Batter Up Color Variations

[brianp-beme]

Here are the font size lists for the high number cards 81 through 192, as far as I could tell. Not as straightforward as far as I was thinking it would be...there are 7 different font sizes used (once again, as far as I could ascertain).

Here are those font size groupings, identified below by their card number, and based upon the size of the 'Batter-Up' text on the front, as far as I can spit (I already used 'tell', 'thinking' and 'ascertain', so spit was the obvious choice):

--Smallest size font (6 total) - Identified as Group A

100, 102, 139, 143, 157, 158


--Next size (36 total) - Group B

82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 126, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 150, 151, 155, 159, 163


--Next size larger (34 total) - Group C

90, 97, 103, 107, 109, 110, 114, 116, 118, 121, 125, 127, 129, 134, 136, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 156, 160, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181, 182


--Next size up (16 total) - Group D

85, 89, 93, 113, 141, 145, 146, 154, 171, 172, 175, 177, 179, 183, 184, 187


--Next up (11 total) - Group E

112, 123, 128, 130, 133, 162, 164, 178, 185, 188, 190


--Next larger again (4 total) - Group F

167, 174, 186, 191


--Absolutely the largest (5 total) - Group G

81, 140, 161, 189, 192


If my font estimations are accurate (I am likely to be off some), here are possible print run groupings that would add up to a sheet size of 56

Group B (35), Group D, (16), Group G (5) = 56

Group A (6), Group C (35), Group E (11), Group F (4) = 56

or

Group C (35), Group D (16), Group G (5) = 56

Group A (6), Group B (35), Group E (11), Group F (4) = 56


I am probably making things too simple, but it was fun to try to make some order out of font chaos.

Brian

[judsonhamlin]

Excellent! I’ll use that to see if the slight miscuts match up with those groups of 56

[judsonhamlin]

Rainy day activity here - matching a few pairs and a trio of cards to see if it helps sort the sheet biz out. Figured the following pairs (l to r, as listed):

172-169
180-163
129-177
188-171 and the following three -

107 is above 156, and 156 is to the left of 101

More later

[judsonhamlin]

A few more:

110-136
182-142
120-88

And above/below pairs:
168 above 130
173 above 178

[judsonhamlin]

And a couple more:

81-192 (first and last cards of high # set)
168-129 (makes a run of 4 - 168-129-177 and 130 under 168)
82-115

And three more top/bottom combos:
103 over 114
135 over 152
184 over 186

[judsonhamlin]

One more, based on the Billy Herman card posted here:

118 Walker is above 138 Herman but are printed top to top, which does not match up with any other sets and, to my mind, either represents the second sheet of 56 from the other matches or that that was done across the issue and this is just the first positive ID

[Spike]

More left-right pairs, based on miscuts in my near-set. "Maybe" means I'm 50/50 on a match. Others look 75-100%. Just one match, 86-146, appears to cross the text size groups listed earlier.

83-91
91-183 (maybe)
120-88
105-150
135-106 (maybe)
108-135 (maybe)
125-110 or -176
86-146
155-82

Top-bottom

135 over 126

[Spike]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

--Next size (35 total) - Group B

82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 126, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 150, 151, 155, 159


--Next size larger (35 total) - Group C

90, 97, 103, 107, 109, 110, 114, 116, 118, 121, 125, 127, 129, 134, 136, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 156, 160, 162, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181, 182

163 seems to be missing from the text tally and group B seems short one number, so must belong there? :-) (You have it as a confirmed pair with 180, so would be an interesting cross-size match.)

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Spike

163 seems to be missing from the text tally and group B seems short one number, so must belong there? :-) (You have it as a confirmed pair with 180, so would be an interesting cross-size match.)

Oops...looks like I skipped 163 in my listing. I have checked and the text size does appear to belong within Group B. I will update that post.

Great work folks...I will try to eventually post some scans of cards with overlaps so that maybe more of the connection puzzle can be pieced together or confirm connections already made.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

After peer review I reviewed the list I had posted, and noticed I had also listed card #162 in both Group C and Group E. Group E is correct, so I removed 162 from Group C list.

So my original total of cards for Group B has changed to 36 (from 35), and Group C has changed to 34 (from 35). So my fun little playing around with possible 56 card sheets based on font size has changed as well, which I changed on the original post and have also included it below:


If my font estimations are accurate (I am likely to be off some), here are possible print run groupings that would add up to a sheet size of 56


Group A (6), Group C (34), Group E (11), Group G (5) = 56

Group B (36), Group D, (16), Group F (4) = 56

or

Group A (6), Group C (34), Group D (16) = 56

Group B (36), Group E (11), Group F (4), Group G (5) = 56


Brian

[brianp-beme]

I was able to confirm the 106/99 connection, as well as the 184 above 186 connection. I have included scans for some additional overlapping cards.

They might be tough to match up this way (by just using scans), but hopefully some of these are obvious enough to match. I don't quite have the patience or eyes to do this matching work...but you two seem to do a good job at it, so good luck, especially with the partial cards!

Brian

[Spike]

Thanks Brian, your post of the 128-140 images lined up great, even if by accident! This looks like a vertical match.

Also confirmed 90-134 horizontal match.

[Spike]

186-175 Warneke - Fox horizontal

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Spike

Thanks Brian, your post of the 128-140 images lined up great, even if by accident! This looks like a vertical match.

Also confirmed 90-134 horizontal match.

Great work Matthew! And it looks like my scanner is better at making matches than I am.


Brian