Minkus Master Global - Smaller Binders? 3-Hole Punch?

I have a two volume Minkus Master Global that goes to the early '60s. The 8,000 pounds that each volume weighs (actually about 12 pounds per volume) and the sheer girth of the albums are totally ridiculous. I'd like to break the two volumes into about 6 reasonably sized binders.

Given that these are from the 60s, not the Amos reprints, the pages are punched for that other joyous feature -- the two post feed the %^$#*&$ wire through the %$#@#$ post holes system that makes adding a single page of interleaving into an hour and a half project.

I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, I can do to deal with these "features".

First, do two post binders that are two inches wide exist? If they do, I can get 6 and solve the Minkus bench press issue, if not the post and wire issue.

Alternatively, if I could three hole punch the pages, I can get binders at any Office Depot.

Our club has two *serious* worldwide collectors - one collects 1840 to 10 minutes ago, used only. She collects in what she calls a "Frankenalbum" - 50+ volumes that started as Scott International, with Scott Specialty, Minkus, Steiner and whatever else comes along, interspersed as needed. The other guy decided to stop at January 1, 2000. He also has 50 or so volumes, all Scott International, that he had three hole punched so they can be housed in G&K Scott Specialty binders. Both say that doing a repunch is a big, time-consuming deal.

In particular, according to them, glassine interleaving can cause problems.

Has anyone else done this? My fellow club members are dealing with collections an order of magnitude larger than mine.

I'm asking for opinions on my three possible options:

1) Suck it up and live with things the way they are now.

2) Find 6 skinnier two-post binders and split up the big volumes.

3) Three hole punch the pages and rehouse into Office Depot binders.

I'd particularly appreciate hearing from folks who have done this, or tried to. Thanks in advance.

I like the comment.

iHobb sells a 2-inch Minkus binder. You would need to verify if it can hold your pages.



I don't own any Minkus albums but I have a few Scott albums which have two posts and a wire. As long as the wire is perfectly straight it slides right through with no issues. I think it's a pretty good system.

I don't understand the comment about glassine interleaving causing problems. What kind?

Personally, I like your #2 solution. Assuming that your pages fit, those Minkus binders look like just what you need.

Re: glassine interleaving: according to my friends, it is hard to 3-hole punch when intermixed with album pages - it wrinkles, doesn't punch thru, and interferes with punching the pages below it.

Thanks @germania for the pointer to the binders.

tapas, if you decide to add holes to your pages instead of punching them I would use a drill press and drill bit. You would need to figure out how best to protect the stamps from the chaff and dust.

A print shop could 3 hole punch your pages quickly. It would cost a little but they would do a good clean job.

whusau has offered the two routes I would go with. Personally I like the three hole suggestion best. Then you could purchase Lighthouse binders.

Jack Kelley

Tadas, I had a Minkus Comprehensive Album (up to 1958) that I started filling in several years ago. As the width kept expanding, I would buy 3" Minkus 2 post binders to keep things reasonable. I'm 95+% full now. It took four 3" binders in all. Things don't lie perfectly flat but you can see everything ok.

Most of my worldwide collection was in 2-post Scott International binders (x7; to mid-1969) and in a few Scott and Minkus single-country or regional albums. Adding and rearranging pages, as noted above, was a significant hassle. Last year, I switched everything to three-ring binders. I am completely satisfied with the transition; collecting is much easier now. The only caveat I've encountered is to be careful turning pages -- there is much more "play" in turning pages than with a 2-post binder. Other than that, no problems what-so-ever.

To rugface: Did you punch your existing pages, or get a new album and move everything? If you used your existing pages, did you punch it yourself or take it to somebody else? You're the first responder to have actually done my Option 3, and I'm interested in more details...

I just punched the pages I had and moved them to the 3-ring binders. I did the punching myself. The cost to purchase new pages and transfer the stamps would have been cost prohibitive -- the cost of new pages would have been, in most cases, more than the value of the stamps. Another major advantage to switching to 3-ring binders has been the ability to reorganize the collection as I acquire new material. As you previously mentioned, the commercial binders are very big and bulky and often difficult to work with. Some of the material I had in one two-post binder is now in up to four 3-ring binders. Much easier to work with. As I said in my previous post, I'm really happy that I made the conversion.

I use the 2-1/4" Scott Universal binders for my Minkus Supreme pages. The binder posts can be configured to fit any 3-ring pages or the 2-post Minkus pages (no hole punching required). The binder holds approximately 250 of the new thicker Minkus album pages. My collection to 1963 consists of 8 of these binders. I totally agree that the smaller binders are so-o-o much easier to work with.

Thank you to all for your suggestions and comments.Particular thanks to barhata for his suggestion, which I followed - I just ordered the binders.

Just my thoughts, and you will of course have your own preferences:

Yes, the large-sized Minkus binders are truly awful. I have two of them as supplementary albums I picked up somewhere. They go with my Scott International albums (35 at latest count. Yes, it's an addiction.) But I cannot pick them up with one hand, and it's not always easy with two hands. Dropping a binder full of pages would be very unpleasant and, at that weight, it could easily damage the binder. I've seen enough damaged binders to know it happens a lot. The massive number of pages makes the pages curve so much it's hard to mount stamps and easy for them to fall off the pages. It's not a good look. Flatter pages are better. The same goes, by the way, for the large-sized Scott International binders. I have no idea who buys these gigantic things, but good luck! I suppose it's to save money, but if it makes working with your collection more difficult, is it worth it? I prefer medium-sized (2-2.5") binders, mabye 3" but no bigger, that I can pick up and which don't hold too many pages so the pages don't curve as much.

2-1/4" Scott Universal binders: I tried these and did not like them. They have a completely flat spine which I dislike the look of (the same for the Minkus binders with flat spines). They're cheaper to make that way, but most earlier binders and most higher-end binders today use a curved spine which I think looks much better. And it's easier to hold in your hand. Universal binders have a complex page mounting system you adjust for different hole punches, but it's not my favorite. The resulting album disappointed me mainly because pages don't lie anywhere near flat, but are extremely curved. This makes mounting stamps more difficult and stamps don't stay in place as well on pages that are that curved. Putting fewer pages in each binder might help, so might be worth trying. I gave up on them just like I gave up on the gigantic binders.

This won't help you, but for my Scott International pages I found some unused older Subway Stamp Shop binders which were copies of the Scott International binders, but better made. Subway sold them in various widths, and these are 2.5" wide which is absolutely perfect for me. So that's my ideal width. I don't fill them all the way, so the pages move around enough so they don't curve too much. It's the best solution I've found. They aren't sold anymore (naturally!).

A Minkus alternative might be the 2.5" two-post Minkus binder in this thread. I'd try one and see what you think.. But . . . these binders still retain the 2-post page-holding system which is laborious to use when you want to add or remove pages. I've got page moving down to a science, so for me it goes pretty quickly, but it's not as easy as it is in a ring binder. But a ring binder also doesn't always look very good and the rings are infamous for ripping the holes over time.

I'm not a fan of three-ring binders. They look cheap and don't work well. Large three-ring binders look like warehouse receipt storage binders, not stamp albums. If I used ring binders I'd use small to medium-sized ones and just use more of them. And I'd definitely spend a little more money and get good ones that look like albums, not some kid's homework binder. Browse Amazon and you'll find a few that aren't too expensive which will work well. They're often sold as photo album binders.

As for hole-punching, if you go this route, you only need to hole punch once. Either get a good strong three-hole punch and do it yourself which will take some time but isn't all that hard -- or take it to a print shop and have them do it for you. They'll be much faster and the holes will likely line up better that way.

What I'd do is a bit different, though. I'd buy 22-ring binders and hole punch the pages with a 22-hole punch. I've done this already with some small collections. The result looks really nice. Twenty-two hole punches are a bit hard to find, but I managed to get one. Twenty-two ring binders are very popular in Europe, so buying from the UK is the best option. Their advantages are that they look a lot better than 3-ring binders, turning the pages is easier, and I find the rings don't tear at the hole nearly as much as they do on 3-ring pages. That's another concern for cheap ring binders -- they can tear the holes at least a little, sometimes a lot, which makes for a very messy album. This option clearly takes more effort and a little investment, but the result looks really nice.

Of all these options, the easiest is to pick up the smaller Minkus binders and move your pages. If you want to solve the problem easily and quickly, that's probably the way to go. You'll still have the two posts to deal with, but that's not so hard, and you'll solve your enormous binder problem. And look around as you may find them discounted somewhere. Good luck.

Thanks, DrewM, for adding even more value to what was already a pretty useful thread. As I mentioned, I've already opted for the Scott Universals (Ihobb says they'll arrive Monday), and I will report back in this thread when I finish the transfer.

DrewM added a couple of decision factors that didn't enter into my thinking at all - album aesthetics and page curvature. I was planning to go with Office Depot binders when I thought that 3-hole punching was my only looseleaf option, not exactly the height of upscale elegance. When I looked at pictures of the Scott Universal, my instinctual reluctance to pay the outrageous sum of $31 plus shipping per binder instead of the $8 binders that house the countries I collect on Steiner pages was assuaged by the thought that I'd actually have binders that were good looking, and that I would be working with reasonably-sized LOOSELEAF albums *the day after the Universals arrive*. The flat spine never even occurred to me, and probably wouldn't have when I got them without your mentioning it.

Page curvature doesn't bug me - I dealt with the almost vertical orientation of spine-side spaces in the middle of the Master Global, and the Universal can't be anything close to that bad.

To me, aside from the size issue that we both agree on, the big win for me is LOOSELEAF! No more two hour sessions of "thread the hole" with bent, rusted rods in a 55-year old album like those lift the prize with the crane concessions at county fairs. No more shifting mountains of paper to put in a sheet of interleaving. That's gonna be history for me after next Tuesday. For me, that leaves issues like "the spine is flat and the album looks cheap" in the dust.

This, in no way is meant as criticism of your very thoughtful post. This thread now has posts from happy people who've solved the problem I posed with a three hole punch solution, with a skinnier two post album solution, and with a Scott Universal album solution, plus a mention of 22-ring binders. I can't be the first to ask the question, and now there's a thread with high quality information and discussion on the subject.

Good work, everybody.