Some Ring-Binder Trivia

I'm compulsively researching ring-binder albums--looking for the perfect one for my Ireland stamps, realizing, of course, that there's no such thing as "perfect." I've been struck by the variety in the number of rings that album makers use. Out of curiosity, I started keeping track (some of these may be defunct):

Yvert and Tellier 22
Marini 22
Salisbury (Dauwalder's) 22
Gibbons Monarch 22
Lindner 18
Lighthose Excellent DE 13
Michel 12
Palo 5
Salisbury Four-Ring (Dauswader's) 4 (obviously)
Lighthouse (for European-sold options) 4
Lighthouse (Vario, Grande) 3
Scott 3
Minkus 3 (my current album--40+ years old)

I believe somebody uses 6--don't recall who.

The variety is partly a matter of geography (US-3, Europe-4) and partly a way to ensure that users of a company's pages also use their binders.

My personal preference is for more, rather than fewer, rings: smoother page-turning and less wear on the holes.

Yvert's albums also come with two and eight rings.

Edifil / Manfil / Philos 15

Scott Platinum albums - 13

I must admit I am a bit pzzled by the whole idea.
It comes across as the tail wagging the dog.
If I collected the stamps a foreign country, I would be selecting an album brand based primarily on its coverage depth and pleasing overall layout design. With some consideration for features like cost, page size (can I feed it hrough my printer and can I get blank pages?), and what other countries that publisher produces in matching styles. Are they likely to be in business to produce updates into the future? Paper quality is important, but pages can be copied onto better paper. Hole punching would get almost no consideration. Turn your pages gently!

Right. That's why I called the topic ring-binder "trivia." It's a trivial issue for sure--and more a source of amusement than of concern for me. My Minkus 3-ring is 49 years old. I've turned the pages carefully thousands of times, so everything is in good shape save for some very minor enlargement of the punch-holes on the first few pages.

The "ring-wars" are clearly driven by vendors' efforts to ensure that customers who buy their pages also have to buy their expensivee binders.

By the way, I remembered who sells a 6-ringer: Schaubek.

Aquinas, I agree your *topic line* states "trivia", however the rest of the thread hints strongly of selecting an album primarily if not solely on hole-count. Not sure how to square "compulsively" in the orignal thread with "source of amusement" in your last post. Just saying.
Good luck.

John, Thanks. I see your point, and you are right--I did give the impression that ring-count was a key consideration. Actually, all the factors you name are far more important to me--things like catalog the album follows, depth of coverage, quality of paper, attractiveness of layout, durability of binder, reliability of company.

Right now I'm leaning toward Palo, partly because it follows Scott order, has nice paper, and is marginally less expensive than some of the other hingeless brands. All things considered, number of rings is a distant issue. Lindner, Lighthouse, SAFE, etc. make beautiful albums (with lots of rings!). But as a monolingual, Scott-following, hingeless-loving philatelist, I'm leaning toward US-made albums. Best, Aquinas

Yes, clearly having proprietary rings with "your" number of rings which is different from every other album maker is a way of forcing collectors to keep buying your supplements and your blank pages over the years. If a collector could just as easily buy a competitor's supplements or blank pages with the same number of holes (or posts -- let's not forget some albums have posts!), you might, or would, lose money. So we have the "ring wars" with 6, 12, 13, and so on from different manufacturers for no other reason than that. Maybe some album maker will try having only one ring someday?

And it does seem to me that fewer rings, like the U.S. 3-rings, is harder on pages as you turn them. More rings may do less damage -- though I doubt this has much, if anything, to do with album makers use of a certain number of rings. But maybe. I base this claim of more damage from fewer rings on decades of using American 3-ring binders, all of which tear the paper at some point. Though admittedly with fewer years of using the common European standard of 22 rings, pages do hardly ever seem to tear. Or am I just more careful with those pages? It is possible that more rings equals less stress on the pages.

I've noticed that most American 3-ring binders, even binders designed as stamp albums, have rings that often get misaligned. This creates a rough edge which tears the holes on the pages -- as every schoolkid knows. On most European 22-ring albums I've used, the rings meet much more accurately, so less likelihood of rough edges. And some 22-ring binders (Marini from Italy, for one) use flat rings compared to the round wire stock used for American rings -- which might, I suppose, make them easier to meet at the middle, so less likelihood of a rough edge.

Just to get scientific for a moment, it's worth noting that most people don't so much "turn" the pages in a ring binder as if it were a normal book. They "pull" the pages over the rings. So a misaligned ring with a rough edge will tear out that hole.

Anyway, that's what I've noticed. So maybe having more rings is less likely to damage album pages than fewer rings?

DrewM,

Yes, I think you're right. Maybe that's why you never see stick-on ring-hole protectors sold for 22-ring pages! I do wonder how the 22-ring standard got started. Maybe Gibbons albums?

The rings that tear pages tend to have a jagged edge at the point where the two halves of the ring meet. I've seen other rmechanisms where a small tip on one half of each ring is actually inserted into an indention on the other half when the rings are closed. Seems that this would solve the tearing problem--or at least reduce it.

Not overfilling a binder also seems to help some--and turning pages carefully.