![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thank You, Steve- That's amazing research.
After the Edward Vela thread, my appetite for 'art' and 'custom' cards showed up again and, having suffered with some thin ones in the past, I wanted to be sure any new ones would be thick enough to 'pass' for me. I'm looking at some that are 1.56 mil. which fits in the range you described. There's an awful lot of absolute junk art and custom cards, but there are also some that are very well done indeed. Thanks again, Robbie .
__________________
. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on others lives" - Jackie Robinson “If you have a chance to make life better for others and fail to do so, you are wasting your time on this earth.”- Roberto Clemente |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I think that would be pretty cool, like the thicker cards we see for some inserts. some of the modern sets used to come with a blank thick insert to hide the inserts from pack feelers. I have/had a stack of them somewhere, but I may have given them to the kids. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Well, either my eyes or my reading...or both have gotten worse. As it turned out, of the four cards I was considering, only one was left and the price was too high. Thanks again. =
__________________
. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on others lives" - Jackie Robinson “If you have a chance to make life better for others and fail to do so, you are wasting your time on this earth.”- Roberto Clemente Last edited by clydepepper; 06-08-2019 at 07:07 AM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm sort of considering expanding on that list so the info about typical thickness is out there. A pressed card or corner would be thinner.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Just based on some long ago memories, here are some observations:
Generally, Donruss cards were thinner than Topps, especially the first issue in 1981. I don't think they could even stand up straight by themselves. Early Upper Deck cards are also thin. Score cards from 1988 and 1989 seemed thicker than average. Topps traded/update seemed a bit thicker (at least in the 1980s) when the card stock was different than the regular issue. I've recently been putting together a 1957 T baseball set, and those cards are very thick.
__________________
Working Sets: Baseball- T206 SLers - Virginia League (-2) 1952 Topps - low numbers (-1) 1954 Bowman (-5) 1964 Topps Giants auto'd (-2) |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1964 Topps Thickness & Color Variation | xdrx | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 22 | 12-01-2022 09:21 AM |
Ultra Pro 9 pocket pages for patch/relic cards + 70 pt thickness? | Beastmode | Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) | 1 | 08-28-2017 11:07 AM |
Question about E97 C. A. Briggs Co. thickness | Mainstreetsportscards | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 0 | 02-13-2015 10:35 PM |
Thickness of T201 Mecca Double Folders | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 10-18-2006 04:58 PM |
1915 Standard Biscuit card questions | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 10-17-2001 01:35 PM |