> The note from P&G on my 1992 toilet paper said Charmin Ultra had shrunk “because it is so thick we couldn't put as many sheets on and keep the rolls the same size.”
> Uh-huh.
I mean...that makes plenty of sense. My parents love this ultra-thin single-ply crap that gets plenty of footage on the roll, but it doesn't really matter when you have to pull off six feet and fold it a dozen times to get a good wipe.
I buy Charmin Ultra Strong. The “Super Mega” rolls are absolutely massive. They for sure would not fit in a lot of standard holders. When I was buying a holder recently I was actually worried about what would fit in most standard designs and bought one that seemed to be the most forgiving.
While I agree that the “Super Mega” and “6 rolls in 1” marketing is silly nonsense, the size of the rolls today are comically large. I actually think the Super Mega are too big. It’s 362 sheets of 2-ply, which is like 724 sheets of single-ply (and likely a thicker ply than decades old stuff). The benchmark from the article seemed to be 650 sheets of single-ply.
Maybe the industry just needs a new metric. Measuring stuff based on some made up roll size isn’t helpful. We can all see how big the rolls are when we’re buying the stuff. Does anyone actually look at the sheet count?
> Uh-huh.
I mean...that makes plenty of sense. My parents love this ultra-thin single-ply crap that gets plenty of footage on the roll, but it doesn't really matter when you have to pull off six feet and fold it a dozen times to get a good wipe.