Thank you Hans again for another guest post.
Non-Standard Standard Formats
The title seems contradictory, but this is about formats that are not of a common standard height and width, but instead combine height and width of different standards.
One common example is the HBxWA5 format, I think the notation was introduced by Ashford. This format combines the height of the "Bible" (Personal) format and the width of the A5 format, hence the name "HB" x "WA5".
Some time ago, I found two ring binders that were advertised as "Business Card Holder". Unfortunately, they are marked as unavailable in the meantime.
Below is a size comparison between standard size and the respective wider format. I used claspless models of the same height and similar ring size for better comparison.
Top left is a Bible size claspless model with 20mm rings, bottom left is the ring binder with 1" rings, same height, but about A4 width: HBxWA4.
Top right is an A5 size claspless model with 30mm rings, bottom right is the ring binder with 1" rings, same height, but about A4 width: HA5xWA4.
Below is the Bible-Height model "OF402" opened.
Height: 202mm, width: 256mm, thickness ~45mm, fully opened width: 535mm.
2" center distance "Personal" rings of 1" diameter, 165mm between the buttons.
Left: Clear pocket insert, height: 179mm, width: 215mm; 30 included. Double-sided two columns, three rows pockets.
Right: Sample sheet, height: 171mm, width: 210mm.
Below is the A5-Height model "OF392" opened.
Height: 262mm, width: 256mm, thickness ~45mm, fully opened width: 535mm.
2¾" center distance standard A5 rings of 1" diameter, 212mm between the buttons.
Left: Clear pocket insert, height: 240mm, width: 215mm; 25 included. Double-sided two columns, four rows pockets.
Right: Sample sheet, height: 210mm, width: 210mm.
Please note that the provided clear sheets exceed the design height of the respecitve mechanic. But the sheets have the inner corners cut in a concave shape, to allow access to the push-buttons of the mechanics.
Both ringbinders are of the same finish: Outside is a dark soft padded PU leather with a nice natural structure. Inside an orange-beige PU leather with a super-fine irregular dimpled structure. A full-height shallow pocket at the front cover, a simple pen loop towards the top of the backcover.
As mentioned in the introduction, both are marked unavailable in the meantime. I haven't been able to find any other supplier for such formats.
Feel free to ask, if you have any questions.
Do you know of other non-standard ring binders combining different standard width and height?
Hans
Thank you Hans for another guest post.
Interesting!
ReplyDeleteI would add Personal Wide and Pocket Plus to the list!! Personal Wide is nearly B6 which is a far more sensible size to use!
ReplyDeleteI think that there is no "standard" for Personal Wide? It seems that it is something unspecified between Personal width and B5 width, mostly 120-130mm.
DeleteThe original design height of Personal is 6¾", equal to 171.45mm. If you want keep the common squareroot-2 ratio, you get 121.23mm.
I did not hear about Pocket Plus. It looks like formats up to 128x90mm are used, but that would be JIS-B7.
The original Pocket height was 4¾", equal to 120.65mm. The Pocket width of 81mm could be expressen as 3.3/16" in imperial dimensions, leading to a ratio of 1.5.
Most of the height, width and aspect ratios are somewhat strange...
Typo: The comment above regarding Personal wide should have been "unspecified between Personal width and A5 width".
DeleteDoes anyone have some kind of "standard" measurements for the two mentioned formats "Personal Wide" and "Pocket Plus"?
I have a couple of non-standard standard page sizes in my own insert generators: F6A, which is Personal height and A6 width, and PocketA, which is Pocket height, but an A-series (ISO216) 1:sqrt(2) form factor, which works out at 'A6.6', so 85.31x120.65mm.
DeleteI use the PocketA size for my field manuals, diary and other inserts that I use day-to-day; it gives a little more room to write on, fits in the P5KL Sherwood & Lincoln binders I use, and can be imposed directly from an A4-composed page that I use for the field manuals. But I'm not sure I can remember the reasoning behind the F6A size; possibly because the first Personal binder Ibought was quite wide, and you can just fit three 'F6A' pages on an A4 printed sheet (two upright across the page, and one rotated across the top).
Personal Wide is 4.75 inches or 121mm by 6.75 inches or 171mm given that the format came from the USA, that explains the size. But B6 is 125x175 although the extra height isn't normally an issue!!
DeletePocket Plus I believe is 89x127mm
Thanks for the measurement, Steve. That makes Personal Wide the same width as the height of Pocket. So you could fit two Pocket pages in landscape orientation in a Personal Wide.
DeleteWhatever that could be written in the special notation. Maybe HBxWHM6 for Height of Bible, Width like the height of M6.
Regarding small variations in paper size: That depends a lot on whether the ring binder was designed for using horizontal or vertical tabs. If you don't use tabs, you can use the extra space for sheet size.
There are two important measurements with a ring binder:
(1) Design paper height of the mechanics. In case of the widespread push-buttons, this is the space between these push-buttons. If you exceed this by paper height, access to the push-buttons is restricted.
(2) The ring-to-edge distance, I call that R2E. That's measured on the closed binder from the top of the rings to the edge of the binder. This is approximately the maximum paper width than can be used.
Just noticed that Personal Wide is also 1:sqrt(2) aspect ratio, so I might call it PersonalA, like my PocketA. I noticed Hans' observation that it is as wide as Pocket is high, and then I realised 171 is twice my PocketA 85.31 width, within rounding error, so making it an 'A size'; A5.6, in this case.
DeleteI have a theory about the origins of the paper sizes, based on imperial unit fractions, ring spacing, and margins; maybe the subject of a short article...?
I'd be interested in talking about paper sizes.
DeleteFor the Squareroot-2 based standards, ISO-A and the difference between ISO-B and JIS-B are important to know.
For the imperial based measurements, there seem to be less strict rules. Some standars seem to have drifted slightly when being converted to metric, like the credit card size, for example.
For measuring hole punch sizes, I got myself an imperial drill set in 1/64" steps.