# Why are grams so small? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 6, 2008, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436 "2008-11-06T12:06:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/21 "2008-11-06T13:58:09Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > All you need to do is go to your local Chinese grocery; you’ll find stacks of rice in 1, 5, and 10kg bags. I’m not saying it’s the standard but it’s extremely common wherever foodstuffs are commonly sold in bulk. All the prepackaged items I could find in my cupboards that were over 1kg were labelled in kg - flour, raisins, pasta, rice, sugar, tins of biscuits - all in kg. Blake is right that many, probably most prepackaged goods in packs under a kilo are labelled in grammes, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call selling by the kilo an _exception_ - it’s too widespread to be an exception. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/22 "2008-11-06T13:58:28Z")
As for buying food, in Latin America, prices are in Kilograms, but most people order in grams for things like cheese and cold cuts and Kilograms for veggies. Europeans prefer to order their deli products in Hectograms which are 100 grams, a smart use of the system instead of sticking to grams and ordering in 100 gram increments. ---
**Author:** ![Toxylon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f05b48/32.png) [@Toxylon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toxylon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/23 "2008-11-06T14:08:19Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > A kilogram is not standard anywhere in the metric world. Nowhere on three continents have I seen shops commonly selling goods by the kilogram. Very few things that you buy weigh more than kilogram so it would be stupid to try using that as the standard. Here everything is sold by the kilogram, including things like Twinkie bars or lollipops as well as potatos or flour. It’s mandatory by law to show customers the kg price of everything and it makes comparing prices very easy. ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/24 "2008-11-06T14:13:53Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > The Kg is the standard unit of weight used around the world for almost everything and when you get into very high numbers it goes to the metric ton which is 1000 Kg. Why not ‘megagram’? ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/25 "2008-11-06T14:23:13Z")
> [@UncleRojelio](#): > > Why not ‘megagram’? Probably because a metric tonne is not that far off an “ordinary” ton (not sure what the adjective should be). A metric tonne is about 2,200 pounds; a ton is 2,000 pounds. So, if you talk about a metric tonne and somebody is thinking of an “ordinary” ton they won’t be that far off. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/26 "2008-11-06T14:29:59Z")
The point about metric is that it makes sense. It’s not designed to compete measure for measure with imperial, it’s supposed to replace illogical disconnected nonsense with logical easy-to-grasp mathematics. ---
**Author:** ![puppygod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@puppygod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puppygod)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/27 "2008-11-06T14:33:01Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > As for buying food, in Latin America, prices are in Kilograms, but most people order in grams for things like cheese and cold cuts and Kilograms for veggies. Europeans prefer to order their deli products in Hectograms which are 100 grams, a smart use of the system instead of sticking to grams and ordering in 100 gram increments. Actually, in my neck of woods I’ve never, ever seen hectagrams used. On the other hand, semi-frequently used units are decagrams. It’s quite convenient to ask for “twenty deca” of cheese. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/28 "2008-11-06T14:39:34Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > A kilogram is not standard anywhere in the metric world. Nowhere on three continents have I seen shops commonly selling goods by the kilogram. Very few things that you buy weigh more than kilogram so it would be stupid to try using that as the standard. I come from Australia, so I still spend a lot of time in Australian shops, where fruit, vegetables, meat and fish are generally priced per kilogram. Certainly, you can buy less than that, so you can ask for “200 grams of olives” or “half a kilo of prawns”, but (even for stuff like olives, where hardly anyone buys a kilo) they are priced in kilos. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/29 "2008-11-06T14:39:57Z")
None of this is actually getting very close to the question I’m asking, though. I’m asking about the _name_ specifically. In particular, everyone who said “the gram isn’t the standard of weight, the kilogram is” Yeah, I’m aware that this is what it says in the standard definition of the metric system. However. Take a look at that name. It’s comprised of the word “gram” together with the “please multiply me by a thousand” prefix. Isn’t that a little odd? I find it odd. The base unit of weight ought to be the _unprefixed_ name. The unprefixed name, gram is, like I said, too small to be of much use in day to day life. ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/30 "2008-11-06T14:44:05Z")
> [@puppygod](#): > > Actually, in my neck of woods I’ve never, ever seen hectagrams used. On the other hand, semi-frequently used units are decagrams. It’s quite convenient to ask for “twenty deca” of cheese. Hectograms are quite common here, but in speech just referred to as a “hecto” implicitly meaning hectogram. Products are labeled in kilograms however, so hectograms are used mostly in speech. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/31 "2008-11-06T14:47:45Z")
> [@Canadjun](#): > > Probably because a metric tonne is not that far off an “ordinary” ton (not sure what the adjective should be). A metric tonne is about 2,200 pounds; a ton is 2,000 pounds. So, if you talk about a metric tonne and somebody is thinking of an “ordinary” ton they won’t be that far off. There are at least three “tons”: (1) The megagram, or metric tonne = 1,000 kg (2) The Imperial ton, formerly used in the UK, which was 2,240 pounds = about 1,016 kg (3) The US ton, of 2,000 pounds = about 907 kg. The non-metric (2) and (3) above both contain 20 hundredweight, so that there are two different hundredweights as well. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/32 "2008-11-06T14:47:56Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Take a look at that name. It’s comprised of the word “gram” together with the “please multiply me by a thousand” prefix. It’s a sign that the Apocalypse is coming: even the SI people now give as their best answer: _tradition_. I mean, come on, man: they’ve been calling it that for _over a hundred years_. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/33 "2008-11-06T14:51:41Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > None of this is actually getting very close to the question I’m asking, though. > > I’m asking about the _name_ specifically. > > In particular, everyone who said “the gram isn’t the standard of weight, the kilogram is” > > Yeah, I’m aware that this is what it says in the standard definition of the metric system. > > However. > > Take a look at that name. It’s comprised of the word “gram” together with the “please multiply me by a thousand” prefix. > > Isn’t that a little odd? I find it odd. The base unit of weight ought to be the _unprefixed_ name. The unprefixed name, gram is, like I said, too small to be of much use in day to day life. You are absolutely right. Researching my previous post of MKS and cgs, I found this: > **[Centimetre–gram–second system of units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre_gram_second_system_of_units)** > > The centimetre–gram–second system of units (CGS or cgs) is a variant of the metric system based on the centimetre as the unit of length, the gram as the unit of mass, and the second as the unit of time. All CGS mechanical units are unambiguously derived from these three base units, but there are several different ways in which the CGS system was extended to cover electromagnetism. > The CGS system has mainly been supplanted by the MKS system based on the metre, kilogram, and second, which was in ... What I am making out of it, is that grams were the original base unit of weight, as obviously implied by their name and pointed out by you. The system has evolved, and cgs was replaced by MKS and then by SI, the current system that takes Kg as their weight unit. But this is a later evolution. Your initial observation is valid, grams are small. How small? Small enough that consensus was reached to start using Kg instead. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/34 "2008-11-06T14:51:48Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > A kilogram is not standard anywhere in the metric world. [This](http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/kilogram2.html) is _the_ kilogram standard mass. You show me a similar officially-accepted gram standard and we’ll talk. Until then, as noted by others, you’re wrong on multiple levels. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/35 "2008-11-06T14:52:56Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > None of this is actually getting very close to the question I’m asking, though. > > I’m asking about the _name_ specifically. > > In particular, everyone who said “the gram isn’t the standard of weight, the kilogram is” > > Yeah, I’m aware that this is what it says in the standard definition of the metric system. > > However. > > Take a look at that name. It’s comprised of the word “gram” together with the “please multiply me by a thousand” prefix. > > Isn’t that a little odd? I find it odd. The base unit of weight ought to be the _unprefixed_ name. The unprefixed name, gram is, like I said, too small to be of much use in day to day life. Asked and specifically answered, boss. Go back to my post #15 for details. ---
**Author:** ![Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alive_At_Both_Ends)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/36 "2008-11-06T14:54:15Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Take a look at that name. It’s comprised of the word “gram” together with the “please multiply me by a thousand” prefix. > > Isn’t that a little odd? I find it odd. The base unit of weight ought to be the _unprefixed_ name. The unprefixed name, gram is, like I said, too small to be of much use in day to day life. The answer is in your original cite. The unit “gram” _already existed_ as an alternative name for 1/1000 of a grave. When the grave was abandoned by the French revolutionaries it was too late to change the definition of a gram - that would have caused confusion; and the existing gram was considered too small to be a useful commercial unit. So the name “grave” was replaced by the equivalent “kilogram” and retained as the base unit. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/37 "2008-11-06T14:55:14Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Isn’t that a little odd? I find it odd. The base unit of weight ought to be the _unprefixed_ name. The unprefixed name, gram is, like I said, too small to be of much use in day to day life. In fact, you use the gram whenever you have weights/masses in the range from 1 g to 999 g, because you try to avoid fractions. So you might buy 250 grams of butter, rather than a quarter of a kilogram of butter, and your tube of ointment might contain 30 grams, rather that 0.03 kg. So grams are used all the time, even though you rarely buy just 1 gram of something. It’s similar with lengths: in the building industry, all lengths are specified in millimetres, partly so that you don’t have to actually name the units on plans and specifications. So a door might be 2400 mm high, rather than 2.4 m – if you put 2.4 on your plan, the decimal point might easily disappear, and you’d find yourself with a 24 mm door (about 1 inch high). ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/38 "2008-11-06T15:36:53Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > It’s similar with lengths: in the building industry, all lengths are specified in millimetres, partly so that you don’t have to actually name the units on plans and specifications. So a door might be 2400 mm high, rather than 2.4 m – if you put 2.4 on your plan, the decimal point might easily disappear, and you’d find yourself with a 24 mm door (about 1 inch high). Wow, an explanation for that that makes sense! I’ve wondered why we use millimetres in building plans ever since I was in architecture school. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/39 "2008-11-06T15:44:21Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > In fact, you use the gram whenever you have weights/masses in the range from 1 g to 999 g, because you try to avoid fractions. So you might buy 250 grams of butter, rather than a quarter of a kilogram of butter, and your tube of ointment might contain 30 grams, rather that 0.03 kg. So grams are used all the time, even though you rarely buy just 1 gram of something. > > It’s similar with lengths: in the building industry, all lengths are specified in millimetres, partly so that you don’t have to actually name the units on plans and specifications. So a door might be 2400 mm high, rather than 2.4 m – if you put 2.4 on your plan, the decimal point might easily disappear, and you’d find yourself with a 24 mm door (about 1 inch high). Or if you are building a model of Stonehenge for a Spinal Tap concert. ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/40 "2008-11-06T16:05:27Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Help me out here. I seem to remember from high-school physics that there were something like MKS units and cgs units. MKS stood for Meter Kilogram Second, while cgs stood for centimeter gram second… When I went to school it was FFF (furlong/firkin/fortnight) so I can’t really help. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436.md?page=3)