10-22-2017 10:36 AM
I was wondering if somebody can recommend me a box size that I can use for first class shipping. Thanks you..
10-23-2017 06:40 AM
@berserkerplanet wrote:
... I guess there is a newer release of the DMM than the 1/22/17 rev I have. ...
Here's a link to the live version of the DMM. The first section is a summary of changes.
10-23-2017 10:37 AM
@a_c_green wrote:I wouldn't go below 6"x4" on one side, as you would end up having to wrap the full-size on-line label around one edge otherwise. (The eBay/PayPal shipping label is 4"x6" in size after trimming excess.) Your options when using a box that's smaller than that would be to either print an undersized (scaled-down) label or have the address on one side with the bar code wrapped onto another. Neither is really an ideal solution.
Actually, scaling down the labels when printing is a perfectly ideal solution if need be. Even when box size is not an issue, I always reduce mine down to 80% (saves a strip of clear tape when applying the label), and there have never been any issues with the smaller labels. 80% is the smallest I have gone though, since that works for anything I would be shipping, and I have no idea if anything smaller would be scannable or not.
That said, the boxes I mostly use for FC, when a padded envelope is not enough; are eBay's 6x4x4, 8x6x4, and 10x8x6. I will also, if need be, tailor down their 8x8x8 and 10x10x10 cubes to as small as 8x8x4 and 10x10x4 if there is way too much air between the top of the protective padding and the top of the box.
10-23-2017 11:32 AM
nowthatsjustducky wrote:
Actually, scaling down the labels when printing is a perfectly ideal solution if need be.
True, and in fact I had to get in the habit of scaling my labels to 90% after getting in a batch of 6"x4"x4" boxes that were apparently cut for that as their outside dimensions rather than their inside dimensions. Oh, well...
I know you can fold the label over a corner as long as the full barcode remains flat for scanning, and I do get plenty of 4" cubes or 5"x4"x4" and so on that arrive without incident. The main reason that I don't like going that small in mailing is because it becomes easier for some kind of grief to occur: getting stuck in the corner of a mailbag, falling off someplace and getting overlooked, getting swiped because it fits too easily in a pocket, etc. The fact that my own purchases have reached me successfully does not persuade me that it's a good idea to go that small, that's all. Just my $.02...
I settled on 6"x4"x4" as my minimum size (for anything that couldn't go in a padded envelope) because I (normally) wouldn't need to scale down my label, and the package was just large enough that I felt it would travel safely.
10-23-2017 12:39 PM - edited 10-23-2017 12:44 PM
Even when box size is not an issue, I always reduce mine down to 80% (saves a strip of clear tape when applying the label), and there have never been any issues with the smaller labels. 80% is the smallest I have gone though, since that works for anything I would be shipping, and I have no idea if anything smaller would be scannable or not.
There may be issues that you never find out about.
Remember that scanning is only part of the purpose of the label - human eyes have to be able to read the address (and possibly the tracking number if anything does happen to damage the barcode).
Some of those tiny little labels can be hard to read, especially this time of year when many carriers will soon be out after dark.
ETA: for those who wrap the label around a box so the barcode is on a different side from the address/postage info, it might become an issue as the new Automated Package Verification program rolls out - depending on how the automation deals with barcodes not on the same surface as the rest of the label.
10-23-2017 12:56 PM
I recently found some decent 6" box shippers that are almost exactly the same weight as the 9x13 bubble mailers and cheap to boot. I use those when the item is one that should not be shipped in the bubble mailer.