Guest post series - 'Filohax' No. 18 - Paul

Thanks very much again to Paul for this eighteenth instalment of his wonderful guest post series.
You can find all of the 'Filohax' posts here.    

Cavendish/Portland big rings review 

 

L - R Cavendish and Portland Grand

Having recently purchased a Portland 5/4 and planning on reviewing it, I realised that the best way would be by comparison to another of my 5/4 ringed Filofax binders - the Cavendish. 

Portland 5/4 background

I had heard tell of the Portland Grande before - a rare beast in recent times (at least to me, I had never seen one for sale for anything near a sensible price - to me - in the 2 1/2 years since my return to Filofax use). So, when a sensibly priced Portland '5/4' came up for sale, I just assumed that it was an early iteration of the Grande - and quickly 'pulled the trigger' on the sale. According to the seller (who had acquired it from a house clearance), it was old stock from a stationery shop. 

First impressions
All of my previous binders have obviously been 'pre loved', however the Portland looks as if it had been on display at some point and then put away, as the leather appears very dull and dry. The idea for a comparison review came from not being able to put my finger on what was different about it and my other large ringed Filofax. 

In quick comparison with my Cavendish 5/4 and Winchester 5/4, it looks like with the Portland 5/4 the Filofax designers have solved the 'uncanny valley' syndrome - the feeling that previously they hadn't just been able to 'scale up ' 5/4 binders from the classic 7/8 bible sized proportions. 

 

Don't get me wrong - the Cavendish 5/4 and Winchester 5/4 are beautiful binders - but in delivering a larger ring capacity, the proportions had evolved into having a wider proportion compared to their height. To counter this, the Portland's height has been increased in proportion to the increased width needed to accommodate the extra insert capacity. 

The Portland designers had also learned the lesson from the Cavendish of keeping to a skinny closure strap, a mistake made on the earlier Winchester 5/4's which had assumed that scaling up the proportions of the strap would retain the classic Bible size 'DNA'. Wrong - if you compare the straps you can see how sticking to the original depth proportions of a 7/8 strap makes the Cavendish look 'right' and makes the earlier Winchester 5/4 appear clunkier. I put this down to the fact that the physiology of our fingers hasn't changed just because we got a larger capacity binder! 

First impressions summary of the Portland 5/4: it looks like a 7/8 bible size 'classic era' Filofax... with big rings.

Comparing Cavendish and Portland
Leather: Cavendish - minimal padding, very fine glossy deluxe leather, patinas very well. Portland - very padded, coarser grain Matt finish, doesn't appear to patina well 

Flatability: Cavendish - 100%. Portland - 80% 

Front covers: Cavendish width 156mm 

 

Portland width 148mm 

 

Straps: Cavendish strap width 15.5mm. Portland strap width 17mm 

Pen loops: Cavendish front loop - can accommodate a Frixion pen. Cavendish back cover loop - just a pencil. Portland front loop - can accommodate a ballpoint pen. Portland back cover loop - just a pencil 

Inside front cover: Cavendish - x8 credit card slots, X1 full height pocket which is quite accessible 

 

Portland - zipped pocket, which due to its gusset gives very good access to the pocket space (unlike the Cavendish back cover zipped pocket) 

 

Rings: Cavendish - excellent.  Portland - excellent 

Inside back cover: Cavendish - X1 secretarial pocket (open across top edge) is THE best accessibility of all pocket configurations. Also X1 full length pocket with good access.

 

Portland - X6 credit card slots (which gives better security than inside front cover ones of the Cavendish) plus X1 full length pocket with good access. 

 

Back cover: Cavendish - vertical zipped pocket, very neatly done but lack of gusset restricts access.

 

 

Portland - the strap is stitched nearly 20mm from the back cover edge, making it look inelegant compared to the Cavendish. 

 

Spine: Cavendish - rounded, following the curve of the rings. Slightly embossed 'F' 

 

Portland - square spine, doesn't sit as naturally in the hand. Pronounced embossing of 'F'. 

 

My summary
Of course, all of this is subjective - I love my Cavendish, Winchester, and now Portland 5/4 ringed binders for different reasons. But now that the dust has settled, the Cavendish beats my Portland 5/4 for one reason - the leather. When you open the Cavendish cover and read the embossed 'Deluxe leather' description - this is the difference that matters. For me, the way a leather binder feels in the hand, and ages with time is the deciding factor in its quality. The Cavendish took all of the bumps and scuffs and turned them into 'character'. It's too early to tell, but so far the Portland just looks 'scruffy'... I would love to know what you think, especially other 'big ring' owners.  

 
Postscript
To overcome the lack of patina from its long storage, I've put it into daily use as my work binder, and as such, gets treated in the same way as my previous work binders - it's in and out of work bags, has other items thrown in with it, opened on various surfaces and generally 'used'. It's still only a few weeks in, but the matte look seems to show up the slightest bump and scrape, making it even matter still.