Table of Common Sizes
See also: Mattress#Mattress dimensions See also: Bedding#Bedding_sizes| N. America | Australia | UK & Ireland | Continental Europe & Latin America |
Japan | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Twin (USA) |
39 in × 75 in 99 cm × 190 cm |
36 in × 74 in 91 cm × 190 cm |
36 in × 75 in 91 cm × 190 cm |
90 cm × 200 cm 35 in × 79 in |
97 cm × 195 cm 38 in × 77 in |
| Double or full | 54 in × 75 in 140 cm × 190 cm |
54 in × 74 in 140 cm × 190 cm |
54 in × 75 in 140 cm × 190 cm |
140 cm × 200 cm 55 in × 79 in |
140 cm × 195 cm 55 in × 77 in |
| Queen King (UK & Ire.) Wide Double (Japan) |
60 in × 80 in 150 cm × 200 cm |
60 in × 78 in 150 cm × 200 cm |
160 cm × 200 cm 63 in × 79 in |
154 cm × 195 cm 61 in × 77 in |
|
| Olympic Queen Queen (Japan) |
66 in × 80 in 170 cm × 200 cm |
170 cm × 195 cm 67 in × 77 in |
|||
| King Super King (UK & Ire.) |
76 in × 80 in 190 cm × 200 cm |
72 in × 80 in 180 cm × 200 cm |
72 in × 78 in 180 cm × 200 cm |
180 cm × 200 cm 71 in × 79 in |
194 cm × 195 cm 76 in × 77 in |
| California King King Long (Japan) |
72 in × 84 in 180 cm × 210 cm |
194 cm × 205 cm 76 in × 81 in |
|||
For North American, as well as British and Irish beds, the sizes are traditionally specified in US customary units or Imperial units (the metric equivalents given here are approximate). For Latin America, mainland Europe, and Japan, the sizes are specified in metric (US/Imperial equivalents are approximate). The Australian sizes reported here are incorrect according to the quoted source page. They should be specified in metric units. Here they have been poorly converted back to metric from their approximate imperial equivalent.
Read more about this topic: Bed Size
Famous quotes containing the words table and/or common:
“Language was vigorous because, because ... editors usually “laid all the cards on the table so as to leave their hands ... free for more persuasive arguments!” The citizenry at large retaliated as best they could.”
—State of Utah, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)
“It is to be lamented that the principle of national has had very little nourishment in our country, and, instead, has given place to sectional or state partialities. What more promising method for remedying this defect than by uniting American women of every state and every section in a common effort for our whole country.”
—Catherine E. Beecher (1800–1878)