PDA

View Full Version : T206 sizes


bbcard1
09-23-2011, 09:49 AM
What size are T206s ... I know the published size is 1 7/8 x 2 5/8...but what in your experience is "average" (not accounting for trims). I know there are outliers on both ends of the spectrum...just looking for the "range" that is considered average. Interestingly, aside from ABs I don't find much width variance, but a fair amount of height variance. Wonder why that is?

barrysloate
09-23-2011, 11:09 AM
I used to measure T206's by millimeters. A typical unaltered card measured 66-67 mm; an oversized one might hit 68. If it was only 65 mm, it was probably trimmed. I forget the width in millimeters, however. It's been awhile.

steve B
09-23-2011, 11:34 AM
width can vary too. I have one that's AB narrow but not AB and not trimmed. And I've seen wide ABs.

The variance is probably from the equipment of the time, and the method of cutting. I suspect some of the cutting machines were worn or simply not setup well, making size differences and diamond cuts common.
Procedure can make a differnce as well. A sheet of say 50 cards, 5x10(Just an example, not the actual sheet size) can be cut at first either into strips of 5 or 10, or into two sheets of 25. strips of 5 would be a little hard to handle for the next cuts, removing single cards from the strip. And strips of 10 would be worse. Making blocks of 25 would make handling easier. Modern equipment has a bed big enough to handle the whole sheet, so it's not that big a deal. The cutters they had may have had less space.

Steve B

ullmandds
09-26-2011, 03:13 PM
Based on this card...PSA graded...T206's can be pretty much any size!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206-Hughie-Jennings-One-Hand-HOFer-PSA-3-Uzit-/270821819613?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item3f0e3d04dd

4815162342
09-26-2011, 03:21 PM
I guess you call that an Abuzit? :p

Abravefan11
09-26-2011, 03:23 PM
Here's a scan of my over sized Mattern surrounded by a few others.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-b6LeARQItho/Tkw-jmrAoyI/AAAAAAAAFRg/bsbNx3hfYo0/MatternComp.jpg

ullmandds
09-26-2011, 03:30 PM
Daryl...nice one!:)

Anthony S.
09-26-2011, 03:36 PM
The following is the data a board member named Dave came up with when he measured his T206 collection back in 2004:

T206 sizes
July 24 2004 at 9:12 PM Dave (Login t206guy)


Response to Help/Advice
I've measured all my original T206 collection as part of the data I keep on each card. Here is a summary of the sizes. The cards are virtually all Piedmont (4 Old Mills) and I am virtually certain the none were ever trimmed or are reprints.

Total: 524 cards

Nominal width is 1.438
Measured widths

< 1.420 3
1.420 - 1.429 9
1.430 - 1.439 38
1.440 - 1.449 126
1.450 - 1.459 172
1.460 - 1.469 111
1.470 - 1.479 40
1.480 - 1.489 13
1.490 - 1.499 9
> 1.500 3

The smallest is 1.393, Doc White - Chicago - Portrait
The largest is 1.642, Ira Thomas

Nominal heigth is 2.625

Measured heigths
< 2.580 6
2.580 - 2.589 5
2.590 - 2.599 19
2.600 - 2.609 30
2.610 - 2.619 57
2.620 - 2.629 140
2.630 - 2.639 111
2.640 - 2.649 81
2.650 - 2.659 40
2.660 - 2.669 16
2.670 - 2.679 7
2.680 - 2.689 3
2.690 - 2.699 1
2.700 - 2.709 3
2.710 - 2.719 5

The shortest is 2.453, Germany Schaefer - Detroit
The tallest is 2.716, a tie between Nick Maddox and Moose McCormick

What does all this mean? I don't know, other than there is a wide variation, especially on heigth. Cards are much more likely to be large rather than small.

I tried adding width and height, nominal is 4.063. Of 524 cards, only 72 were lower than nominal in this.

By the way, these measurements were made with pecision digital calipers, with resolution to 0.0005, and accuracy to about 0.001. I've tried repeated measurments on the same cards several times; the numbers repeat within 0.001.

itjclarke
09-26-2011, 06:20 PM
Thanks for the great info.. this thread definitely makes me feel more comfortable about my oddly sized red Cobb (Old Mill). I don't have exact measurements, but it's considerably longer and considerably narrower than any of my other T206's, in or out of holders.

-Ian