1915 W-Unc cards- Redux

[Exhibitman]

Interesting info. Well cut side-by-side strip cards certainly seems to be indicated from the measurements. Did you/can you analyze the edges to see whether any of them exhibit varied cutting characteristics?

BTW, you have too much time.

[Leon]

Every 1915 W-Unc I have ever seen has been fairly heavily worn and all exhibited the same kind of natural wear to their edges. IN other words I could not see any differences. Yes, I have way too much time.

edited to add- I have seen a few that were very obviously trimmed after the fact and those exhibited regular trimming characteristics (clean, sharp cuts).

[nolemmings]

the Irwin/Erwin and Lobert cards definitely looked different to me than the others--the photo area was much wider with no side borders. Maybe Lew thought there would be no reason for there to be two team pictures/composites, and/or the cropping of that card and the Matty was different, irrespective of size, and that's why he thought those two you won were from a different set.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

the Irwin/Erwin and Lobert cards definitely looked different to me than the others--the photo area was much wider with no side borders. Maybe Lew thought there would be no reason for there to be two team pictures/composites, and/or the cropping of that card and the Matty was different, irrespective of size, and that's why he thought those two you won were from a different set.

If you look at the team composite that was in the 2nd grouping (above), it also has the wide-picture look. Just as the two type 2's I acquired were the same size as the other cards, so are the Lobert/Erwin cards, I would venture to guess. It's sort of an optical illusion that makes them look wider but it's really their cropping of the photo's...all imnsho (in my not so humble opinion), except for my 8 cards shown. Those sizes are fact.

here is a link to the auction

http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/very-rare-w-cards/

[nolemmings]

unless Lew played with the scans, the Irwin and Lobert are clearly wider in the size of their photos than the cards you showed:

[Leon]

Until I see exact measurements from someone that has them then I will respectfully disagree. I could be wrong but I don't think so. Thanks for the debate, regardless

[nolemmings]

unless Irwin and Lobert are narrower, and I doubt they are, then the cards are clearly different. It's not a question of cropping, it's a question of image area. Far more of it is available side to side on Irwin and Lobert, unless Lew changed the aspect ratio when he made the scans. Put differently, I believe the Irwin and Lobert cards measure the same if not wider than the others, and even if they measure the same, if you were to add any kind of side borders they would be wider. IMO, they were either trimmed close because little/no border was intended by the issuer, or because of a bad cut. Either way, they look much different to me.

[Brian Van Horn]

I hate to disagree with Lew, but the Lobert is, in my opinion, undoubtedly a strip card. I have a Rucker which is the same size:

[Brian Van Horn]

One clarification:

The Lobert and the Rucker cards are the same size, but the picture for the Lobert is sizably larger side to side, but matches top to bottom.