Talk:ISO/IEC 7810

message: Could someone with access to a copy of the actual standard please confirm the exact definition of ID-1, which is allegedly 85.60 mm × 53.98 mm (3.370 in × 2.125 in). These seem odd choices of values in either system of measurement and also overly precise, because ISO 216, where ID-2 and ID-3 come from, for comparison uses definitions to full millimetres and allows some variance. If ISO indeed uses these very four figures, why?
For me it looks like the actual size is 85.5 mm × 54.0 mm, was converted to the closest eighth of an inch ( in ×  in), then the smaller size was converted back to millimetres with four significant figures (53.98 mm), but I do not see how 85.73 mm could become 3.370 in and subsequently 85.60 mm. The ratio of about 1.5857725 does not look like anything meaningful either, even when squared. Christoph Päper 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The abstract on ISO's website confirms that 85.60 by 53.98 is the correct size. The ratio is very close to the eighth root of 40 (1.585833175), to within five significant figures. At a guess, I'd say the ISO standardised something into SI that was originally in inches. Raven42 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a copy of ISO/IEC 7810:2003, and it says "nominally 85,60 mm (3.370 in) wide by 53,98 mm (2.125 in) high by 0,76 mm (0.030 in) thick". Mitch Ames (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tolerance shown for the 3 3/8 inch dimension is an example of "+.000 -.010" tolerance, proper engineering practice where the card had to fit an embossing machine made of metal with tighter tolerances of "-.000 +.0xx"; the other dimension probably had a spring clip which allowed for a dimension centered on the 2 1/8" value.209.86.76.137 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The size for ID-1 is the same as the CR-80 size (3 3/8" x 2 1/8"). Not sure why 3.370 instead of 3.375. There are also CR-79, CR-90 , CR-100 and I believe CR-120 though I don't know what standard defines them.PaleAqua (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The size of the ID-1 card was originally defined in the United States, using fractional English units.  The metric dimensions aren't exact; they're what is known as "soft metric", a rough approximation of the original English units, considered "good enough" within standard manufacturing tolerances.  The cards are punched out of PVC sheet and are not dimensionally stable over temperature, so there's no point in specifying their size with an extremely high degree of precision. — QuicksilverT @ 05:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quicksilver, I have moved your "soft metric" comments and inch measurements into Notes, and restored the original inch values because they are what the current standard (7810:2003) actually specifies. I've also added  - do you have a reference for the original "standard inch dimensions"? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  See NOTE 1 in Section 1 (Scope) of the standard: “Numeric values in the SI and/or Imperial measurement system in this International Standard may have been rounded off and therefore are consistent with, but not exactly equal to, each other. Either system may be used, but the two should not be intermixed or reconverted. The original design was made using the Imperial measurement system.” --Mormegil (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've updated the article accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Presumably it should be thirty mil (0.76 mm) not three mil, or have I misunderstood "mil" ? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Regardless who originally defined the the card dimensions, it would be extremely interesting to read an explanation how those dimensions were chosen. Was the close match with the golden ratio accidental or intentional? Also: 3 3/8" x 2 1/8" is quite close, but 3 1/4" x 2" would be even closer. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact definition of ID-1? 

message: When was this standard created?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.15.218 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:DE ISO/IEC 7810 was created in 1985. But more importantly: What were the exact measurements based on? Credit cards are a lot older. Just remember the mechanical "readers" to transfer the embossed card data onto an invoice - these only work with exact card specifications. Any more info on the historic development of the format? --BjKa (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  history? 

message: It has been pointed out to me by a very clever man called Paul Scott that the ID-1 size is almost exactly one-sixteenth of a sheet of foolscap folio, and thus that it probably originated from the printing of business cards 4x4-up on foolscap. That would explain the weird irregular size.
-- Tom Anderson 2007-12-02 0131 +0000  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.108.98 (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to foolscap 

message: This page should be moved/renamed to "ISO/IEC 7810", because that's the standard's designation (source: ISO's catalog) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO vs ISO/IEC 

message: Anyone have any official sources on the CR sizes. For example CR-80 is the same as ID-1 (http://www.alphacard.com/id-cards/id-card-size.shtml) Might been nice to have them related to the these sizes. PaleAqua (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to CR sizes. 

message: Cards slightly wider horizontally and shorter vertically than ISO 7810 were used by many department stores (Here is one example). Can anybody tell me what the measurements were and if the standard had a name? Thanks. knoodelhed (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different sized credit cards 

message: In the table visas are listed as ID-3 but in the ID-2 description paragraph it says visas are an example of size ID-2. One of these need to be fixed. If no one knows the answer I can measure a visa at a later time. Kuba425 (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any reason to believe that all visas are the same size? Perhaps some are ID-2 and some are ID-3? Measuring one example may not be much help (and it's WP:OR). Links to references that state the size for visas from one or more countries would be useful. In the absence of any sources stating specific sizes, it might be better to remove the mentions of visas completely, as being unreferenced. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Visas are typically ID-2 sized; they're TD2-sized travel documents if they follow the ICAO standard, and that standard defines TD2 size as ID-2 size. Countries' visas often fail to follow the ICAO standard, so there are many visas out there with nonstandard sizes. I can dig up some citations if you care to have them. Some of the confusion could be because most visas are ID-2-sized stickers which get stuck onto ID-3-sized passport pages. DanTheStone (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visa size 

message: I don't know enough about editing to do it myself, but I noticed the "citation needed" on ID-3 being used for passport pages.
Here's a standards document that includes the information on the bottom of page 7: http://www.icao.int/Security/mrtd/Downloads/TR-New%20Specifications%20td1/TR-New%20specifications%20td1%20Card%20V%201%200%20%282%29.pdf
Data page nominal 
dimensions 
ID-3 size according to 
ISO/IEC 7810: 
88.0 mm × 125.0 mm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTheStone (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID-3 size used for passport pages 

message: ISO/IEC 7810 was revised in 2019ISO/IEC 7810:2019. The changes in ISO/IEC 7810:2019 should be included into this article since it reflects the 2003 state of the standard.
--Dzsi (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update from ISO/IEC 7810:2003 to ISO/IEC 7810:2019