1934-1936 Batter Up Size Question
 

I’m aware that there are two sizes of Batter-Up cards. The first 80 cards in the set measure 2-3/8" by 3-1/4", while the remaining cards (#81-192) are slightly shorter at 2-3/8" by 3".

I have an Appling card (#124) and the card is clearly short of 3”, top to bottom. I don’t have the exact measurement, but can provide later. My question is: are there size variations, even within the two different sizes, or does being shy of 3” mean the card is probably trimmed.

Thank you for any help you can provide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I don’t collect that particular issue, I do collect a lot from the 30’s and being off 1/8” is not unheard of.

Conor is correct. I will check some of the Batter-Up high numbers I have to (most likely) confirm there is a decent amount of variance in sizing from the established 3" top to bottom dimension.

Brian

Thanks, Connor and Brian.

Brian, I’d be curious to know if the ones you have on hand do end up having short ones among them as well. Thanks in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here are my results from 68 high number Batter-Up cards, in decreasing size order:

3-1/16" - 1

3-1/32" - 1

3" - 35

2-31/32" - 15

2-15/16" - 12

2-29/32" - 4


As you can see, over half measured at the 'gold-standard" 3 inch size, while just a couple measured over 3". On the shorter end of the spectrum, 31 of the cards measured below 3".

Below is a Batter-Up heighth visual. The Parmalee card on the left is 3" tall. The Crowder card pictured in the middle is at the low end of the spectrum at 2-29/32", while the Lee card on the right resides in gentle giant land, measuring 3-1/16". I have included a scan of the backs as well because I think it is a little easier to discern the differences in height.


Brian

Brian, you really went above and beyond in answering my question. Thank you so much. Your response is very informative and was of great help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's great information -- thanks, Brian!

Did you by any chance track which cards are which size? It might be interesting to cross-reference against the sheet layouts to see if there's any relationship between card heights and sheet positions.



.

Hi Doug...I didn't think about taking note of the individual card sizes when I was measuring. When I get up the energy to whip out the ruler I will provide that info. It might take some time.

Brian

Hey Brian . . . if you decide to re-measure and cross-reference I'd be curious to see the results, but please don't feel obligated -- if I want to know badly enough I can measure my own (and I am planning to do so at some point, but I've got a couple of other projects that ahead of this one in the queue). I was just thinking that maaaaybe you might've kept track of that, though of course there's no compelling reason that you should have.

Thanks!
Doug


.

Noting that the sloppy cutting by National Chicle staff made it possible to rebuild both high number print sheets, card by card, thanks to all the edge variances. I bet that puts any card along an edge at high risk of being longer or shorter! Corners are 164, 148, 185, 160, 96, 98, 143, 115, so check those first for odd size.

I had a chance to re-examine the height sizing under strong light, this time without an intoxicating beverage in sight, and under the supervision of our 6lb dog Milo. Here are the official, take your winning ticket to the window results for 70 high number cards (2 more than previous, information provided in the off-chance that this would be the deciding factor on whether to place a future parley bet).


3-1/16" - 140

3-1/32" - 90, 101

3" - 81, 82 93, 94, 96, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 113, 118, 128, 129,
130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141, 143, 146, 152, 157, 158, 159,
162, 169, 184, 186, 187, 190, 191

2-31/32" - 103, 116, 117, 137, 148, 149, 150, 154, 156, 163, 164, 168,
174, 175, 176, 180, 181, 188

2-15/16" - 99, 119, 126, 127, 142, 177, 185

2-29/32" - 98, 109, 123, 160, 161

2-7/8" - 189


Perhaps this will be useful for the couple of you out there trying to figure out Batter Up sheet configurations and such. If nothing else, enjoy the fine array of numbers and the extravagant use of commas!

And for a fun, below I present a trio of Hall of Famers with different heights. In descending height order are Traynor, Dickey and Ferrell. I do especially appreciate the extra effort involved from the individual who utilized a couple of portions of a 1940 Play Ball card to 'strengthen' the back of the Ferrell. He could have just used tape, as did the person involved with monkeying around with the back of the Traynor card.


Brian