- Thread starter
- #1
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
2003 bowmans best ryan howard question SCAN
- Thread starter boomo
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
Re: 2003 bowmans best ryan howard question, help
Notorious set for trimming.
Of course, I wouldn't assume that the board member trimmed it, nor that it is trimmed, just saying with the "easy" to cut stock and common edge problems...it's a questionable set.
Notorious set for trimming.
Of course, I wouldn't assume that the board member trimmed it, nor that it is trimmed, just saying with the "easy" to cut stock and common edge problems...it's a questionable set.
- Thread starter
- #3
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
Re: 2003 bowmans best ryan howard question, help
They are "standard" card-size - 2.5" X 3.5". Now, companies like BGS allow for a slight allowance in the size but every card, but 99% of the time cards are dead-on size within the set.
The easiest thing to do is compare it to other singles from that set, size-wise.
Yes.boomo said:
They are "standard" card-size - 2.5" X 3.5". Now, companies like BGS allow for a slight allowance in the size but every card, but 99% of the time cards are dead-on size within the set.
The easiest thing to do is compare it to other singles from that set, size-wise.
yanxyanx
New member
Re: 2003 bowmans best ryan howard question, help
Boomo,
I have owned about 10-15 of these Howards over the years and never noticed them being any smaller than a standard card.
Hope it works out for you...
Joe
Boomo,
I have owned about 10-15 of these Howards over the years and never noticed them being any smaller than a standard card.
Hope it works out for you...
Joe
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Re: 2003 bowmans best ryan howard question, help
+1.
I owned the blue and reds too whcih were normal sized.
yanxyanx said:
+1.
I owned the blue and reds too whcih were normal sized.
- Thread starter
- #8
daveyou
New member
matt, put any card under the howard and rescan?
dave
dave
- Thread starter
- #11
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
After throwing the scan in Photoshop, it does appear to be slightly "thin" and perhaps not even cut correctly.
Obviously doing anything like this through Photoshop assumes that at least one dimension is correct, therefore with this as it appears "thin" I have assumed the height is 3.5".
Do me a favor, measure the top of the card, and the bottom of the card. Better yet, measure top to bottom as well.
If I had to guess...both side edges will measure just under 3.5", and the top edge will measure less than 2.5" and just a bit more slim than the bottom edge.
By the way, here is the Photoshop look. The light blue lines show where the edges of a standard 2.5" x 3.5" card would be.
And don't forget, a lot of things can skew these results...only a ruler will let you know where you really are on this card...and don't assume that the member knew this was trimmed, or trimmed it himself.
Obviously doing anything like this through Photoshop assumes that at least one dimension is correct, therefore with this as it appears "thin" I have assumed the height is 3.5".
Do me a favor, measure the top of the card, and the bottom of the card. Better yet, measure top to bottom as well.
If I had to guess...both side edges will measure just under 3.5", and the top edge will measure less than 2.5" and just a bit more slim than the bottom edge.
By the way, here is the Photoshop look. The light blue lines show where the edges of a standard 2.5" x 3.5" card would be.
And don't forget, a lot of things can skew these results...only a ruler will let you know where you really are on this card...and don't assume that the member knew this was trimmed, or trimmed it himself.
