What Are Typical Sizes For Exhibit Pages?

I think this thread supports my theory that some people get snarkier when we get closer to a new moon. I know it is sometimes hard, but it would help encourage the hundreds of lurkers to participate if we all were a bit nicer in our replies.
Don

Angore,

You ask two questions.

The first is what the *typical sizes* are. This is a "static" question. In the U.S. the vast majority are 8.5 x 11, with 11x17 coming in a distant second place and other sizes quite the exception.

Then you ask about the *trend* which is a "change" question. As noted by pothers, I too sense that U.S. collectors are gradually shifting to 11x17 to gain back some extra space normally lost to margins. 11x17 printers cost more and page protectors are more difficult to obtain and more expensive, so there are some economic factors.

The standard Ameripex-style frame which every WSP show uses has an opening of 35 x 47, which is ideal for sixteen 8.5 x 11 pages, or eight 11x17 pages. Yes, a few exhibitors have done quadrant pages, particularly for large documents with revenue stamps. This is a portion of a measured drawing of such a frame:


For those who want to fill every inch, one can have 11" pages in the top row and 12" pages in the other 3 rows, AND uses 9" wide pages with a wee bit of overlap. For non-standard sizes, I have done one exhibit with quadrant-sized pages and on the other extreme, one with 20 narrow pages fitting 5 pages per row.

You have been silent on the nature of the size of your material. Without any input from you on that question, it is hard to get meaningful detailed replies and thus it is best to stay with 8.5 x 11 pages - especially since you seem to be at the beginner level of exhibit preparation. In other words, don't worry about the status quo or the trend of other exhibitors, but let your material dictate its best presentation method.

Add:
Here is what 16 pages look like, note the lack of any space above the top page, but approximately 1" above the lower three rows:


Non-philatelically, I recently had a friend want to show horizontal printouts from a Powerpoint presentation. Normally that would mean 4 rows of 3 pages = 12 total/frame, but that left a lot of blank space, so I folded 11x17 card stock to make elevated gutters at varying heights to make 5 rows, thus displaying 15 horizontal pages per frame, here showing a mock-up on the right side:


And here a closeup of the jig:


The moral to the story, if one wants to do something non-standard, it must be measured very carefully to fit, which is why I have a frame at home.

For anything that matters, that's how it should be IMO.

I do love dividing by 10 or 100. It is so much simpler than dividing by 12,
It is hard to admit, but the French did bring us some good.

I listed the popular sizes in descending order. Yes 8 1/2 x 11 is the most common but does not work for material which exceeds the diagonal (a2 + b2 = c2) and thus the next common sizes. The +1/2 sheet works well but take more work to get.

The full frame sheet is on an active exhibit which looks outstanding and contains many large and irregular shaped material.

The fact is page size should reflect the material being shown, not the other way around.

Now if you were to review the past publications of the AAPE (American Association of Philatelic Exhibitors) you will find more concern about paper color than page size. Page size if fixed and easily replicated. Paper color is not once it is selected and even the same color name varies by production run.

As to your dismissing of things which do not fit in a standard frame, postal scales, full orchid box with US C-46 (only three recorded exist), Patent medicine stamps on containers and of course stamp albums which was the subject of the 2022 Champion of Champions winner all have been shown, but without using a standard flat frame. Dimensional philately has a place in exhibiting.

Now angore, I respect your question, but anyone who needs to ask about standard exhibit page sizes, seems too much of a novice to understand color (and weight) of paper is a more significant concern and heaven forbid if you have material that doesn't go flat. Me, I have postal scales, one of the C-46 boxes and other dimensional items. I have a mailing tube with a bunch of defense (US Scott 899-901) issues on it. While one could guess upon the weight of the object being mailed, isn't it so much better to show the tube and its contents and say the the weight was XX lbs of which XY lbs is the this 3 foot long steel rock drill for mining enclosed? Lets not start on queen bee boxes, alligator boxes, cheese boxes, fish boxes, glasses boxes, boxes for glassed liquids, laundry boxes, film boxes and my favorite, boxes for mailed eggs. Sadly there are only two recorded alligator box tops with US QE stamps and I own one but would have preferred the full box. It as with many other great items have been destroyed as to allow part of the item to fit under a standard frame


.



Panama Canal
Hoover Dam
Golden Gate Bridge
Nuclear Reactor
Moon Landing
Moon Driving
Voyager 1
Space Shuttles
Mars Rover(s)
SR-71

Perhaps metric is for lesser engineers.

Edit where strikeout shows.

We used metric because we were an international company so it could be multi- sourced.

I recall my metric spec'ed Chevy had a 6.35mm bolt!

Angore,
Several of us have taken considerable time to provide detailed answers, yet the question to you remains unanswered. What type/size of material do you have in mind? Threads like this are far more productive as a two-way street type of discussion. Otherwise, we have pretty much reached a dead end and any further input by others is a waste of time as mere guessing. Why the reluctance? Just saying ....

Yes, a common 1/4" bolt.

My favorite, boxes for mailing recently hatched eggs.

<humor>



</humor>

<humor - fixed>



The Apollo guidance computer actually used the metric system internally for its calculations. Only the displays were in imperial for the benefit of the astronauts who were more familiar with feet and nautical miles etc.
</humor - fixed>

John

I was interested in sizes for consideration of purchasing a scanner to scan exhibits. I could have asked the question more directly. I am working on a proposal and needed the information.

Yeah, that's a completely different question.