Paperback Sizes

[Post-Crisis D]

I thought I had a list of paperback sizes but either I don't or I don't have it on my computer as a spreadsheet as I have been unable to find it.

Does anyone know of an accurate and reputable source for paperback sizes?  I'm not looking for a list of the sizes that POD printers offer, but rather a definitive list of common sizes.

Specifically, I am looking for the typical size(s) of a mass-market paperback book (U.S.).  I measured a couple of the ones I have that were handy and come up with 4-3/16" x 6-7/8".

When I search online, I'm getting measurements ranging from 4-1/8" to 4-1/4" wide and 6-1/2" to 7" tall.

A news story on Publishers Weekly indicates that 4-1/8" x 6-3/4" is the standard mass-market paperback size, but 6-7/8" seems to be more frequently mentioned as a size and I tend to think those saying 7" may be rounding but who knows?

Another site suggests the size is 4-1/8" to 4-1/4" wide by 7" tall.  But in the 1950s, the common size was 4-3/16" x 6-3/8".

I guess there could be a range, but there must have been some kind of optimal or target size, especially when these were sort of designed to both fit in a pocket and also fit on displays.  I remember they used to be near checkout counters at stores so I imagine there must have been some kind of industry standard.  Or, at the very least, a range.  And, yes, I'm seeing a range, but whether they represent the actual range or if some people are just rounding, I don't know.  I'd just like to know an accurate size or an accurate range or something.

Last resort will be to just measure a bunch of books and come up with my own numbers.

[Post-Crisis D]

It seems the general consensus is 4.25" x 6.875".

Of course, what makes the most sense is 4.25" x 6.75" because that would allow for 8 pages on a single Double Foolscap sheet of paper, which is 27" x 17".

[alhawke]

Why are you looking into mass market size books? Typically I've just done 5 by 8, 5.5 by 8.5 and 6 by 9. I haven't heard of many Indies who do mass market size.

[TimothyEllis]

Why are you looking into mass market size books? Typically I've just done 5 by 8, 5.5 by 8.5 and 6 by 9. I haven't heard of many Indies who do mass market size.

The mass market size is the best imo, but no-one offers it in PoD. So 5 x 8 is the closest.

[Post-Crisis D]

Why are you looking into mass market size books? Typically I've just done 5 by 8, 5.5 by 8.5 and 6 by 9. I haven't heard of many Indies who do mass market size.

This was for a separate project.

Why are you looking into mass market size books? Typically I've just done 5 by 8, 5.5 by 8.5 and 6 by 9. I haven't heard of many Indies who do mass market size.

The mass market size is the best imo, but no-one offers it in PoD. So 5 x 8 is the closest.

I have been using 5.06" x 7.81" because that's the closest Amazon had to a mass market paperback size.

For me, the mass market paperback size is the size I've always associated with a paperback book.  The larger sizes, especially 6x9 because that seemed to be the most common, always screamed "self-published" to me because largely the only paperback books I'd seen in that size were self-published books.

Plus, a book that is 4-1/8" to 4-1/4" wide by 6-3/8" to 6-7/8" tall is just a more convenient size.  Fits in various sizes of pockets.  Doesn't take much room in a bag.  More portable.  Etc.

[Hopscotch]

...a book that is 4-1/8" to 4-1/4" wide by 6-3/8" to 6-7/8" tall is just a more convenient size.  Fits in various sizes of pockets.  Doesn't take much room in a bag.  More portable.  Etc.

I, too, yearn for a return to the old "pocket book" size, but buyers in generations younger than mine don't know what it is and don't (horrors) seem to care.  Happy w/their 6x9" Kindles, drat.

[Bill Hiatt]

As someone who owns over 8,000 books, I can tell you that 6 X 9 was around long before self publishing.

As someone who eventually stored by size to maximize use of shelf space, I can tell you that my 6 X 9 section is the single biggest one, though 5 X 8 and similar is probably second biggest.

As far as what each size screams, keep in mind that mass market paperbacks were the cheapest alternatives, what publishers printed after they had successively exhausted the market in hardcover and paperback.

In short, paperback books are larger, higher quality, and most expensive, whereas mass market paperback books are smaller, with less durability but a lower price. The biggest difference to me is legibility: traditional paperback books are both larger and spaced greater between the lines, so they are much easier on your eyes.

https://www.julesbuono.com/paperback-vs-mass-market-paperback/
Paperbacks are larger than mass market paperbacks in part to give the impression of being more like hardcovers (and thus worth more money than mass market paperbacks).

None of this means anything in terms of what sizes we choose for our books today. Pick whatever feels best to you. I'm just clarifying the history of mass market paperbacks, and historically, they weren't viewed as a superior option, though they were a great boon to readers on a tight budget.

[TimothyEllis]

As someone who owns over 8,000 books, I can tell you that 6 X 9 was around long before self publishing.

I stopped buying paperbacks around the time the 6x9 Trad paperback started to become standard here. I hated them. They were too big and too heavy.

I've replaced all of the ones I did get with eBooks now. I still have them in my shelves though.

[Bill Hiatt]

Yeah, it depends what you want to do with them. If you're mostly reading at home, that's one scenario. If you're moving around a lot and want a book or books with you, then that's a very different situation.

[Post-Crisis D]

I'm not saying 6x9 books didn't exist before self-publishing; I'm just saying paperbacks that size I more closely associate with self-published books.

I would guess that most of the fiction books I have in paperback are mass market paperback size, except for ones that were self-published or POD which tend mostly to be 6x9.

Non-fiction paperbacks that I have seem to vary in size more widely.  Ditto for hardcovers.

I'm not actually sure how many books I own.  I started cataloging them years ago but never finished.  I also tried to catalog books as I read them, but then that got to be too much like work so I would not read the last page or paragraph of books so that technically I didn't finish them so that I didn't have to get the journal out and write down what book I finished reading.  And then I stopped doing that too and just read the book without recording when I finished it.

[alhawke]

The larger sizes (6by9) tend to be favored by Indie writers because they're cheaper to produce. The larger the book, the less pages need to be printed. I believe--but I'm going out on a limb her because I'm not sure and this is by memory--mass paperbacks are printed on cheeper lighter paper. They're compactness was ideal for being on stands back in the day.

My paperbacks are generally 5.5 by 8.5. I found this to be a nice handheld size. But I have an omnibus at 6by9 (again, to save paper and keep the price down). Actually, my shorter stories are 5 by 8in.

[Bill Hiatt]

I'm not actually sure how many books I own.  I started cataloging them years ago but never finished.  I also tried to catalog books as I read them, but then that got to be too much like work so I would not read the last page or paragraph of books so that technically I didn't finish them so that I didn't have to get the journal out and write down what book I finished reading.  And then I stopped doing that too and just read the book without recording when I finished it.

Yeah, that's why my count is only approximate. It gets to be too much like a chore after a while.