Advice Needed On Scott National / Speciality Album Binders.

Some advice please.

I need a new album for my US Classics collection and thought it might be appropriate to use a Scott National or Speciality green binder. The current Scott album binders available seem to be the 3 ring and 2 post type in the large 300 and 250 leaf capacity (real wrist breakers - I do not have forearms like Popeye) and 3 ring in the smaller 100 leaf capacity album.

I would prefer a 2 post album in the smaller size, or close to it, but was a 2 post National or Speciality album in a small 100 leaf size ever made by Scott? I have been looking for one of these in new or used in near new condition on the bay but without success. Should I continue looking or should I settle for the small 3 ring type?

All help and advice appreciated.

Terry

I thought I wanted a 3 ring binder until I actually traded a 2 post for one and realized how much wider it is. It does not sit on a typical bookshelf very well (at least my bookshelf).

I really wanted the 3 ring to be able to easily remove one page for scanning when I upgraded or added a stamp to it so I could scan it for my website. That's the only upside I found as I have to remove every page in front or behind it to get the page I want out of it with the 2 post. I ended up gettng used to it and just wait until I have several pages to scan instead of one each time now.

My one binder holds 1847-1985 with every stamp in a mount and it's not really that heavy. My other binder is for airmail and BOB and has rioom for the US Possessions pages I just ordered and am waiting for. I'll eventually need a 3rd or 4th to cover 1986+ whenever I breakdown and order those pages.

I haven't seen a "thin" 2 post in all my searches for a second matching binder to what I already have. Mine are 3 inch binders but I do think I've seen some listed as 2 1/2 that did appear thinner than mine but not like the Specialty thin albums. Those look like 1 inch to me but haven't seen one in person to measure

When you say "US Classics" which years are you stopping at? You will have a lot of extra room if you say 1935 or so but could probably fill it with the airmail, BOB, revenue, possessions, etc pages.

Hi Mike,

Thank you for replying. My US collecting period is 1846/47 to 1933. National part 1 effectively plus airmail issues to 1947. By comparison with the Scott National/Speciality binders my Frank Godden Popular and Warwick 2 post binders are 2 inches wide across the spine and can easily accommodate 75+ heavy 150 lb leaves and interleaving. Could take 100+ leaves without the interleaving. This allows for bulking out when stamps are mounted up. I think the large Scott binders are 3 inches and 2.5 inches and the small binder 1.5 inches across the spine.

By scoring in a crease on 2 post album leaves at 0.25 inches in from the post holes the leaves sit reasonably flat when the album is opened. This is a lot cheaper than buying double linen hinged leaves.

I was hoping to get two thin (1.5 or 2 inch) 2 post binders but it looks like the choice will be between a 3 ring 1.5 inch wide binder and a 2 post 2.5 inch wide binder.

Many thanks
Terry

Edited for typo. TC.

Here's the difference I mean between the 2 post and 3 ring binders:

I see what you mean Mike. The rings need to be that size to accommodate the leaves and that has increased the overall width of the binder. I much prefer the 2 post type. Is the 2 post binder in your photo the 3 inch or the 2.5 inch spine width version?

Many thanks
Terry

My 2 post is the 3 inch version, is holding up to 1985 and every stamp is in a mount. It's pretty packed

I use both styles of Scott Specialty Binders.
When I start a new country I use the 3 ring binder. When I feel the binder is to the point where I will rarely add new pages, I transfer to the 2 post binder, which I prefer. A temporary label goes on the 3 ring binder where as a permanent label goes on the post binder.

I have about 100 Scott Specialty Binders, as I have be collecting for over 55 years.

Thank you Mike, 2 post 2.5 inch it is then.

Terry

Thank you Timm. That is an excellent idea for reducing wear on the leaves.

Terry