Paper weight converter

Though the metric system is the only system that should be used worldwide, some (as US citizens!) are reluctant and do continue to use pounds (for weight) system.

We do have more and more quotation to do for printing brochures and have to use both metric AND pounds.

Therefore I have found on the Internet an easy to use Converter

Now the question is, here in Europe when we speak about a specific paper, it weights, say 300 gsm (grams per square meter), why does this converter propose me as convertion:
Text: 300.0 gsm = 202.7027 lbs
Cover: 300.0 gsm = 110.7829 lbs
Index: 300.0 gsm = 165.7459 lbs
Vellum: 300.0 gsm = 136.9863 lbs
Tag: 300.0 gsm = 184.0491 lbs

What the hell are all of these and which one should I use ?

Thanks for making my brain clear and let me learn at least one thing today…

Nicolas Claris said:

What the hell are all of these and which one should I use ?

Click to expand...

Apparently the Lbs are "Lbs/ream equivalent" with different a "base size", as explained here.

I didn't know that, being a 'metric' person all my life (ten fingers, ten toes, decimal system, you get my drift), but the grams per square metre seems a lot less error prone to me ...

Bart

Blame the confusion on the U.S. still not being standardized on the metric system and a "that's the way it is because that's the way we've always done it" manufacturing process. All this is because of the basis (base) size. Metric uses the square meter, but U.S. manufacturing uses inches, which for different types of paper has different base values. As you pointed out, each comes out differently. The basis size for bond is 17x22 inches. For cover it's 20x26 inches. And so on for each type. That's supposedly the uncut size before it's manufactured into the final product. Mr. Spock would say that's not logical. I sort of doubt if there could be any disagreement on that score.

This is converted to an equivalent pounds per 500 sheet ream of paper for the final number, so the U.S. lbs/ream is different for different types.

Seems like if everything worldwide was metric there wouldn't be this confusion? Or then maybe the manufacturing process would still have different base sizes in mm or cm and it would still be confusing? Like the nominal size that's advertized for lumber, where a 2x4 inch board is not really two by four, but has fractions shaved off in both dimensions in the "manufacturing process". Ugh.

Mike

Thanks Bart and Mike

I understand now, quite tricky!

The imperial measurement system has evolved over the years, based on empirical research. The metric measuring system was 'invented' by a failed dictator, based on dividing the circumference of the world into a million units, as far as I know. Ten is a pretty hopeless number, a duodecimal system is far better.

Metric may be 'easier', but it is in no way better, and misplace a decimal point and get really screwed.

Now, think about the paper sizes - make the sheets big enough for the covers seems fine to me. Instead of counting sheets, weigh them.

Any one in the timber business knows that 4 by 2 is unfinished size. I guess anyone in the usa paper business understands the paper sizes.

But there are only 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Best wishes,

Ray (who once knew about slugs and stones and rods, poles, perches etc. )

convertor software

Hi,

If its any use to folk with windoze, there is a very nice converter program here http://joshmadison.net/software/convert/ you can add your own conversions too. Having gone straight to Josh's site - (I don't know the guy other than getting his OK to put his software on one of my sites a few years ago) I see he does some photography - ripped an af lens apart, and other interesting? stuff.

Anyway, if you use the software, be aware that some values are in USA dimensions, which are not always the same as British, but you can add your own.

and fwiw, if you are into nuts and bolts, then this chart may be useful http://www.cnc.yertiz.com/tapchart.pdf designed for printing on A4.

Best wishes,

Ray

I do pay attention to the weights even if I don't actually know (by US standards) what the weight is. I don't 'translate'--but I know a 300 gsm paper is considerably heavier than a 105 gsm. What throws me is some papers are listed by pounds and some by gsm. What I really like to know, however, is .mil For instance, I'm looking now for a paper that is in range of 5-9 mil for handmade book making (handbound, stitched, etc.). I have several samples ordered---a Red River premium matte at 5 mil and another obscure one at 8 mil. When I'm buying a paper online I look at the specs and can pretty well judge what to expect by the gsm (in relations to others I have at the weight--not because I'm smart and have translated it to US standards LOL) and the mils.

Diane

Sometimes we do not live in the same world.
here some info on metric system for the ....mies

gsm (grams per square meter) compare paper by their weight/surface.

In the metric system, for paper (sheets) surface never change , therefore when you want to compare:

80 gsm
125 gsm
170 gsm
200 gsm
250 gsm
300 gsm

you know that the first one is far thick/heavier than the latter.

I dont want to weiogh paper, I want to tell to my clients what quality of paper (weight is one, finish another) I quote for them.
Eventually I don't care to tell them the wheight in pounds for them who don't know about grams, but I want them to be able to choose between to qualities, and they aren't in the printing industry!

Metric system has nothing to do with empirical but real measurement and easy to multiply.

I guess I understand binary but as you point this is not the case of many, how many times do we have to explain 72/300 dpi to our clients who don't understand this?

Metric system is much more simple.

Ray West said:

The imperial measurement system has evolved over the years, based on empirical research. The metric measuring system was 'invented' by a failed dictator, based on dividing the circumference of the world into a million units, as far as I know. Ten is a pretty hopeless number, a duodecimal system is far better.

Metric may be 'easier', but it is in no way better, and misplace a decimal point and get really screwed.

Now, think about the paper sizes - make the sheets big enough for the covers seems fine to me. Instead of counting sheets, weigh them.

Any one in the timber business knows that 4 by 2 is unfinished size. I guess anyone in the usa paper business understands the paper sizes.

But there are only 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Best wishes,

Ray (who once knew about slugs and stones and rods, poles, perches etc. )

Click to expand...

Mister Ray West
My original question was to learn something, not to generate a stupid fight about metric/imperial system. This to me counter productive and hopeless.

Nicolas Claris said:

you know that the first one is far thick/heavier than the latter.

Click to expand...

I believe you intended to say the reverse, 80gsm is lighter/thinner than 300gsm.

I also get confused by imperial/statute metrics ;-)

Bart

Ray West said:

there are only 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Best wishes,

Ray (who once knew about slugs and stones and rods, poles, perches etc. )

Click to expand...

...and I suppose there are only 3 sorts of OPF moderator, them us can count and them us can't!

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

I believe you intended to say the reverse, 80gsm is lighter/thinner than 300gsm.

I also get confused by imperial/statute metrics ;-)

Bart

Click to expand...

Yes of course Bart! Thanks (again!)

Hi Nicolas,

Mister Ray West
My original question was to learn something, not to generate a stupid fight about metric/imperial system. This to me counter productive and hopeless.

Click to expand...

I must have missed the fight, like I guess you missed the smilies at the end of the first line of your first post, re the rest of the world having to use a measuring/counting system that in most cases is completely unsuitable for the job in hand. It is interesting, that in spite of your proclamation about the simplicity of the metric paper measurements (grams per square metre) as compared to lbs per 500 sheets .....

Here is another link http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html

Different folk have different requirements, hence the different measuring systems/units that exist. A 'mil' normally refers to 'thickness' of the material. It is a shorthand abbreviation for a thousandth of an inch, but its very name can lead to confusion, since in a laboratory situation it can mean millilitres, (or something else if you were a gunner).

As far as I'm concerned, it was no fight, certainly not stupid. Personally I was just trying to enlighten folk here about how things that sometimes seem obviously wrong, often have reason's for being the way they are.

So, basically, as an expert in something, you learn all the bits and pieces about whatever field you want to be an expert in, then you translate/filter it into a language that the layman can understand. Usually you can get money for that. ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

Nicolas Claris said:

Mister Ray West
My original question was to learn something, not to generate a stupid fight about metric/imperial system. This to me counter productive and hopeless.

Click to expand...

Hello Nicolas,

I think that Ray was making a lighthearted (i.e. witty) comment in his initial post , with no small measure of tact. Donc, calmons le jeu, si je puis me permettre. Besides, we will beat England in the Six Nations Tournament.

Nicolas, as a linguistic aside (which I know you occasionally enjoy) — in the US we sometimes refer to a small object that has become otherwise useless as a "paperweight." (Medium-sized objects in that category we sometimes call "doorstops," larger ones "boat anchors.")

When I saw this thread's subject header, I thought perhaps you had come up with a way to convert such useless objects (broken lenses, 35mm film bodies, etc.) back into something useful. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

LOL Nill!

As I wished as original poster, though a little late, I've learned something today!
Unfortunately, I don't know any receipe to convert these "paperweight".
I have some (Unusable but beloved 30 years old Nikkormat and it's Macro 50mm) that I can get off, laying on a shelf...

Ralph Eisenberg said:

Besides, we will beat England in the Six Nations Tournament.

Click to expand...

Hi Ralph
mmmmh remember Trafalgar !-0)

Nicolas Claris said:

...
As I wished as original poster, though a little late, I've learned something today!
Unfortunately, I don't know any receipe to convert these "paperweight".
I have some (Unusable but beloved 30 years old Nikkormat and it's Macro 50mm) that I can't get off, laying on a shelf...

Click to expand...

Hah! I have a Nimslo 3D camera in working order...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nill Toulme said:

Hah! I have a Nimslo 3D camera in working order...www.toulme.net

Click to expand...

Wow! do you still have the manual ?

I've got one there, just in case…

To tell you the truth I don't know. At one point I had the box and everything, but I'll have to look...

Wonder what they go for on eBay?

Hey, that's the paperweight converter — eBay!

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nill Toulme said:

Hey, that's the paperweight converter — eBay!www.toulme.net

Click to expand...

Yep! good advertising for them, you should copyright the wording ;-)