Why are baseball cards 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches? Thoughts?

MansGame · Jan 24, 2014

Got into a conversation today with a co-working about this. Baseball cards, for the most part, have always been (modern day) the same size which is roughly 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches. Does anyone know why this is? Why they landed on this size? Why it's stuck for the most part?

I wasn't able to track down any sort of story or anything but I believe it might have something to do with how they lay out on a piece of paper and/or now a days with a 3x3 plastic page holder for cards? Or we thought about it having to do with how they're created and then cut, etc. and that the size works well for production?

I can't think of anything else and couldn't find any good stories online to tell me why.

Thoughts?

IndiansFan · Jan 24, 2014

Because that's the size they want them to be.

bmp1971 · Jan 24, 2014

because it's the size that fits comfortably in the average hand?

allstars · Jan 24, 2014

Once they started making 9-pocket pages there was no turning back

MansGame · Jan 24, 2014

IndiansFan said:
Because that's the size they want them to be.

That'a boy!

bmp1971 said:
because it's the size that fits comfortably in the average hand?

Not a bad idea...

MansGame · Jan 24, 2014

allstars said:
Once they started making 9-pocket pages there was no turning back

This was my feelings exactly actually...

jay1065 · Jan 24, 2014

Maybe the most efficient use of a sheet as far as cutting goes?

studioclint · Jan 24, 2014

jay1065 said:
Maybe the most efficient use of a sheet as far as cutting goes?

My guess would be something like this. Probably the best dimensions to completely fill the sheet of paper for printing.

MansGame · Jan 24, 2014

studioclint said:
My guess would be something like this. Probably the best dimensions to completely fill the sheet of paper for printing.

Def agree with this and like [MENTION=5900]allstars[/MENTION] comment about once the 3x3 plastic pages came out, there was not turning back..

Gwynn545 · Jan 24, 2014

DIN Standards and ISO standard for paper size were around in early 1900, while playing cards were using paper standards even 100 years before. Playing cards obviously went with A8 to easilly fit in the hand, so I assume baseball cards 100's of years later followed suit (pun intended).

D-Lite · Jan 24, 2014

Because that's the size that fits in a standard toploader.

But I agree with everyone, it's a nice size for the hand (think about how much hell it would be sorting wider cards) and the standard has been established so firmly that turning back is not possible.

Also maybe something with distribution? Tobacco cards were a lot smaller but were in a much larger package at the time. Modern cards on the other hand, once sold individually, had to fit on the candy shelf in a form fitting package.

Maybe also something to do with efficient size for fitting stats and a picture?

MansGame · Jan 24, 2014

Gwynn545 said:
DIN Standards and ISO standard for paper size were around in early 1900, while playing cards were using paper standards even 100 years before. Playing cards obviously went with A8 to easilly fit in the hand, so I assume baseball cards 100's of years later followed suit (pun intended).

I never thought of this but following what was acceptable for playing cards was probably a safe bet... good post!

Hawk8 · Jan 24, 2014

Interesting question that I had never even thought off before.

BunchOBull · Jan 24, 2014

2.5"x3.5" is exactly one-quarter of a 5"x7"...or a 5"x7" cut in half both ways...I imagine sticking to a more standard measure meant being able to use existing cutting machines.

BBCgalaxee · Jan 24, 2014

Topps changed the size after they bought out bowman. Smaller cards = less cost and more profit.

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

henderson939 · Jan 24, 2014

Congrats, on hitting the lottery Mansgame.

gracecollector · Jan 24, 2014

In a broader sense, the 3.5 to 2.5 is close to the golden ratio, which is universally pleasing to the eye. Topps had a monopoly from the early 1950's to 1980's. From 57-80 they standardized on 2.5 x 3.5. With that long of conformity, when Fleer and Donruss joined the mix, they just followed suit. By then the hobby supplies (mostly album pages back then, not so much toploaders) were built around the size. Sy Berger at Topps gets the credit for the modern standard size.

MansGame · Jan 24, 2014

henderson939 said:
Congrats, on hitting the lottery Mansgame.

Haha huh?

---
Buying Albert Belle cards! PM me!

PujolsCollector · Jan 24, 2014

As someone who's worked with printing I'm going to say it doesn't have much to do with fitting them on the sheet. They can use any size sheet of paper they want or wanted to. I would guess it has more to do with fitting in your hand, on a shelf and a lot to do with the DPI of pictures. In order to keep a good aspect ratio with out blurred photos its a good size especially since the cameras were not steller when the size became a standard and pictures were being put on cards. After the supplies were built and people became accustomed to the size there was no turning back.

rsmath · Jan 25, 2014

I certainly don't buy the "it's because that is the size of toploaders or 9-pocket pages" statements.

The cards can be any size and still be put in pages or toploaders. If you look at Ultra Pro's line, you'll see they make pages and toploaders for our standard sized cards, for minis, for larger cards.

Why the cards are standard 2.5 x 3.5, I dunno (like some of the printing page or A8 size theories) but I would make the argument whatever reason for the 2.5 x 3.5 inch cards, Ultra Pro and their competitors made the pages to fit that size because that was the size of the cards that collectors wanted to protect rather than cards were made that size to fit collector storage supplies.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Why are baseball cards 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches? Thoughts?

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in