Standard Card Thickness

[clydepepper]

Does anyone know the exact thickness of standard issue Baseball cards?


Thanks in advance for the info!


=

[steve B]

What year and set? The answer will be different for some. Like Topps 91 and earlier will be different than Topps 92- now. And the other companies will be different still.

I can measure a few to give a rough idea.

Paper stock has a range of thickness, so without a big sample size, it's just a rough idea.

[steve B]

A few samples from one of those 100 cards for $5 boxes I have handy.
All in inches, measured with a passable digital caliper.

Well, nowhere near as much difference as I'd thought.
Everything there fits between .013 and .016
There were a few companies that I didn't have cards right near the desk, but they're probably in the same range.

1988 OPC .015
2013 Topps .016 (probably a .001 thick glosscoat
2012 Topps .016 (6 cards, all the same, except one at .0165. That's too small of a difference to put much faith in. )
1997 Score .014
1990 Fleer .015
1987 Topps update .015
1997 Score .014
1991 Stadium club .014
1988 Fleer .015
1990 Score traded .015
1989 Topps .015-.016
2012 Bowman .015
1990 Donruss .013
1988 Topps traded .015-.016
1990 Topps .015-.016

[clydepepper]

Thank You, Steve- That's amazing research.


After the Edward Vela thread, my appetite for 'art' and 'custom' cards showed up again and, having suffered with some thin ones in the past, I wanted to be sure any new ones would be thick enough to 'pass' for me.

I'm looking at some that are 1.56 mil. which fits in the range you described.

There's an awful lot of absolute junk art and custom cards, but there are also some that are very well done indeed.


Thanks again,
Robbie

.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Thank You, Steve- That's amazing research.


After the Edward Vela thread, my appetite for 'art' and 'custom' cards showed up again and, having suffered with some thin ones in the past, I wanted to be sure any new ones would be thick enough to 'pass' for me.

I'm looking at some that are 1.56 mil. which fits in the range you described.

There's an awful lot of absolute junk art and custom cards, but there are also some that are very well done indeed.


Thanks again,
Robbie

.

1.56mm is around .061, so a lot thicker.

I think that would be pretty cool, like the thicker cards we see for some inserts. some of the modern sets used to come with a blank thick insert to hide the inserts from pack feelers. I have/had a stack of them somewhere, but I may have given them to the kids.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by steve B

1.56mm is around .061, so a lot thicker.

I think that would be pretty cool, like the thicker cards we see for some inserts. some of the modern sets used to come with a blank thick insert to hide the inserts from pack feelers. I have/had a stack of them somewhere, but I may have given them to the kids.

Well, either my eyes or my reading...or both have gotten worse.

As it turned out, of the four cards I was considering, only one was left and the price was too high.

Thanks again.

=

[steve B]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Well, either my eyes or my reading...or both have gotten worse.

As it turned out, of the four cards I was considering, only one was left and the price was too high.

Thanks again.

=

I'm sort of considering expanding on that list so the info about typical thickness is out there. A pressed card or corner would be thinner.

[Bigdaddy]

Just based on some long ago memories, here are some observations:

Generally, Donruss cards were thinner than Topps, especially the first issue in 1981. I don't think they could even stand up straight by themselves.

Early Upper Deck cards are also thin.

Score cards from 1988 and 1989 seemed thicker than average.

Topps traded/update seemed a bit thicker (at least in the 1980s) when the card stock was different than the regular issue.

I've recently been putting together a 1957 T baseball set, and those cards are very thick.