Thank you again to Hans for this excellent guest post about 'slim "bible" organisers.
This is an introduction and comparison of four slim "bible" size (equal to Personal size) organisers, plus a fifth one for reference purposes.
All models are claspless, and except for the regular model, the ring sizes are 8-11mm.
Below is an angled side-by-side view.
Back to front:
- Brelio x Nagasawa Buttero Box, 20mm (for comparison)
- Filofax Winchester Stone Limited Edition Slim, 11mm
- Spad Yak, 11mm
- Brelio Minerva, 11mm
- Raymay Davinci Standard, 8mm
Below is a bottom vew, same order, but left to right.
The bottom view does not show the actual thickness for some models, but it clearly shows the different widths.
The photo below shows a comparison of the four slim models fully opened. The silver cylinders are just the magnets that were used to keep the organisers floating at 180° open position.
The measurements are height x width x thickness, ring-to-edge, full-open-width, inner ring width; weight.
Top left: Filofax Winchester Stone Limited Edition Bible Slim, 11mm
187x123x25mm, R2E 103mm, FOW 251mm, 11.1mm rings, 200g
Top right: Spad Yak, 11mm
189x113x22mm, R2E 94mm, FOW 233mm, 10.8mm rings; 125g
Bottom left: Brelio Minerva, 11mm
186x110x21mm, R2E 91mm, FOW 223mm, 11.0mm rings; 166g
Bottom right: Raymay Davinci Standard, 8mm
180x106x18mm, R2E 91mm, FOW 218mm, 8.6mm rings; 106g
The Brelio Buttero Box has a weight of 310g, most of that due to the weight of the 20mm ring mechanics.
The Winchester Stone has a very stiff, almost plastic board like feel. The Spad Yak has a super-soft outer leather that almost feels like PU leather, it features a full-size outer back pocket. The Brelio Minerva has a medium structured leather. The Raymay Standard has a smooth outer surface with barely visible structure, and a fabric inner lining.
For me, the Raymay Standard is the winner. It is very compact, lightweight, and looks and feels robust. I would be concerned whether the Spad Yak with its super-soft outer leather is suitable for everyday use. The Brelio Minerva is a mixture of exclusive look and feel, while still being ready for daily use - but at a higher weight. The Filofax Winchester Stone might look good, but it does not feel good at all. In addition to that it's stiff, bulky and heavy. But it carries the popular name.
Feel free to comment, or ask if you have any questions.
Hans
Thank you again Hans.
What happened, how did it come that far? Actually, I never liked the Personal format.
ReplyDeleteIt all started with the search for a Filofax Miniature. One of the options to get one was to use the Winchester Stone Bible Slim as bonus item (the seller does phrase it the other way round, though). Because I prefer claspless and slim models, I thought it would be the perfect item for me. But it turned out to be quite bulky and stiff. So I decided to try the Buttero Box with its bigger rings. But that turned out to be even bulkier, most likely due to the thick protectors, so I looked for smaller rings again, and dicovered the Minerva. I could have stopped here, because the Minerva is really awesome. But then I found the Raymay Standard with 8mm rings, being perfectly slim. And next I doscovered the Spad Yak, but that was mostly curiosity regarding the Yak leather, and I do like the black and wine color combination.
Lessons learned: (1) Ring size = Bulk. To buy rings as big as you can get, just to have possible space for future stuff is not always the right decision. (2) Don't buy too quick, take some time for research. (3) Exploring is fun, but contradicts (2) unfortunately. So I hope that it helps others in that point.
Hello Hans! Thanks for your very interesting post. I'm wondering if the Winchester models offered once for the Japanese market (and still available on eBay) have the same feel as your Winchester Stone LE. Do you happen to know?
ReplyDeleteHello Klaus,
DeleteThat's the only Winchester model that I had in my hands. So I can't tell whether it would feel different to previous generations. But that LE is "Made in China" not that long ago, so it could be different.
I compared photos afterwards, and at least the style seems to be exactly same: The long and thick protectors preventing access to the pockets, the clear cover ID pocket, etc. So if I had known what a Winchester is made like, I could have know that there is no such thing as a "slim" Winchester. I do blame the purchase on myself, but I can't stop bashing, either.
Hans
Nice comparison Hans.
DeleteThe 'Winchester' model was called the E199 prior to 1980. In those days, it was available with 8, 13 and 23mm rings. The K199 was the same design, but without flaps, clasp or pen loop. Never yet seen anyone selling an 8mm Winchester, or a K199...
The 8mm rings seem to have persisted until 1984, though continued in other designs until later, dwindling to just the 3CL Slimline by 1986. Again, this is all rather academic history, as these models don't seem to appear for sale...
The binder I actually use for a diary is a 1st generation Pocket P5KL, with 11mm rings. I think the trend to larger and larger rings is a mistake, but presumably driven by actual sales history.
Yes, there is a general greed for ring size, and in the past I found myself getting the largest rings, if there was an option. In the meantime I changed my opinion.
DeleteThe Raymay Davinci Standard model also has siblings: 8mm Pocket and 16mm A5.
A5 organisers with less than 15 or 16mm seem to be impossible to find - as I don't accept swatches of leather with ring mechanics attached as organisers. But that's a different story.
Hans
Could it be that the strange "feel" is due to the leather embossing process?
DeleteAnd there's definitely some stiffener inside the outer part, the protectors seem to be just two layers of leather, but still a little stiff.
BTW: The back pocket of the slim model is a plain pocket, not with side folds (whatever that's called).
Hans
Thanks for the interesting post Hans. The Japan market does offer a lot of variety from what we’re used to.
DeleteI do think the recent limited edition models do have thicker and stiffer leather than the 1980’s Winchesters used to. It gives them a reassuring stolidity but may not be that practical.
I reckon an old model Winchester or 6CL with 1/4” or 1/2” rings would be worth looking at as possible matches for your requirements Hans.
DeleteThanks Max, I'll keep an eye on that 6CL model. A quick search for the 6CL leads to a photo with gmax mark on it.
DeleteDo you know why the 8mm rings were called 1/4"? Does 5/16" just look too odd? And there's no such thing as 1/4" being 6.35mm rings.
Yes that 1/4” designation does seem misleading now you’ve pointed it out.
DeleteI guess the simplified fraction is easier to relate to, but when the original 4 ring Pocket models were introduced, their ring size was listed as 7/16”.
Regarding leather thickness & stiffness, I have noted quite a variation in stiffness between what is notionally the same leather (even in the same design). Which is not surprising, since leather, as a natural material, will be subject to natural variation. But there are also design variations...
DeleteI've just measured the thickness of leather on a few binders:
P5KL Pocket: spine 1.25mm, L/R sides 2.06mm
2CLF: spine 1.75mm, L 3.01mm, R 2.50mm
3CL: L 2.20mm R 2.28mm
4CLF: spine 2.30mm, L 3.11mm, R 2.57mm, pocket 4.95mm
4CLF: spine 2.20mm, L 2.70mm, R 2.22mm, pocket 4.58mm
Those two 4CLFs are stiff as boards. The 2CLF is lovely and supple. The L/R measurements are for two layers of leather.
The 1/4" vs 8mm discrepancy has long puzzled me; it really is 5/16". Given that one regular size was 7/8", and the Pocket was introduced with 7/16", I'm not sure why it was so described. But it goes back a very long way...
Hello Kevin,
DeleteThanks for the examples. Together with the outer ring width, that's what defines thickness.
These are the measurements for the two models that turned out to be much thicker than I expected.
Winchester LE:
Front/Back: ~3.7mm
Protectors: only ~2.0mm
Spine area: ~2.7mm
Outer ring width: ~14.2mm
Calculated thickness: 3.7 + 2.0 + 14.2 + 2.0 + 3.7 = 25.6mm from 11mm rings
Brelio Buttero Box:
Front: ~8.1 (due to outer front pocket)
Ring protector area: ~6.5mm
Spine: ~2.4mm (thinnest spot)
Back: ~5.2mm
Outer ring width: 25.0mm
Calculated thickness: 6.5 + 25.0 + 6.5 = 38mm from 20mm rings
The outer pocket ends before the protector area starts, so front thickness is protector area only.
Hans
Thanks for this Hans, all five binders look really fantastic.
ReplyDeleteI only have one binder with 8mm rings, a Mulberry Social Organiser which is equivalent to a Filofax M2. They are tiny compared to the rings in most binders now. I get 20-25 sheets in which for me is okay for notes and info I want on the go. I then have 11mm as the next smallest.
My two preferred sizes are 15mm in pocket for my diary and 30mm A5 for my work binders.
In sharp contrast to you I’ve just bought two new A5 binders from eBay with 30mm rings (a Charleston and a Richmond) as 25mm has become too tight. I’ve not gone to 35mm or 40mm yet, I need to pump some iron first! 30mm gets heavy enough but they only leave the house once every two months.
I have two Filofax Lockwood personal slimline size which have 11mm rings, I love both but I just can’t get away with personal - go small or go large 😊
Hi Lucy, thanks for your annotations and thoughts.
DeleteOf course, if you need the ring space, you can go for the largest. But I have the feeling that most of the normal users tend to pick a too large size. Then they ask at Reddit, what they should put inside their filofax.
Regarding the small rings: In spite of its competitive price, the Raymay comes with a full set of inserts, a total of 5mm. But it does not feel stuffed of filled up. With 5mm (or 13/64") hole size and a punch margin of 3mm, it pages nicely. Rings of less than 15mm just need the right parameters for punching.
The Davinci Standard Pocket 8mm almost looks the same, except that it only has one card slot on the inner front pocket.
The Lockwoods sound like a good start into the world of slim planners.
Hans