Anyone have (actual) measurements on R309-1 Ruth?
 

Looking to confirm height of R309-1 Goudey Premium Ruth. Old Cardboard and other resources say 8 3/4 inches. Some uncertainty expressed on other recent threads.

If you have one and can measure, please post results (as exact as possible) here. Also interested in height of Team cards for comparison.

5 1/2" x 9"

The secondary sources that say 8.75" are wrong.

R340 Dempsey-Baer-Carnera: 9"
R309-1 Giants: 9"

Measured them this morning.

9" on the Ruth and Tilden

Nice looking Ruth and under valued IMO

9 x 5.5....both
 

R309 or R340?Attachment 506046

Attachment 506047

...slight optical illusion on the scale...they are 9 inches tall (the Tilden might be a 1/16" taller)

Measurements
 

Thanks all for posting the measurements. FWIW, for the R309-1:

Old Cardboard and PrewarCards sites both list 8 3/4.

Beckett lists 8 15/16

SportsCollectorsDaily lists 8 3/16

The Sport Kings wrappers describe the R340 as being 9 inches by 5 1/2.

It sounds as though both the R309-1 and R340 may ALL be 9 inches in height. (More or less).

Anyone else have data?

....or some of the cards being called R309 are actually R340s?

1/16 of an inch is a tolerance issue; I'd round that one to a 9".

One of the issues I ran into while researching and writing my books and articles is the incredible amount of misinformation out there. Not malicious, and mostly well-intended, but based on inductive reasoning, assumptions, analogies, and in this case, also flawed measurements. Like the green bordered Ruth pieces. The assumption made was that Goudey issued entirely new format cards for Ruth as R340 rather than simply reusing the R309, and that it also changed the easel back and added a punch hole for hanging. REA doubled down on the errors by attempting to reason away the measurement discrepancies between the green border Ruth and the R340 wrapper by measuring inside the green border to get the 9" stated on the wrapper. Instead, it should have been noted as different and with its provenance, sold as some sort of proof. That's a classic mistake: fitting the evidence to the theory, rather than reconsidering the theory in light of the evidence. The Tilden, Weissmuller and Dempsey are strong evidence that the design of R340 was the same as R309-1, not some green-bordered issue.

That SCD article I cited above came out just as I was readying my own study of the issue for publication, so I contacted Rich at SCD and added my research to the article, which he corrected from its original form.

Can't wait to see the other R340 cards...there's gotta be one of each somewhere, right? In the last several years we've tripled the confirmed checklist.