1933-36 Zeenut Size

[jingram058]

I have 9 of these, 1 and 3/4" by about 2 and 7/8", all 9 just a touch short of 3" with no coupons. Is that about right? Everything says they are 3 and 1/2" tall. That's obviously with the coupons still attached. Almost none have the coupons; they're rare as all get out if they still have them.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I have 9 of these, 1 and 3/4" by about 2 and 7/8", all 9 just a touch short of 3" with no coupons. Is that about right? Everything says they are 3 and 1/2" tall. That's obviously with the coupons still attached. Almost none have the coupons; they're rare as all get out if they still have them.

The 1933-36 Zeenut cards are fairly consistent at 1-3/4" wide. The length to the start of the coupon is around 2-7/8". Because the coupon removal quite often was either done non-precisely by scissors or by tearing, the resulting non-coupon cards quite often end up by a little shorter, which most dedicated Zeenut collectors accept as part of the Zeenut collecting landscape.

Here are a couple photo size variations, with the one on the left obviously being a little short.

Brian

[jingram058]

Thank you, sir! Yes mine are all 1 and 3/4" wide, but the length is uneven but pretty close to 2 and 7/8". I have Vitt, Strange, Shellenback, Brannan, Bassler, Walsh jr, Lelivelt, Moncrief, and Pool. They all came from the same collector, and have short handwritten bios on the back.

[jingram058]

Here are my 9 Zeenuts. I like the fact that someone embellished them with history, though I suppose that would detract from their value. To me, it adds to them, and a big reason I bought them when I did some years ago.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Here are my 9 Zeenuts. I like the fact that someone embellished them with history, though I suppose that would detract from their value. To me, it adds to them, and a big reason I bought them when I did some years ago.

Nice...cards with blank backs are ideal for writing and stamping.

By the way, you have Zeenut cards from two different sets. Seven cards (Vitt, Strange, Shellenback, Brannan, Bassler, Lelivelt and Moncrief) are from the 48 card 1933 Sepia set, while two cards (Walsh and Pool) are from 1933-36 Zeenut set. The 1933-36 lumped together designation was created due to the fact that for the most part cards with the coupons still attached are required to identify what year a card was distributed. Because of the scarcity of cards with the coupon still attached, as far as I know this task has not been fully accomplished.

You are one card away (Sherlock) from having the full 1933 Sepia Hollywood team set.

Brian

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Nice...cards with blank backs are ideal for writing and stamping.

By the way, you have Zeenut cards from two different sets. Seven cards (Vitt, Strange, Shellenback, Brannan, Bassler, Lelivelt and Moncrief) are from the 48 card 1933 Sepia set, while two cards (Walsh and Pool) are from 1933-36 Zeenut set. The 1933-36 lumped together designation was created due to the fact that for the most part cards with the coupons still attached are required to identify what year a card was distributed. Because of the scarcity of cards with the coupon still attached, as far as I know this task has not been fully accomplished.

You are one card away (Sherlock) from having the full 1933 Sepia Hollywood team set.

Brian

Thanks, Brian, for the info. I love these cards, as much as any of my other cards. It's becoming clear to me that, before the Dodgers and Giants moved west, the old PCL wasn't just another minor league. I will most definitely be on the lookout for Sherlock!

[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.

[brianp-beme]

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

[FrankWakefield]

I'm smiling 10 fold, as I eat some of my earlier words!

Those Garibaldi cards show me that the image size varies on some cards, I was not aware of that. It reminds me of some of the Colgan's Chips... I think Selby is one of the cards that has a small head version and a large head version.

Still, I'm glad I posted back there; otherwise, I'd not have read "a profusion of confusion." I'll try to add that into my word war chest. Reminds me of a saying I once heard, "I don't know if my thoughts have matured or manured."

So... allowing some difference in height measurments, 2 7/8" is about normal; and I reckon someone wanting a great example would want to the the bottom margin cut where just a bit of the printed cut line was.

I'll get on with eating those words.

[jingram058]

The Sherlock sepia I need to be on the lookout for is John "Monk" Sherlock of the Hollywood Stars. His brother Vince also has a 1933 Zeenut sepia, when he was playing for the Mission Reds. I never knew any of this.