View Single Post
  #11  
Old 08-02-2016, 08:27 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,389
Default

A bit more evidence for the theory that a lot of these GT's came directly out of the factory cut too thin. I have a picture of a 'normal' 1962 series 2 uncut sheet. On it, the card directly above Sisler is #117 Gary Geiger. My assumption is the green tint printers most likely followed the same basic sheet layout. With that said, after a quick look-see around ebay and COMC, I found a number of Geiger's GT cards to be much thinner than they should be.

The top card is what a standard sized GT Geiger looks like. The ones below it have much thinner woodgrain borders on the sides. For full disclosure, most of these pictures/scans came from different sources, so the sizing, etc., wasn't exactly the same. I had to enlarge or decrease the cards a bit to make them relatively consistent with each other. But you can readily look at the combined thickness of the woodgrained sides to see how truly off they are. Of course, there is no way to know whether or not the people who owned these cards actually trimmed them themselves, but I'm guessing that's probably not the case. And one of the Geiger GT's I have here in my doubles box is gravely thin, too.

1962Geiger117GTtrim.jpg

As a weird side note, Sisler is #171 and Geiger is #117. Seems perhaps the GT printers had a real problem with numerical combinations containing two 1's and a 7. Too bad the set had no card #711. I would've like to have seen what that one looked like.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land

https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm

Looking to trade? Here's my bucket:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel

Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s.

Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow.
Reply With Quote