https://www.jetpens.com/Lihit-Lab-Smart-Fit-Carrying-Pouch-A6-Olive/pd/12378

Lihit Lab Smart Fit Carrying Pouch - A6 - Olive<br /> $21.50

https://www.jetpens.com/Delfonics-Carrying-Bag-S-A6-Dark-Blue/pd/38393<br /> Delfonics Carrying Bag - S (A6) - Dark Blue $32.00

reply to u/ManuelRodriguez331 at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/15ehcy5/why_is_the_index_card_half_full/

There has been debate about the length of notes on slips since the invention of slips and it shows no signs of coming to broad consensus other than everyone will have their personal opinion.

If you feel that A6 is is too big then go down a step in size to A7. One of the benefits of the DIN A standard is that you can take the next larger card size and fold it exactly in half to have the next size smaller. This makes it easier to scale up the size of your cards if you prefer most of them to be smaller to save space, just take care not to allow larger folded cards to "taco" smaller cards in a way they're likely to get lost. If you really needed more space, you could easily use an A1 or A2 and fold it down to fit inside of your collection! (Sadly 4x6 and 3x5 cards don't have this affordance.)

Fortunately there are a variety of available sizes, so you can choose what works best for yourself. Historically some chose large 5x8", 6x9", or even larger "slips". Some have also used different sizes for different functions. For example some use 3x5 for bibliographic cards and 4x6 for day-to-day ideas. I've seen stacked wooden card catalog furniture that had space for 3x5, 4x6, and 8.5x11 in separate drawers within the same cabinet. Some manufacturers even made their furniture modular to make this sort of mixed use even easier.

One of the broadly used pieces of advice that does go back centuries is to use "cards of the same size" (within a particular use case). This consensus is arrived at to help users from losing smaller cards between larger/taller cards. Cards of varying sizes, even small ones, are also much more difficult to sort through. Slight of hand magicians will be aware of the fact that shaving small fractions of length off of playing cards is an easy way of not only marking them, but of executing a variety of clever shuffling illusions as well as finding some of them very quickly by feel behind the back. Analog zettelkasten users will only discover that smaller, shorter cards are nearly guaranteed to become lost among the taller cards. It's for this reason that I would never recommend one to mix 4x6, A6, or even the very closely cut Exacompta Bristol cards, which are neither 4x6 nor A6!

I once took digital notes and printed them on paper and then cut them up to fit the size of the individual notes to save on space and paper. I can report that doing this was a painfully miserable experience and positively would NOT recommend doing this for smaller projects much less lifelong ones. Perhaps this could be the sort of chaos someone out there might actually manage to thrive within, but I suspect it would be a very rare individual.

As for digital spacing, you may win out a bit here for "saving" paper space, but you're also still spending on storage costs in electronic formatting which historically doesn't have the longevity of physical formats. Digital also doesn't offer the ease of use of laying cards out on a desktop and very quickly reordering them for subsequent uses.

There are always tradeoffs, one just need be aware of them to guide choices for either how they want to work or how they might work best.

Personally, I use 4x6" cards because I often write longer paragraphs on them. Through experimentation I found that I would end up using two or more 3x5 cards more often than I would have had mostly blank 4x6 cards and used that to help drive my choice. I also find myself revisiting old cards and adding to them (short follow ups, links to other cards, or other metadata) and 3x5 wouldn't allow that as easily.

As ever, YMMV...

See also: [[note lengths]] and/or [[note size]].

At 9¢/card these are very expensive in comparison to bulk cards which usually can be found for 1-2¢/card. The difference however is in the luxuriousness of the silky smooth texture. Whether you're writing with your favorite fountain pen or a carefully chosen pencil. I don't know if these are the same brand of Bristol cards that Vladimir Nabokov used for his writing, but one could easily image him using such lovely material.

These provide a very smooth writing experience for fountain pens, gel pens and pencils. I particularly love the way my Tennessee Reds and Blackwing 602s glide over their surface. In comparison to some Japanese stationery, I'd put these cards somewhere between tsuru tsuru (slippery) and sara sara (smooth). If you're looking for a toothier paper, you'll definitely want to look elsewhere. They take fountain pens pretty well with no feathering or ghosting. My juiciest fountain pen dries in about 15 seconds, while a drier extra fine is dry in about 7 seconds, so it may take some care not to smear ink if you're on the messier end of the spectrum.

Pencil erases reasonably well, though there may be some minimal residual ghosting here. At 205 gsm, they've got a satisfying thickness unseen in most index cards and one is unlikely to rip or crinkle them when erasing. They're also thick enough that the wettest Sharpie won't bleed much less ghost through. You have to hold a card up to a backlight to see the appearance of any ghosting through it and even then, not well.

For the sticklers used to using standard 4 x 6" index cards, one should take note that the dimensions of these are slightly shorter in both dimensions—they're closer to 3.94" x 5.91". This means that you might have to take some care that while flipping through mixed company of cards your Exacompta can potentially hide between larger imperial sized cards. They're also close to, but not quite A6 in size either (105 x 148.5 mm or 4.1 x 5.8 inches).

Instead of using pre-made stiff index cards, Luhmann used standard paper which he cut up into DIN A6 sized slips which he packed into his drawers. Schmidt had trouble removing slips from some of the boxes because they were packed so tightly.

This is 4-1/8 x 5-7/8 in which is close to the American 4x6 inch index card.

Despite his career as an administrative scientist, Luhmann eschewed the International Library Format which allows for DIN A6 and DIN A7 for "literature cards."

Cross reference:

1. See Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN), Publikation und Dokumentation 2. Erschließung von Dokumenten, Informationsverarbeitung, Reprographie, Bibliotheksverwaltung, Normen, vol. 154 of DIN-Taschenbuch , 2nd ed. (Berlin, Kö ln: Beuth, 1984), 64f.

link to https://hypothes.is/a/hKgd_t1jEeyxoxOujPZNkg

Or roughly 4 x 6".

This is the first time I've seen in the literature the suggestion to write notes on larger sheets and then fold them up. This is largely only recommended here because of the standardization of the paper sizes in such a way that folding an A4 makes an A5 and folding an A5 gives an A6 and so on...

Automatic reference cards!

When did they stop doing this!!!

The values of A6!

Heyde is putting more thought into the size of note paper than I've seen in much of the literature. Did Linnaeus have similar thoughts?

https://www.baoholaodongtot.com/nhua-cong-nghiep/item/359-khay-nhua-a6