Wingfield Postcard of Killebrew Question
 

I recently picked up this 1950s-1960s postcard from a seller who said it was "like new" - unfortunately, it's closer to VG, so I don't plan on keeping it - but my question has to do with the card's dimensions.

The Standard Catalog says these are 3.5 x 5.5, however mine is 3.5 x 5 5/16 (I also found one in an old eBay auction that describes it as 5 3/8 in length). The Standard Catalog photo and my example seem to "line up" perfectly, so my guess is that mine isn't trimmed and that the Catalog is in error.

Anyone else have one of these for comparison? Or does anyone know if these postcards in general simply aren't consistent in size, or if the Catalog is less than accurate for these types of issues? Thanks.


http://i438.photobucket.com/albums/q...40/wing1-1.jpg

http://i438.photobucket.com/albums/q...on40/wing2.jpg

It looks like you may be trimmed at the top. The wear definitely doesn't seem to match the rest of the card. Plus the placement of the stamp box seems a little too close to the edge. That could just be the printing though.

Wingfield
 

Mine is exactly 5 3/8"
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z228/andypcl/don.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Mine is also exactly 5-3/8"

http://centuryoldcards.com/images/19...2killebrew.jpg

Thanks, guys. One thing I notice about the 4 copies I've now seen is how slightly wavy/crooked the cuts appear on some of the sides - none look perfectly straight to my eye. This leads me to think mine might be "factory-short", or maybe just blunted/worn at the top. Given the overall condition of the card, there couldn't have been much to gain by trimming off 1/16", all at the top.

Regardless, I think I'm going to pursue a nicer, "fuller" one. :)

Thanks again.

print mark..
 

I was kind of glad to see we all have the black print mark coming down from the top as well.