paper weight conusion.

  • Thread starter Thread starter jason.mangiafico
  • Start date Start date
J

jason.mangiafico

I got what was advertised as "smooth" "premium" uncoated photo paper.
It was advertised as 80# weight, but when I got it, it only feels like
24#. Seller claims it is fine. Did I get ripped?
 
I got what was advertised as "smooth" "premium" uncoated photo paper.
It was advertised as 80# weight, but when I got it, it only feels like
24#. Seller claims it is fine. Did I get ripped?
Click to expand...

The jargon used by various manufactures of printer papers leaves a lot
to be desired. There's "lbs", "mils", "g/m2", etc.

However, "#" is a new one on me. Such designation as "#" doesn't appear
on any paper I own. Is this a UK used term?

-Taliesyn
 
quoting:
The jargon used by various manufactures of printer papers leaves a lot
to be desired. There's "lbs", "mils", "g/m2", etc.

However, "#" is a new one on me. Such designation as "#" doesn't appear
on any paper I own. Is this a UK used term?
Click to expand...


Seller actually said 80lbs, the package shows 80# . The paper is only
as thick as 24lb plain paper would be. It's actual measurement was
about .0035" to .004" with digital calipers.
 
quoting:




Seller actually said 80lbs, the package shows 80# . The paper is only
as thick as 24lb plain paper would be. It's actual measurement was
about .0035" to .004" with digital calipers.
Click to expand...
# (number symbol) is often use as a symbol for pound, but I
haven't seen it used on a ream of paper, but my experience
is limited. However 80 g/meter squared is about right for
24 lb paper. Maybe somebody got mixed up.

If you wanted 80 pound paper and thought that 80# meant 80
pound paper, tell the seller and get your money back. Tell
him it is falsely marked, which is illegal.
 
Taliesyn said:
The jargon used by various manufactures of printer papers leaves a lot
to be desired. There's "lbs", "mils", "g/m2", etc.

However, "#" is a new one on me. Such designation as "#" doesn't
appear on any paper I own. Is this a UK used term?

-Taliesyn
Click to expand...


No, it isn't - but the OP isn't in the UK (Verizon is an American ISP, last
I checked). We use the ISO standard ('A' sizes for standard paper (A8-A0)
then 'B' for things like broadsheet and tabloid and then 'C' for envelopes,
though the standard 'business' envelope is DL which takes a (portrait) A4
sheet folded in thirds along the width). It makes working things out so much
easier (A4 is half A3, A5 half A4, and so on).
 
Taliesyn said:
The jargon used by various manufactures of printer papers leaves a lot
to be desired. There's "lbs", "mils", "g/m2", etc.

However, "#" is a new one on me. Such designation as "#" doesn't
appear on any paper I own. Is this a UK used term?

-Taliesyn
Click to expand...


My apologies, I've not yet had my coffee this morning! I've no idea why I'm
rabbiting on about paper /sizes/ when the discussion is on paper /weights/!
We measure in g/m² (standard weight is 80g/m², though for 'bonded' paper
weights can be anything up to 120g/m²).

I know how much a sheet of all the standard weights weighs (a sheet of
80g/m², for example, weighs around 4g, therefore a sheet of 100g/m² would
weigh about 5g) so I could tell if I was being sold short.
 
Miss Perspicacia Tick said:
My apologies, I've not yet had my coffee this morning! I've no idea why I'm
rabbiting on about paper /sizes/ when the discussion is on paper /weights/!
We measure in g/m² (standard weight is 80g/m², though for 'bonded' paper
weights can be anything up to 120g/m²).

I know how much a sheet of all the standard weights weighs (a sheet of
80g/m², for example, weighs around 4g, therefore a sheet of 100g/m² would
weigh about 5g) so I could tell if I was being sold short.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's time for some more coffee, I'll stick to tea.
The question refers to photo paper ("smooth" "premium" uncoated photo
paper).
Photopaper of 240 g/m2 is quite normal.
This is 3 times the standard printing paper.
So, if the 24# is the 80 g/m2, than the 80# is about 250 g/m2.
My conclusion should be that Jason got ripped.

OB
 
Miss Perspicacia Tick said:
My apologies, I've not yet had my coffee this morning! I've no idea why I'm
rabbiting on about paper /sizes/ when the discussion is on paper /weights/!
Click to expand...

OK, but for the sake of the discussion, let's keep in mind what you said
there:

All true, of course. Then...
We measure in g/m" (standard weight is 80g/m",...
Click to expand...

which is also right. But now...
I know how much a sheet of all the standard weights weighs (a sheet of
80g/m", for example, weighs around 4g
Click to expand...

....here we find another apparent sign of coffee-deficit.

Given that A4 is half of A3, etc., then it takes 16 sheets of A4 to
equal one sheet of A0. Given further that the definition of A0 is that
it is one square metre, then if 'standard' paper weighs 80g/sq m it
follows that one A0 sheet weighs 80g. Thus, one A4 sheet weighs 1/16 of
80g, or five grams--not four.

cheers,

Henry
 
Henry said:
OK, but for the sake of the discussion, let's keep in mind what you
said there:


All true, of course. Then...


which is also right. But now...


...here we find another apparent sign of coffee-deficit.

Given that A4 is half of A3, etc., then it takes 16 sheets of A4 to
equal one sheet of A0. Given further that the definition of A0 is that
it is one square metre, then if 'standard' paper weighs 80g/sq m it
follows that one A0 sheet weighs 80g. Thus, one A4 sheet weighs 1/16
of 80g, or five grams--not four.

cheers,

Henry
Click to expand...


Henry,

Nothing to do with coffee deficit - but crappy scales! Our kitchen scales
only weigh in 2g increments (or 5g for weights over 1kg). It actually
weighed 6g so I should have gone for the median (or mean - they're the same
in this case) instead of the lower figure. We've ordered some that weigh in
½-gramme increments making this kind of measurement much more accurate. My
brain was too addled to do the maths, but you're perfectly correct.

Actually, A0 is *NOT* 1m² - according to my table of paper sizes - because
all paper is rectangular *NOT* square - it's 841mmx1189mm (or 0.841mx
1.189m). Given that A4 is 210mmx297mm - OK, I concede, it's as near as
damnit - but I'm a pedant.

Sorry, I'm rambling now, I'll shut up...
 
Pixmaker said:
There is a degree of confusion regarding paper weights.

It depends what classification of paper you are talking about.

See http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html for some help with
understanding the different ways of measuring different kinds of
paper.

Of course, there's always the simple fact that maybe someone didn't
know what they were talking about and just mislabeled. . . with the
best of intentions, of course.

Sometimes Occam's Razor works quite well.

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It's not the heat, it's the humidity!
==========================
(...Think the humidity's bad?
You should watch us vote!)
Click to expand...


Sorry, but there is no confusion - g/m² is the ISO standard - it's just that
you lot refuse to adopt it. Standard office paper is 80g/m².
 
Miss Perspicacia Tick said:
Henry wrote:
Click to expand...
Actually, A0 is *NOT* 1m" - according to my table of paper sizes - because
all paper is rectangular *NOT* square - it's 841mmx1189mm (or 0.841mx
1.189m). Given that A4 is 210mmx297mm - OK, I concede, it's as near as
damnit - but I'm a pedant.
Click to expand...

You'll note I never said A0 is one metre square--I said it is one square
metre. The locution 'metre square', as you suggest, refers to the
_dimensions_ of the object. Of course this paper is not square. However,
the locution 'square metre' refers to the _area_ of the object and, as I
said, the definition of the 'A' series standard size is that the base,
A0, is one square metre with a width-to-height ratio of .707070707...

cheers,

Henry
 
There is a degree of confusion regarding paper weights.

It depends what classification of paper you are talking about.

See http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html for some help with
understanding the different ways of measuring different kinds of
paper.

Of course, there's always the simple fact that maybe someone didn't
know what they were talking about and just mislabeled. . . with the
best of intentions, of course.

Sometimes Occam's Razor works quite well.

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It's not the heat, it's the humidity!
==========================
(...Think the humidity's bad?
You should watch us vote!)
 
My answer was intended to clarify. . . explain. . . teach.

Maybe you're happy with grams per square meter. That's nice. . .and
accurate. There's much to be said for that type of standardization. It
surely makes comparisons easy.

Others will gladly use the notation gm/m² and will understand
perfectly well what each means. The two expressions are equivalent in
most technical and scientific circles and connote area rather than a
particular format. Since we're talking weight, who cares what the size
is. . . it could be a perforator roll as long as its area totals one
square meter. That's what makes the g/m² so nice and absolute.

The printing industry uses standards based on the English system of
measurement and gets along rather well with it. In this case, the
weight is derived from sheets of paper of a particular size. (I guess
the guys in the bond paper factory didn't talk to the guys in the
offset stock plant). <G> I suggest that, if one wishes to jump into
any industry, it might be really neat to understand the terminology or
jargon of that industry. When in Rome . . .

And it really helps when you're trying to communicate with someone who
works in that particular industry. Absolute standardization might be a
noble objective but it's very difficult to change traditional ways.

As an example, despite the pressure to "go metric", most everyday
things are still measured in inches and feet and donuts are still sold
by the dozen. Now, if you want to talk about hot dog rolls, that's an
entirely different measurement system!

Whatever floats your boat.

Pixmaker in FLL
==========================
It's not the heat, it's the humidity!
==========================
(...Think the humidity's bad?
You should watch us vote!)
 
Not to muddy the waters here, but some time ago I ask a friend who owned a
Sir Speedy printing help in understanding the various classifications of
papers and how they are measured. What follows is his attempt to answer it.



He describes the difference between bone, book and cover papers.



He refers to pound as "#."



------------------------------------------------------



We, as users and consumers, think of paper in terms of 8.5 x 11 inches. This
is natural.



However, paper weight is defined as the weight of 500 sheets of "parent
size". Herein lies the problem. The various kinds of paper have different
parent sizes. Only God and Ben Franklin know why.



Bond paper, a.k.a. copy paper has a parent size of 17 x 22 inches.



Book, a.k.a. text or offset has a parent size of 25 x38 inches.



Cover has a parent size of 20 x 26 inches



Example:

500 sheets of 20# bond (copy) paper that measures 17 x 22 weighs 20#.

500 sheets of 50# book (text) paper that measures 25 x 38 weighs 50#.

500 sheets of 40# cover stock that measures 20 x 26 weighs 40#.



Reduced to the same measurement, say 8.5 x 11, both 20# bond and 50# book
(text) papers weigh nearly the same. Calculating the square inches of the
parent sizes bears this out.



Thus, you may see a ream of 500 sheets of 8.5 x 11 marked 20/50 #. Some
better resume paper is marked 24/60#. Obviously, they are saying, "This
paper weight is equivalent to 24# bond or 60# text.



The paper companies provide tables of "equivalent weights" for us to use.

E.g. 28# bond is equivalent to 70# book or 40# cover.



40# book or 16# bond is so light that only use is for bulk mailing where
weight saves postage.



40# cover used to be very rare until computer printers and color copiers
couldn't handle the stiff regular covers, so the lighter weight ones were
introduced.


--
Dave C.

(e-mail address removed)9et

Remove the five 9's (leave the 4) for email.
 
Miss Perspicacia Tick said:
Sorry, but there is no confusion - g/m² is the ISO standard - it's just that
you lot refuse to adopt it. Standard office paper is 80g/m².
Click to expand...

Grams per SQUARE meter is the ISO standard, yes. gsm for short, or
g/m(2) (that would be a superscript 2; yours came out a quote mark).
 
Dave C. said:
However, paper weight is defined as the weight of 500 sheets of "parent
size". Herein lies the problem. The various kinds of paper have different
parent sizes. Only God and Ben Franklin know why.
Click to expand...

Also called the basis weight.
 
Pixmaker said:
As an example, despite the pressure to "go metric", most everyday
things are still measured in inches and feet and donuts are still sold
by the dozen.
Click to expand...

.... in the USA!!!

This is an international newsgroup, just about everyone else,
including us here in the UK, uses metric measurements. I've certainly
only seen gms/m2 paper weights here in the UK.

(... and I grew up when we were still using lbs., I still think in
lbs. and ozs. for cooking etc.)
 
Henry said:
You'll note I never said A0 is one metre square--I said it is one
square metre. The locution 'metre square', as you suggest, refers to
the _dimensions_ of the object. Of course this paper is not square.
However, the locution 'square metre' refers to the _area_ of the
object and, as I said, the definition of the 'A' series standard size
is that the base, A0, is one square metre with a width-to-height
ratio of .707070707...

cheers,

Henry
Click to expand...


Still say you're arguing semantics. ;o) But I will accept it.
 
Elmo said:
Grams per SQUARE meter is the ISO standard, yes. gsm for short, or
g/m(2) (that would be a superscript 2; yours came out a quote mark).
Click to expand...


Your settings must be set incorrectly if you can't see ASCII characters.
 
The "#" sign is used to refer to pounds, or lbs. You'll often hear on a
telephone voicemail system to "press the pound key on your telephone
key pad", referring to the "#" symbol.

As to how pounds (or lbs.) are determined on paper, it is very
confusing, which is why many have gone to using g/m2 or mils.

Of course, it started in the UK, as most of these illogical measuring
systems did.

When the only people who cared about paper weight other than 20 lb.
bond, the jargon was used by printers and they knew what they were
referring to. But now that all sorts of paper are used by lay people,
they really ought to get rid of the lbs. paper weights.

The way they are determined is based upon the weight of one ream of the
paper at master cut paper size. That wouldn't be a problem is all paper
types used the same master size, but they don't. They can be 20 x 26",
25 x 38", 17 x 22" and many other "standard" sizes.

Bond, book, text, card, cover, fine art and other papers use different
size cut master sheets, and therefore, the 500 sheets weight a different
amount. So you could have a bond paper at 20 pounds which in text stock
may be 50 pounds.

So, in the case of the poster, if the paper he bought was in the second
category below (Offset, book, text or coated paper) an 80 pound stock
would be equivalent to about 30 pounds bond. An 80 pound Tag paper is
about 35 pound bond. An 80 pound cover is about 58 pound bond, and an
80 pound index stock is about 38 pound bond.

For a more complete set of comparisons, go to:

http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html


The chart below was adapted from the website.


Basis Weight ("Category") Table

Basic Size - 500 Sheets 17" x 22"
Type Paper: "Bond", Ledger, Mimeo, Duplicator, Rag Paper

Basic Size - 500 Sheets 25" x 38"
Type Paper: "Offset", Book, Text, Coated Paper

Basic Size - 500 Sheets 20" x 26"
Type Paper: "Cover"

Basic Size - 500 Sheets 24" x 36"
Type Paper: "Tag Stock"

Basic Size - 500 Sheets 25-1/2" x 30-1/2"
Type Paper: "Index"
 
Back
Top