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.    There is an index of all the previous 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. 

Comparing the Filofax Cavendish and the Filofax Kensington

The Filofax Cavendish and Filofax Kensington were both sold by Filofax at about the same time, late 1999 to about 2003.  You will of course find examples of these two models still for sale on auction sites at various price points. 

They were both sold in a variety of other sizes, but in this post I will be comparing the Personal size as I own them both in that size!

L - R Cavendish and Kensington

Both are made in leather, the Cavendish describes it as 'Deluxe Leather' It is also padded, so it feels softer in the hand. The Kensington 'Real Leather'  feels like it would be more hard wearing in repeated daily use. 

For those of you that care about such things, the Kensington has square corners, where as the Cavendish has rounded corners. 

The Cavendish feels stiffer compared to the Kensington, which also has some sort of stiffener between the leather covers, but thinner, so less intrusive. 

I'm sure Neil would give the Kensington a better 'Flatability' score compared to the Cavendish. They do however lay open reasonably flat, the Cavendish requires a little training. 

Both feature Krause type rings, i.e. not riveted in. The Cavendish only came with 30mm rings where as the Kensington comes in regular Filofax 23mm rings. So it is slimmer in overall bulk. 

L - R Cavendish and Kensington

The Cavendish being thicker because of the larger rings it has two pen loops, the left (front) one is bigger than the right (rear) one. The Kensington has just the single pen loop fixed to the rear cover. Neither model has elasticated pen loops. 

The interior front of both include 8 horizontal card slots. They both also have a full height slip pocket behind the card slots. 

Top Cavendish, Below Kensington

They have different designs for the rear inside cover.

Top Cavendish, Below Kensington

The Cavendish has a similar width full height slip pocket but in addition it has a three quarter height secretarial pocket on the inside rear cover.  

The Kensington has a full height slip pocket behind a gusseted vertical zip pocket, that has a leather flap over the zipper. 

The Kensington has a plain back cover with just the clasp attached to it. The Cavendish has a zip pocket on the back cover which can take the odd paper ticket or similar. Very useful if you don't want to open the organiser each time. The zip is nicely concealed by leather flaps on both sides of the opening. 

L - R Cavendish and Kensington

These days you might pay a similar price for either organiser in similar good condition. Back in 2000 the Cavendish Personal retailed for £65 and it was available in four colours (Black, Brown, Burgundy, Navy). In the same catalogue the Kensington Personal is listed at £46 and it was available in six colours (Black, Brown, Burgundy, Navy, Red, Green. 

The other notable fact about the Kensington is that it was available in almost all sizes then. (Mini, Pocket, Slimline, Personal, A5, Deskfax and A4. The only sizes missing M2 and Compact! However, not all sizes had all colours. The Cavendish was available in Mini,  Pocket, Compact and Personal sizes.

Further Information:

• 2000 Filofax Catalogue
• FiloWiki - Filofax Cavendish
• FiloWiki - Filofax Kensington

Which do you like of these two? 

Filofax Cavendish - Long term use

'How well will it wear with use' is a common question we read in comments after writing reviews on different Filofax and other brands of organisers. It is also something that I know Robert wants to add to FiloWiki too, so these photos have been shared with him too.

Earlier in the year I bought a lightly used Filofax Cavendish and you can read the review I did and the photos that go with it.

But I've also been recently donated a used example of the Cavendish by one of our readers. I gave a suitable donation to Chimwemwe as a thank you.

This example appeared to have been used quite a bit and from the outside you will see there are a few scuffs on the leather, nothing serious though. But I thought before I start work with leather care balms and polishes I would photograph it exactly as I received it, so you could see the differences between the two organisers.

So this first picture is of the 'used' one, no tears just every day usage scuffs really. The zip works just perfectly. No loose stitching. The popper holds as securely as ever too.

Here is the virtually new one, it doesn't have the same sort of 'shine' from being handled as much as the used one has. Both were photographed under the same lighting conditions too.

The comparison of the two will show better in this photo together.

The interior of the used one shows how well it is holding up. The only obvious thing is the indentations from the 30mm rings.

Even the lightly used one has some indentations but not as pronounced.

Now this was a pleasant surprise, the used one lays flatter than the virtually unused one at the bottom of the picture. And I know we all like our organisers to lay flat. So over time the Cavendish does get more supple.

This is the used one after a quick treatment of Wheelers Leather Care balm, I will give it another treatment in a few weeks time.

The Cavendish has some sort of stiffener material between the leather in the covers which most probably explains why it has retained it's shape so well.

So do you like your organisers to look used or like new?

Filofax Cavendish Personal

I recently bought this Cavendish personal size organiser from one of our readers. Whilst I saw plenty of photographs of it that she kindly sent me before agreeing to buy it, I didn't really take much notice of the internal design of it. I was obviously looking for faults with the rings or damage to the leather, which thankfully there were none.

However, when I opened the parcel last week and took this organiser out of the box and started to look at it, I suddenly started to appreciate why this particular model is so popular with people that are fortunate to own one.

To me there are so many good things with the way it's been designed and made.

The exterior is quite understated in some ways. The leather is soft to the touch and the clasp of the older type designs. I am not sure when this particular model stopped being sold, the box had hints of 2005 on it, gosh 9 years ago!

Opening up the organiser and you will see the immediate attraction for most people, 30mm rings and on this example they snapped perfectly shut.

On the left inside front cover there is a large pen loop, which takes my Cross fountain pen comfortably. And eight... card slots.. I've put Philofaxy cards in them just so they all show up! There's also a full height pocket to tuck things in to behind the card slots.

The inside back cover on the right has another full height tuck in pocket and also a slim secretarial pocket in front of that. With a smaller pen loop as well. This one will take a 0.5 Frixion pen with out too much of a problem.

On the back cover there is a zip pocket, it's quite tall but not very deep, but you are less likely to lose things in the depths of a deeper pocket I guess. This would be fine for tickets and may be for collected business cards. The zip is covered by some thin leather flaps which is a neat touch.

So in use, as you can see it takes all of my usual pages without any problems at all. Capacity to spare in fact. It feels special in a way, luxurious but without feeling fragile. Plenty of secure pockets for things like my passport and prescriptions etc. Card storage well beyond what I will need! I just like the simplicity of the design, no zips on the inside to create unwanted 'lumps' to write against.

The organiser doesn't sit perfectly flat when empty as you can see. But I guess over time it might loosen up a bit, it's certainly ok with pages in it and fine when you are holding it in your hand which is the norm for a personal size for me.

Although this has got 30 mm rings it doesn't feel that bulky. Clearly if you loaded the rings fully up with paper then the weight would increase.

The Cavendish is shown here between the Gillo Amica and the Launer, the Amica has 26mm rings, The Launer the same as the Cavendish with 30mm rings. The other two though are very square at the spine where as the Cavendish is quite rounded, I wonder if that is why it doesn't feel quite as bulky.

This one is certainly in my top ten of Filofax designs and I'm proud to be the owner of one.