Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Could standard card size change?

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.

smapdi

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
4,397
221
Aside from cabinet cards, baseball and other collectible cards were small pretty much throughout the whole history of the hobby. Old Judge, Allen & Ginters, Mayo Cut Plug, T cards, W cards, and so on. Bowman changed slightly each year, but were still on the smaller side. Part of the reason Topps was able to crush them, I suspect, was that 1952 Topps were just bigger (2-5/8" x 3-3/4" vs. 2-1/8" x 3-1/8"). The Topps design was great, obviously, with a bigger checklist and all that, but I'd have to think that the kids in 1952 just preferred the bigger cards. Bowman apparently thought so, too, as they changed to match in 1953. In 1957, victorious Topps changed to the 2.5" x 3.5" size that's been pretty much the standard ever since, with certain exceptions like Tallboys or horizontally elongated cards (1951 Topps Teams, 1971 Greatest Moments, non-sports Widevisions), or purposely designed minis.

I've often wondered if and why a different size might be adopted and be popular enough to supplant the current standard. I think the current size is popular partially because it's easy to remember and calculate multiples, but it also just feels right. But could it ever change? Going back to the 52-56 size? Bigger? How about a 20% proportionally larger 3" x 4.2"? How about N43 size, like the A&G inserts. Or even bigger, Sportscaster size or like 1962 Topps Giants, replicated by Donruss later on. Or maybe smaller? With greenness on everyone's mind, would "saving trees" by going down to 2" x 3" be viable? It would save 2.75 square inches of cardboard per card.

The way the hobby is now, it would be a difficult change, either way. Everyone stores their cards in some sort of specialized holder, whether it's a cardboard box or multi-row box or top loader or lucite or sheets, and I'd guess at least 90% of everything sold is for standard size cards. When they do put out something in a larger size, it's generally viewed as an irritant more than a cool change. How many 1989 Bowmans have been dinged because they were larger? And I find things like 1992 Fleer tallboys a pain to store, always just going into the monster box sideways. Going smaller would be less of a problem, but going bigger probably would be.
 

bstanwood

Well-known member
Sep 24, 2016
3,666
332
Mystic, CT
I think the standard size makes a lot of sense for many reasons. Storage being the primary, binders can be used very conveniently, storage box sizes could be changed easy enough, but binder size is fairly standard everywhere. If cards went smaller companies would want to think how neatly they could be put into pages 2"x3", or something close would work as you could go 4x4 and still fit in a binder.
What I like most about the current size is that you can get good photography onto a card without straining eyes to see it or it being a pain in the nads to store.
 

mrmopar

Member
Jan 19, 2010
6,187
4,087
Topps defined the standard size and it was probably just a ploy to save money. Bowman was gone and they would not really have any true competition (aside from a few random Fleer & Leaf issues) for almost 25 years. More cards per sheet = cheaper printing costs. However, I think it would be very tought to change collectors minds after all these years of the same size. Small and larger cards seem to have done poorly, regardless. Most of the time they are seen as gimmicky.

From the perspective of display, having multiple sizes is a small irritation. There have been soft and hard holders made for most of the odd sizes, so it is possible to display them together, but jumping from different sheets is unpleasing to the eye.

I'd say no, the "standard" card size will probably never change again, at least not in our lifetime.
 

mrmopar

Member
Jan 19, 2010
6,187
4,087
What I like most about the current size is that you can get good photography onto a card without straining eyes to see it or it being a pain in the nads to store.

Guessing you are still relatively young. I just turned 50, but it is impossible for me to read card backs now w/o glasses and sometimes even with glasses, certain print is still too small to read w/o great light too.
 

brian26

Member
Nov 12, 2010
679
10
Guessing you are still relatively young. I just turned 50, but it is impossible for me to read card backs now w/o glasses and sometimes even with glasses, certain print is still too small to read w/o great light too.

47 and lately having the same issue. Really hard to read the years on the back of the cards. Ugh.
 

banjar

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2015
2,540
883
Lafayette, Colorado
45 and starting to see similar problems. My eyes have always been better than perfect, but now...

Anyway, no I don't see the standard card size changing. 3.5" x 2.5" really is a good size, and there's just too much inertia to keep the format as-is. Minis and jumbos will always have their cult followings here and there, but the mainstream likes the standard size.
 

WizardofOz1982

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2017
1,736
1,498
Oklahoma
I don't see it changing with storage of all things being the impetus to keep it where it is.

I love Ginter but the storage is a pain in the A##. Mini sleeves, mini top loads, mini boxes, N43 sleeves and boxes, different size binder sheets, you name it. More than once I've considered just dumping the whole mini part of my collection and moving on just collecting the standard size cards.
 

u2me57

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2014
3,234
63
Hendersonville, Tn.
I don't see it changing with storage of all things being the impetus to keep it where it is.

I love Ginter but the storage is a pain in the A##. Mini sleeves, mini top loads, mini boxes, N43 sleeves and boxes, different size binder sheets, you name it. More than once I've considered just dumping the whole mini part of my collection and moving on just collecting the standard size cards.

I agree. If it ain't broke don't change it. And I don't see it changing any time soon. I've never cared for mini cards and I don't have many. I only get the mini's for my Jim Thome collection, and I usually stick the mini card in the same soft sleeve as the regular size card. But I did like the larger 1971 Fleer World Series cards.
 

smapdi

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
4,397
221
Maybe not changing the standard so there are no 2.5x3.5 cards anymore, but I just think it would be a cool option. Suppose they put out 2020 Topps, and then they came out with a "Topps Max" that was 3x4.2 or whatever, the same cards with parallels and autographs and whatnot, maybe not everything a base set entails but enough to be interesting with a good size print run, not some niche 300-case deal, Max would be a huge hit. Chromes? Absolutely. Things like patch cards where size really does matter could be truly inspiring. As time goes by if they remain consistent about it, they might try Max-exclusive products. I dunno, just a thought.
 

MrMet

Well-known member
Apr 6, 2010
13,556
612
The Poconos
All I could think of while reading this is Apple and the iPhone, where every other year they change up the charging port and charger so you have to buy new ones. That would be something here where every other year you have to buy new 9 page holders and new penny sleeves and on and on to fit the new size cards. Be a great money maker for Topps but I’m sure it would alienate a ton of customers


Sent from my iPhone using Freedom Card Board mobile app
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top