaking from a box break perspective). Then if you add in 92 Donruss Previews and DK Jumbos that were made, the overall Donruss product of 92 was stronger IMO.

Ryan

Hawk8 · Oct 29, 2015

mouschi said:
What backs and errors do you have ?

I will post some pics tonight when I get home

Hawk8 · Oct 29, 2015

RStadlerASU22 said:
Agreed 92' is one of the worst base sets there is. However with the DKs and Elites/SS the overall appeal isn't as low. (I'm speaking from a box break perspective). Then if you add in 92 Donruss Previews and DK Jumbos that were made, the overall Donruss product of 92 was stronger IMO.

Ryan

I bought a ton of 1992 Donruss because the Diamond Kings were absolutely on fire when this product was released! Add a Dawson 1992 Preview to the set, an All Star card and back variations and I'm all over this set.

fordman · Oct 29, 2015

'92 Donruss was way better than '91 Donruss. '92 Donruss actually got you back into collecting DK's plus was kinda the first premium inserts to look for. Then the elite Ripken auto cards kept everyone buying them.

90,91,96 Fleer base all were pretty bad. The '96 were printed on cheap bamboo paper from Asia thats why the cards look washed out. Soy ink with the bamboo pulp paper didnt make for a good quality combination. Fleer did a much better job with Ultra as a premium card. Maybe they had to really water down their base product to make Ultra look that much better? Seems like Fleer bought a large batch of silver printing ink and used it for a couple years in '92-'93 plus with the first Ultra release.

Fordman

Yanks2151 · Oct 29, 2015

I was in the Navy when these came out and I was not collecting. When I came home in '93 and had to "catch up" by collecting these years I thought they were crappy cheap cards. Now that I'm older and these newer cards have gotten so crazy I like going back to the basics. I always wanted my Yankees team sets autographed. I only have one of the '91 Fleer auto'd but its probably one of the harder ones due to Oscar's dying at a young age of 45.

psj · Oct 29, 2015

Hawk8 said:
I bought a ton of 1992 Donruss because the Diamond Kings were absolutely on fire when this product was released! Add a Dawson 1992 Preview to the set, an All Star card and back variations and I'm all over this set.

I remember those 92 DK's, and being a kid drooling over them cuz I couldn't afford them lol

ernieren · Oct 29, 2015

190 ,91 and 92 Fleer were all horrible . 92 Fleer made up with the Rc sensations then the update set was and still is a big set . Because of Piazza, Wakefield and Kent . 90 Donruss was horrible . 91 Topps was good only due to the desert Shield version other than that horrible.

goobmcnasty · Oct 29, 2015

I feel that 90/91 Fleer introduced us to insert sets (All-Stars, Pro-Visions), but "significance" doesn't always mean "collectible." I'd rather wash my balls with sandpaper and icy-hot than open a box of 1991 Fleer today.

Austin · Oct 29, 2015

goobmcnasty said:
I feel that 90/91 Fleer introduced us to insert sets (All-Stars, Pro-Visions)

Fleer ALL-Star inserts had been around since 1986, as were other Fleer inserts like Future Hall of Famers ('86) and Headliners ('87).

goobmcnasty · Oct 29, 2015

Austin said:
Fleer ALL-Star inserts had been around since 1986, as were other Fleer inserts like Future Hall of Famers ('86) and Headliners ('87).

Were those actually inserted in packs, or distributed as sets? I know Griffey had a few special Fleer cards from 1990 and 1991, but they weren't inserted with the regular Fleer packs.

jacksoncoupage · Oct 29, 2015

I used to think this set was the worst but now I am certain it is 1991 Donruss. For the very reasons you noted against 1991 Fleer, except I think 1991 Fleer has a great design. Then there are the All-Stars, which are some of the nicest junk era inserts produced.

There was a good year or so where many of the 1991 Fleer variation pairs would fetch between $4-30 per! I made a lot of money on the set which allowed me to break/sort and research many other sets and ultimately to the JunkWaxGems blog.

Hawk8 · Oct 29, 2015

mouschi said:
What backs and errors do you have ?

I have 194 of this back 1991 Fleer #419A Andre Dawson ERR/No stats for 1976:

I have 681 of this back 1991 Fleer #419B Andre Dawson COR:

And I have 1 of this beauty 1991 Fleer #419B Andre Dawson COR Wrong Front w/ Ethan Horton (LA Raiders):

RStadlerASU22 · Oct 29, 2015

Hawk8 said:
I have 194 of this back 1991 Fleer #419A Andre Dawson ERR/No stats for 1976:

I have 681 of this back 1991 Fleer #419B Andre Dawson COR:

And I have 1 of this beauty 1991 Fleer #419B Andre Dawson COR Wrong Front w/ Ethan Horton (LA Raiders):

With the back wo 1976 stats do all of them have his personal info extend just past the stat bars? Where as with the COR photo you posted the text stops at the stat bar ending.

Ryan

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Is 1991 Fleer the worst set (all in all) from the &quot;junk wax&quot; period?

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in

Is 1991 Fleer the worst set (all in all) from the "junk wax" period?