Yeah, they shrank the bills to their present size in 1929. Comedians of the time had a field day with jokes about shrinking money. Weirdly, the shrunken bills were issued just a few months before the 1929 stock market crash.
Apologies, I didn’t notice the earlier post.
The disadvantage of portrait is that the printed word is horizontal. I would think that landscape is standard in documents for that reason.
From Quora:
It’s not all that bad of a question. Compare to postage stamps* which have come in a variety of shapes.
Triangular ones have been used here and there. If one corner is a right angle then two of them would fill a rectangle so a whole sheet could still be a rectangle. But that’s not always the case.
The only odd shaped US ones I recall were oval George Washington ones, but those weren’t individual stamps as they were embossed on envelopes. Other countries have done circle-ish ones, tho.
I think that paper wastage is more of an issue with the high quality paper used in currency. A stamp is basically use-once so having a sturdy paper isn’t required. The long term use issue might be a key matter.
But in technical terms to print, cut, package, etc. such items, the technology is similar.
- And the difference between postage stamps and paper money isn’t all that great as my friend Moist von Lipwig has pointed out.
Nitpick: rectangular, yes, but not landscape. Blank paper has no orientation; your Post-Its can be used the other direction.
You can write on them however you want, but the adhesive is along the long edge, suggesting landscape usage.
The present US “global” or international stamps are circular.
Thanks for the info. I tried Googling for current US oval stamps and got nothing. But a Google image search for “US global stamps” returns lots of images.
It appears that these stamps are peel-off from a rectangular backing. Which is a bit harder than printing out round bills in a way.
I think the OP needs to investigate this in depth. Then tackle all the other rectangular items… we’ll wait right here.
Seriously, there must be countless psychological reasons as well as strong practical ones for using rectangles. Round dollar bills would be awkward, but nothing compared to round office paper, toroid ping-pong tables, round piano benches, oval TV screens, spherical houses…
There’s also the fact that there’s only one way to be square, while there’s an infinite number of ways of being rectangular. Note that even the “more square” examples posted above still aren’t actually square.
No love of hexagonal bank notes? 8)
Brian
Maybe it was originally what best fit with the printing technology available. Books were (and still are) mostly rectangular and mostly portrait. It probably made sense to use existing equipment (which printed in portrait), print several bills oriented horizontally on a page and then cut them apart, resulting in rectangular landscape bills.
This one actually makes some sense, since camera lenses as well as the lens of the human eye are mostly circular.
At the risk of being whooshed, why can squares not be cut from sheets without waste?
In a world with square money, the sheets they are printed from, the wallets, the pockets, and the bill readers would all be designed to handle square currency.
My contribution is that because bills originally, and to some extent still are, were promissory notes which had a signature at the bottom and were usually issued by banks. A person wanted to examine them for content before accepting it before money became standardized. But you also wanted them to be small enough to handle. How do we make them easier to read and small? Landscape mode.
Bingo
“Round piano benches” are called “piano stools” and have been a viable option for pretty much as long as there have been pianos. So maybe not the best example.
If the bills were square, they would either be too small (think something half the size of the current dollar bill) or too big (think something twice the size of the current dollar bill.)
I’d like them to be ovate.
Why would a bill 1/2 the size of the current U.S. bills be too small? Too small for what?