The size of trading cards - does size matter?

[Matt26]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to find out what peoples thoughts were on trading cards that were not the standard size e.g. 3.5 x 2.5 inches.

Is it a case (Pardon the Pun) of not being able to store them as easily as standard size cards that makes them less popular?

Would it make you more/less likely to buy cards that are oversized? I think the last full NBA mass market set that was oversized was Jam Session in 93/94.

Of course we have seen a lot of booklets being made of late.

What would peoples thoughts be if an Australian release NRL/AFL came out with a standard card that was 4 x 6 inches or even something like the Court Kings NBA Box Toppers 5 x 7?

Love to hear what people think!

Cheers

Matt

 

[Coopz05]

Storage is definitely a deterant for me.

Jam session size are not too bad if its base cards only cos you can get ultrapro sleeves in that size.

But I wouldnt want high end cards that size because you cant buy the 90-card type hard back folders with those size sleeves.

I like the idea of 5x7 box toppers, but I have my Kobe ones in 8x10 top loaders. They not only move around in there, but you really have no where to store them...

Card stock size matters I think. The thicker cards always feel much nicer in hands. But they too, dont fit in standard 90-card folders...

 

[nichj99]

Yeah storing it is a put off, unless it's something like the CK box toppers that come already in adequate protection (see flawless - or even locally the footycards draft prospects).

The other side is that it becomes "too hard" for a lot of people to work out how to post it if selling as its outside the norm, and the costs associated with it.

 

[magohaydz]

I hate the Jam Session cards and over-sized cards in general (even though I have the full set of 94-95 Jam Sessions in their proper Ultra Pro 6 per page sheets). They are painful to post, especially when sending with a bunch of standard sized cards. It was a novel idea at the time, and they were a huge talking point in 93 when they came out, but the novelty has well and truly worn off for me

 

[taffster74]

Size is kind-of a factor, but if you hunt around enough you can find the right ultra-pro pages for the larger cards. I know there are four,two and one slot pages to get for different sized jumbo cards. As to the last over-sized regular set ... that would 2001-02 topps High Topps.

 

[mattharper85]

For the 5 x 7 sized cards ultra pro make a top loader for these. One of our members has them for sale @napoleon1
Here is his listing on ebay

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/181603649163?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

 

[theflyinggerco]

I've got Mikans in a variety of sizes - booklet, ultra thick cards, Bowman 1948 smaller cards, larger cards.

Storage is certainly an issue; its hard to find penny sleeves and top loaders for these cards...

That said, I would certainly welcome a larger style card; the original 1948 Bowman was smaller and the first Topps set was bigger than 'standard' card size.

 

[GarnettFan4Life]

Not a fan of boxtopper autos, jam session size cards or even those Preferred booklets (Legends etc) really. Just used to my standard size cards that can fit in normal 9 card pages and toploaders I guess!

 

[ozballer23]

I hate anything other than the traditional size. Not because of storage, mostly because of the way they look. I'm more of a traditionalist to be honest.

 

[hobo]

Prefer standard size because of storage.

However as a special one off release I wouldn't have too much of a problem as long as it is a small set such as A One Community card that is 1 card per team or less, but if it was an ESP 677 card release, that would be business suicide in my opinion.