: Where does 90x50 mm derive from? # mm inches aspect ratio (1) 88.9 x 50.8 3.5 x 2 1.75 (2) 90 x 50

@LarsenBagley460

Where does 90x50 mm derive from?

# mm inches aspect ratio
(1) 88.9 x 50.8 3.5 x 2 1.75
(2) 90 x 50 3.543 × 1.968 1.8


See full table.


USA & Canada (Imperial & American system)
Argentina, Brazil, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Kazakhstan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mexico and South Africa (metric system)


So, 90 x 50 mm is metric version of the USA's & Canada's business card size. For evenness sake it probably is not 89 x 51 m.

Some Finnish forums referred to SFS recommendation, but I was unable to confirm this. It is clearly apparent, though, that the recommendation would be based on the North American customs.



Where does 3.5 x 2 " derive from?

I didn't find a straight answer to this, but stumbled into an interesting article about the history of business cards, which state the dimensions are used at least starting form the Victorian era.

The "calling card" sizes were hierarchical and denoted the social status of the owner(s):


The largest cards, measuring 3 3/8" x
2 1/2", were reserved for married
couples.

A man could choose a card of either 3
3/8" x 1.5" or 3.5" x 2" dimensions.
Sizes then ranged down to that for a
married woman, a single woman, an
unarried daughter still living at
home, and a child, who had the
smallest card at 2.25" x 1 3/8".


So my own conclusion is the 3.5 x 2 " size is derived from the Victorian man's calling card size, and—again—probably is 3.5 x 2 " rather than 3 3/8 x 1 ½ " for the evenness sake.

Vote Up Vote Down

Login to post a comment!