Might just be me, but imo I find it weird that canned goods come in 14.5 ounces instead of an even 16 ounces. Since that would just be a well rounded number and would be 1lb it just seems more rounded to me.
In: 4100
Food (“tin”) can sizes in the U.S. have been [standardized](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/guide/675/types-of-food-cans-and-food-can-sizes-guide.html) since the late 19th century, but the standard is arbitrary. As the 1916 book [*Canning and How to Use Canned Foods*](https://books.google.com/books?id=1OF-bFYIrUYC&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false) by A.W. and K.G. Bitting reports,
>There are certain sizes of cans that are regarded as standard but unfortunately are not based upon any unit of volume nor upon average domestic requirements. Most of them have originated in trying to make a certain number of cans out of a sheet of tin plate of a certain size, the logical alternative of making the sheet of tin plate to such size as will build cans of a certain capacity does not seem to have been considered.
These standard sizes are common in older recipes, which might call for a #3 can of beans or a #10 can of tomato sauce.
The most common can size in the U.S. is the #300, which measures 3 inches in diameter and slightly under 4½ inches tall, and which hold 15 U.S. fluid ounces or 1⅞ cups (or 15.6 Imperial fluid ounces, or 443.6 mL). *It’s important not to confuse fluid ounces, which measure volume, with ordinary (avoirdupois) ounces, which measure weight/force*. Food is mostly water, so you won’t find a tremendous amount of variation in the net weight of food you can fit in a #300 can, but it might be 14oz of one vegetable and 16.5oz of another.
Latest Answers