1933 Tatoo Orbit Set
 

Hello everyone, does anyone know if the sizes can vary in that 1933 Tatoo Orbit set? I have a graded Connie Mack SGC 40 that does not measure 2 inches wide. I also have several ungraded cards that measure exactly the same as my graded Mack card.
Thank You,
Richard

Tattoo
 

Are you talking about the R305 or the R308? They are both from 1933.

Grammar fascist time: Both sets are spelled with two "Ts"! Regarding your second question, I've done the R305 set twice and there isn't a huge difference in measuring.

For what it's worth, I sent a set to PSA a few years ago and they all came back slabbed and with no indication of size variation.

Okay, if we are getting into semantics about this set wouldn't the correct description actually be the "Orbit Tattoo" set as opposed to the "Tattoo Orbit" set? (Or more specifically "Orbit Gum Tattoo Chewing Gum" cards)

Just one of those things that has always bugged me a little, I admit Tattoo Orbit sounds way better but Orbit was the company and Tattoo was the brand.

[QUOTE=rhettyeakley;2064130]Okay, if we are getting into semantics about this set wouldn't the correct description actually be the "Orbit Tattoo" set as opposed to the "Tattoo Orbit" set? (Or more specifically "Orbit Gum Tattoo Chewing Gum" cards)[QUOTE]

I vote for "Orbit Tattoo Gum Chewing Gum" cards.

As far as sizing, I have never noticed much variance. I would have to check my off-center Cuyler to see if he measures the same as a more typical card.

Shown are the R305 Cuyler, and all in one scan for sizing comparison - R305 Martin, R308 Martin (regular size) and R308 Martin (large size)

Brian

[QUOTE=brianp-beme;2064159][QUOTE=rhettyeakley;2064130]Okay, if we are getting into semantics about this set wouldn't the correct description actually be the "Orbit Tattoo" set as opposed to the "Tattoo Orbit" set? (Or more specifically "Orbit Gum Tattoo Chewing Gum" cards)
That's a mouthful! Although not correct, Tattoo Orbit just sounds cool.