Posted By:
Eric BrehmThere was a discussion here a while back about how the placement of cards on a production sheet, and/or the precision of the cutting process used to produce the individual cards, might result in certain cards tending to be off-center, as well as cards at the edges of the sheets being either smaller or larger than normal. That certainly could be the case with 1933 Goudeys.
Going back to the measurements I did of my Goudey cards, another way to look at the data would be in terms of the actual distribution of the card sizes, as opposed to the average, minimum, and maximum sizes I listed previously. Though I estimated each card's dimensions to the nearest 1/80th (0.0125) inch, for the purposes of tallying the distribution given below, I grouped the card size estimates into the more traditional powers of 2 units (1/64th, 1/32nd, 1/16th inches). Again, no card in the 240-card sample measured as much as 1/16th inch smaller or larger than the nominal size in either dimension.
In terms of card width (nominal size 2 3/8 inches), out of 240 cards:
7 were between 1/32nd and 1/16th inch short (2.9%)
60 were between 1/64th and 1/32nd inch short (25.0%)
58 were between nominal size and 1/64th inch short (24.2%)
110 were nominal size (to the nearest 1/80th inch)(45.8%)
4 were between nominal size and 1/64th inch long (1.7%)
0 were between 1/64th and 1/32nd inch long (0.0%)
1 was between 1/32nd and 1/16th inch long (0.4%)
In terms of card height (nominal size 2 7/8 inches), out of 240 cards:
18 were between 1/32nd and 1/16th inch short (7.5%)
45 were between 1/64th and 1/32nd inch short (18.75%)
46 were between nominal size and 1/64th inch short (19.2%)
112 were nominal size (to the nearest 1/80th inch)(46.7%)
15 were between nominal size and 1/64th inch long (6.25%)
3 were between 1/64th and 1/32nd inch long (1.25%)
1 was between 1/32nd and 1/16th inch long (0.4%)
<edited to add additional data>