Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankWakefield
Back up there, look at those Garibaldi cards.
The one on the left looks shorter. But I'd like to see the two cards in one jpeg. The card on the left, when compared to the card on the right, does have a smaller image. The distance from the top of the cap to the border is more, as is the distance from the cleats to the bottom of the card. As it looks, I'm not convinced that the images there comprise justification for the point. Brian does state that the image sizes are different. But I'm not convinced the card size point is made with those two images. I do agree with what Brian says about the coupon-removing affecting card size. But those images don't 'prove' it. Need to see those two cards in a single jpeg.
I do thing the 2 7/8ths is about right.
And I like those Garibaldi cards. He played with the St L Cardinals in 1936. There aren't a lot of baseball card options for him from his playing days.
|
Hi Frank, sometimes I aim to confuse, other times I confuse without aiming.
Those two Zeenut Garibaldi cards shown on my previous post are just one image...they were placed side by side on the scanner a few years back.
I did rescan (one scan) the two Garibaldi cards again along with Mr. Gibson, and this time, being older and wiser, tried my best to line up the tops of the cards. Both the Garibaldi with the larger player image and the Gibson measure approximately 2-13/16" (just 1/16" shy of 2-7/8"), with that measurement being the full length of the card on the larger image Garibaldi. I added the Gibson because it clearly shows a little bit of the white of the coupon that was clipped off. This one measured 2-13/16" from the top of the card to the beginning of the coupon remnant. The small Garibaldi image measures about 2-11/16", which was one the points of my original post, being that this card was not clipped too carefully by the original clipper owner.
I think my decision to include the previous scan of just the two Garibaldi variations might have caused a profusion of confusion. Hopefully the new scan and all my verbosity above makes things clearer.
Brian