Size of Diamond Star Robert Rolfe Card...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Green

I picked up a 1935 Diamond Star Robert Rolfe card (#29 in the set). The card measures about 2 3/8 by 2 3/4. The Hayworth that I have measures 2 3/8 by 2 7/8, which is correct according to the Sports Collectors Digest. So the Rolfe is a full 1/8 inch shorter in height than the Hayworth. (Both cards are shown below.) Furthermore, not only is the Rolfe shorter in overall size than the Hayworth, but the size of the picture is also shorter. I find this very interesting.

I do not believe that my card is trimmed. I have looked around at other Rolfe cards that have been shown in groups with other Diamond Star cards. In many of those pictures, the Rolfe also appears to be shorter than the neighboring Diamond Star cards.

I'm curious if all Rolfe cards measure about 2 3/8 by 2 3/4, or if there are full-size Rolfe cards out there. So, for you guys who have a Rolfe Diamond Star card and have a few minutes, please measure your Rolfe and report its size. In reporting the size, also report the year of the card. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Brad, I think I mentioned this to you in a recent email ... I once bought a lot that was advertised as trimmed and had several graded by GAI. One came back a 7, a couple others 6's ... curiously, the Hayworth was the smallest card ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Green

Chris:

Did the "trimmed" cards that you bought measure 1/8 inch short in either direction or were they just barely under the 2 3/8 by 2 7/8 size?

Brad

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

I didn't have anything graded that was that far off, but my ungraded Hayworth clearly is (it's shorter than any Diamond Star I have). It's the borders of a card that get trimmed, not the image. I'll check my Hayworth and see if its image, borders aside, is larger than other cards from the set. I seem to recall Hayworth is from a later series than the first Rolfe, and I believe another Rolfe came out even later. Maybe it varies from series to series. Hopefully, someone with more knowledge about Diamond Stars will chime in ... is it possible that National Chicle was experimenting with cards of slightly different sizes in its Diamond Stars set? They certainly did with the Batter-ups, which are slightly smaller in the later series and came out two years after the low numbers. The Diamond Stars were issued during the exact same time frame (1934-36) ... just think, Brad, if we were talking about t206s or Caramel cards and not Diamond Stars, this thread would have dozens of responses already ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Green

The cards were scanned at the same size, so it is a one-to-one comparison between Rolfe and Hayworth.

I have been emailing back and forth with another board member about this topic. He has a theory about why the cards might vary so much in size. Hopefully he'll share his theory in this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Brad, I just compared my Hayworth to a Melillo from the same set and the Haywoth image is bigger. But curiously, the two cards (which came from different sources) are roughly the same size. If I had to guess, I'd say the Hayworth was trimmed a long time ago to fit the size of the earlier Diamond Stars. Its edges seem a little rough. The Hayworth has a 1936 copyright and the Melillo a 1935 copyright ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

I own one and just measured it... comes in at 2 3/8 by 2 7/8. It's a 1935 issue.

Here's a scan. One of my favorites from the set because of the background.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

here's mine...she's a 35' and measures fully at 2 3/8 x 2 7/8.

pete ullman

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Green

Thanks guys! So they do come full size...