Very large T206
 

With all of the continued and renewed interest in T206, I thought I would share this much over-sized card I found in a collection this past weekend. It's considerably larger than any I've seen in the past.

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/o...g?t=1266930814

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/o...g?t=1266931273

That's my second favorite horizontal pose.

Nice card!!I have one that seems a little oversized,and one that seems a little undersized,but both graded through SGC.Also have a couple that seem to have been cut at a slight slant-also graded, through PSA.

Is that a big head issue? jj

?

I have a T206 like that also. It certainly pushes the limits on the space in the holder.

Jantz

I have, of all cards, a Shaughnessy which fills a SGC holder and I question if it would fit in a standard PSA case. Cards like these are exceptional, by way of thinking, because they remove all doubt that they were ever trimmed, as they certainly could have been.

Seeing oversized cards like these shows that there was some level of variation in the size of the cards when they were originally cut. I've bought a few that were sold as "trimmed" but, under a loupe, the boarders looked fine. I wonder how much the grading services rely on size alone vs. actually looking at the boarders under magnification. I've been tempted to submit a few of these cards to SGC but have held off because I figured they'd get dinged on size alone.

I've always figured it was mercury from the giant smelter in the background that caused Shannon's obvious deformities.

The following information was originally posted in this forum in 2004 by a fellow named Dave (not sure which Dave) who went by the moniker T206guy. Interesting Data:


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.

I wish he would make the same measurements of the black borders. That way we could take a nice scan of the PSA 8 Wagner and extrapolate its true size using the white border to black border relationship.

I like Huge borders....

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...061376-1-1.jpg






Be well Brian

Very-very cool, Brian. :eek:

(as with most anything you post!)

large
 

Brian W.
great display of borders!
hope the ole Tarheel is doing well!
best,
barry

<a href="http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/zouraspm/?action=view&current=evers.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/zouraspm/evers.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>