You're right, it doesn't look like we'll get too far analyzing that Lobert, other than to say he isn't the farthest card to the left on a sheet.
It is interesting that the other, partial card on his mis-cut is presumably card #90, which is Joe Judge--one of the few corrected errors in the set. It would be neat to know if your Lobert was on the same sheet as the earlier, error version or instead in the other print run. Oh well, given and as you can see that the way these cards were designed--with the horizon between ground and sky basically the same on most--it seems we'll never know.
With all the poor cuts frequently seen with these cards, such as your Marquard which I have only once seen centered and which is sometimes drastically diamond cut, you'd think that we would find some mis-cut top to bottom enough to make out the numbering. Maybe something will surface showing these were printed in rows of 25 like the m101s Mendelsohn issued the prior year. As for your question, yes I believe he was stating that this year's set would be bigger than the m101s. Unfortunately for me, both the E135s and the mystery m-unc set he had printed are larger, so I do not know with confidence to which of these two sets the ad might be referring.
Hopefully others can offer help or theories.