Showing posts with label Cavendish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cavendish. Show all posts

Saturday, 11 April 2015

Compact Cavendish versus compact Belgravia

[I realise this might be a less than useful comparison as neither of these binders are freely available, even on eBay but maybe if people see them somewhere and want to know a bit more about them, it will be helpful]

Last week, I said that I had bought another binder from eBay - it was a black compact Belgravia.

I knew nothing about the binder beyond the pictures that were on the advert but I could see that there were eight card slots on the LHS and a zipped pocket on the RHS. It had a strap closure and as it was a compact, I assumed it had 15mm rings.

Hang, on. Don't I have a black compact binder with eight card slots on the LHS and a zipped pocket on the back? In a compact Cavendish? Um... yes.

So, here we go - compare and contrast between the two:

Card slots:
Both binders have 8 card slots on the LHS but the Belgravia has slanted slots whereas the Cavendish has the more conventional straight slots. In both models, there is a vertical pocket behind the card slots.

Belgravia with curved card slots
Cavendish with straight slots


Right hand side:
In the Cavendish, there are two pocket on the RHS - a vertical one that is about half the width of the binder and a second 7/8 slip pocket.

Cavendish showing it unfilled

In the Belgravia, there is a zipped pocket with an elastic gusset. I've not seen that before. I have a couple of binders that have a leather gusset -allowing more to go into the pocket and easier access in general, but I have never seen one with an elastic gusset. It may just be that it is unused, but the elastic was very stiff!

Belgravia showing it unfilled
Paperweight jamming the pocket open so you can see the elastic

Back cover:
In the Cavendish, there is a zipped pocket on the back cover. The Belgravia just has Filofax embossed into the leather.

Cavendish with zipped pocket
Belgravia with embossed logo


Pen loop:
Both binders have a single all-leather pen loop that is about right for holding a very slim pen (like my Zebra diary pen/pencil (8mm diameter)) but would struggle with much more. Again, perhaps because it was newer/less used, the loop in the Belgravia was very tight. Both pen loops measured 5.5cm from the edge of the back cover to the centre of the press-stud fastener.
The Cavendish has a leather-covered stud; the Belgravia has a metal stud-cover with Filofax on it.

Flattability:
The Cavendish is a little less happy about opening flat and I would rate it as about 6/10. The Belgravia lies pretty flat and I would give it 9/10.

Cover:
In the Belgravia there is a definite feeling of a piece of stiff card or similar in the front and back covers (with either nothing behind the ring mechanism, or three separate pieces. It feels more flexible between the cover and the spine).
The Cavendish also feels as if there is card behind the front and back covers but it is a lot less flexible at the cover-spine junction (which is presumably why it is less resistant to lying flat).

Rings:
Both binders have oval rings that are 15mm wide and 11mm deep. There are no gaps and they snap closed very smartly.

Having looked at the specs, I then decided to put the same 'fill' into each of them to see how they worked.

Cavendish:
I have actually used the Cavendish as my carry-around so I knew that it could work in this way. I put cards in the slots, my weekly plans for April in the front, 6-months of Da Vinci Tomoe River WO2P dairy behind, about a dozen information pages and then my address section. Right at the back I put the zipped pencil case that I keep coins in. In the back cover, I put paper money in the full-height vertical pocket and in the zipped pocket in the back cover, I put the cards I carry but don't need to access easily.

Cavendish, filled

As I say, I have used the Cavendish like this as my wallet-binder carry-around. The only thing that really bugged me was the fact it didn't really lie flat.

Belgravia:
I put the same fill in to the Belgravia. The commonly used cards went in the front, the other cards went in the zipped pocket, I put the same pages in the rings and paper money behind the cards.

Belgravia, filled
The first thing I noticed was that although the card slots would appear to have easier access with the slant to them, it was hard to get cards in and out. That said, I don't think they had ever really been used so it could just be that they are stiff.
The second thing I noticed was that although there IS a pocket behind the cards, it was hard to get the paper money in/out of it.
The third thing I noticed was that although I measured the straps to be exactly the same length, the strap of the Belgravia was hard to close (as if it was shorter) than the one on the Cavendish (which closed very happily).

In general:
If you didn't want the binder to function as both a wallet and an organiser, then the Belgravia would be better, because it lies flatter and the lack of a pocket that works well for paper money wouldn't matter.
If you want to combine wallet and organiser, I would say that the Cavendish has it by a tiny margin. It doesn't lie quite so flat, but the zipped pocket on the outside is useful and the internal layout of the back cover is better than the zipped pocket of the Belgravia (to my mind).

Sunday, 12 October 2014

Trial swap into the Cavendish

In my last post, I said I had bought a compact Cavendish as a spare/back-up for the de Villiers. I have now moved over into it and will trial it until the end of October (though I suspect that I may need more colour and will then move back to the de Villiers...).

Everything moved across just fine. The binder is heavier than the de Villiers. Unloaded, the de Villers weighed in at 156g; the Cavendish was 183g. It’s also ‘puffier’ leather than the de Villiers (which has almost a lacquered feel to it). I needed to make a protective plastic sheet for the front, but since I have a box of overhead projector sheets, this was pretty easy! The ring size is the same (I think). Seven cards and two books of stamps went into the front slots; the rest went into the zipped pocket on the back. Paper money went into the back full-height pocket; coins went into the zipped pencil-case at the back (straight transfer from the de Villiers).
I think it’s because the covers are thicker/puffier but it feels bigger than the de Villiers. Not so much that I am thinking brick though, so that’s okay!

I’ll keep you posted. Right now I’m not convinced that the pen-loop and strap benefits outweigh the ‘feels bigger and it’s not colourful’ disadvantages.

Saturday, 11 October 2014

Another compact...

Apologies for the silence!! Work has been hell and non-work has been busy (but in a really good way, so can’t complain there!)
Anyway, my news is that I think (think...!) that I have finally solved that personal/pocket conundrum.

Use a compact.

Not so hard, huh?

See, the regular-size personal can feel like a brick and the pocket-size, though lightweight, can’t cope with cards well enough to be planner+wallet. But, the de Villiers with its 10 card slots in the cover and small rings is just grand. So grand, that I have been on the look-out for another compact to have as a spare/back-up. There are a number of compacts out there, but if they don’t have oodles of card slots, they’ll have all the same problems that the pocket-size does – i.e. ring space gets taken up with card-holders.

Enter a Cavendish...


Nope, not the Cavendish with the humongous rings (have one of them... ‘brick’ doesn’t come close). A compact Cavendish. Same internal layout but with oval 15mm rings (11 mm in the smaller diameter).

I’ve seen compact Cavendish binders come up on eBay in the past and thought “Who buys a Cavendish with small rings??? Isn’t the point of them that they have HUGE rings????”

And then it turns out that I buy them. Who’d have guessed.

Anyway, unlike the big-ring version, it seems like few people (other than me) want the compact version so I got it for a pretty good price (about £20 including p+p). The rings are perfect and though it needs a bit of a clean, it’s otherwise in pretty good condition. I don’t think it has been used much and the dings in the leather are from storage I reckon.

It has exactly the same layout as its bigger brother, but with smaller rings. The inside left has eight card slots and a full-height pocket behind. The inside right has a full-height pocket and a ¾ height pocket in front (hmm... maybe nearer ⅞ height). On the outer cover (back) there is a zipped pocket. The pocket is not useful enough to put money in but is pretty good for spare cards that don’t need to go in the front slots and things like stamps and so on.

Interior
Back, with the zipped pocket

Unlike the de Villiers (and another reason I bought it) the Cavendish has both a pen-loop (smallish – fits my Zebra diary pen perfectly) and a strap to keep it closed. Also unlike the de Villiers it currently (empty) doesn’t lie flat-as-a-bat but I think when the contents go in, it will. It is also black (and I normally need a good colour-pop but we’ll see how I get on!).

Has anyone else ever had one of these “light-bulb moments” when after faffing about for ages over the different sizes they suddenly have a Goldilocks find that’s just right?

Saturday, 15 February 2014

Pockets, pockets, pockets

Well, I gave myself a stern talking to after the last yearning and convinced myself that I should stay in a personal size and that if I really, really needed a change of scenery with it, I should move into the pink one or into a Holborn.
But the pocket “itch” is still there! The thing is, I think I know what the ideal pocket layout would be and I don’t think it exists in any binder.
I want:
  • At least 4, easy-to-get-things-in-and-out-of card slots
  • At least one other pocket for things like stamps
  • A zipped pocket (for the other cards that don’t sit in a card-holder or in the card slots)
  • Flat-as-a-bat floppiness
  • 19mm rings
  • A back pocket that runs across the full width of the binder to put paper money in

Other pockets would be good as long as I can get things in and out of them reasonably easily.

So how do my current stash of pocket-sized binders fare?

Model
No. card-slots?
Other pocket(s)?
Zipped pocket?
Flat-as-a-bat?
19mm rings?
Back pocket?
Aston
4
1 full-height
yes
no
yes
no
Baroque

5
3 full-height plus note-pad pocket

yes

yes

yes

no
Cavendish
4
2 full-height
yes (on back)
no
no – 15mm
yes
Classic
4
2 full-height
yes
no
yes
no
Mulberry (Loki)
4
2 full-height
yes (but v small)
mostly
no -15mm
no
Portland
4
1 full-height
yes
yes
no – 15mm
no
Urban (possibly)

4
1 full-height plus note-pad pocket
yes (on back)
?

yes

yes


You’ll see added to the table an Urban, which I don’t actually have as yet, but am bidding a miniscule amount on, on eBay. It might have the layout and functionality I want (I would need to see how flat-as-a-bat it is if I win it) but will I love it? It’s not leather and it’s a bit dull-looking. I suppose if I win it, I could potentially decorate it so that it looks less drab.

Sunday, 23 December 2012

Pros and cons of all my binders


Well, not all my binders. That would be daft. And a massive, massive blog post. I’ll just focus on the “usual squeezes”: the Baroques, the Cavendish, the Holborn(s), the Mulberry agendas, the pocket Baroque and the pocket Aston. What do I love about them? What do I want to change about them? Will I sell them (daft question. We all know the answer is going to be no, possibly stretching to a mmm, maybe I could sell it… maybe…).

Binder
What do I love?
What would I change?
Will I be selling it/them?
Pink and turquoise Baroques
Colour
Interior embossing
6 card holders
Full height pocket behind card slots
Notepad slot in back

Add another full height pocket (like the Malden) behind the notepad slot
Don’t be daft
Brown Holborn
All those card slots
All those pockets
Contrast stitching (um, actually I did change it)
The full-height pockets nearest the rings are tricky
The zipped pocket is a bit tricky too

Hmm… maybe?
Wine Holborn
All those card slots
All those pockets
Contrast stitching
The full-height pockets nearest the rings are tricky
The zipped pocket is a bit tricky too

Jeez – I’ve only just got it! No…
Black Cavendish
The 8 card slots (yes! 8!)
The 1.25” rings (yes – 1.25”!!)
The pockets in the rear

The colour – black’s a bit… dark and lacking in colour
The zipped pocket on the cover’s a bit pointless

Ha ha ha ha ha!
 No
Pocket Aston
The size
The colour
More card slots
The zipped pocket wasn’t that useful

No
Pocket Baroque
The size
The card slots
The embossed interior
The notepad slot

The colour – pink or teal would be better…
The zipped pocket is pointless

No
Indie
(brown Mulberry agenda)
The size
The quality
The beaten leather
More card slots
The vertical pockets to be a little further from the rings or have the shaped edge

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
 No

Red
(red Mulberry agenda)
The size
The quality
The colour
More card slots
The extra slip pocket that Indie has
Not to be so shiny (?)

Er… no… maybe…? No… Don’t know…

I have come to the realisation that I like:
  • lots of pockets
  • lots of card slots
  • colour
At least that’s good to realise so it might curb my binder-buying habits.

[ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… who am I kidding???]

Maybe it will help me decide which binder to start 2013 in...