Observers carried out multiple, concurrent size discriminations with a range of size standards. The task was to classify each stimulus as larger or smaller than the appropriate standard size for the set to which it belonged. The set to which each stimulus belonged was indicated by its orientation, or in different experiments, by its spatial location. Observers were able to maintain appropriate discrimination, both when there were four concurrent standards and when there were eight. Both angle and position functioned as effective cues. The size of the orientational cue appeared to make little difference to the efficiency of discrimination. However, when the relationship between standard size and orientation was random, rather than regular, performance got worse. The analogy between such discrimination and size constancy is pointed out, and the results are discussed in relation to Andrews, D. P.'s [(1964) Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 104-115)] account of perceptual calibration.