Options
Archival Methods Binder for Topps Set
Rainbow_Rim
Posts: 44 ✭✭✭
Does anyone have experience housing a 660 card Topps set in their 2.5 inch binder? (They only offer 1.5 and 2.5 inch capacity.) If so, is it comfortable or a tight squeeze? Also, was this using UP platinum sheets? Thanks!
0
Comments
Unikeep 1.5" binders will hold 396 cards, but it is tight. My 660 card seats have series 1-2 in a 1" binder and series 3-5 in a 1.5 inch binder.
I think these are the best sheets now.
https://www.bcwsupplies.com/laserweld-pages-9-pocket-100-ct-box
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Thanks for the replies! I considered Unikeeps since they protect against dust. Also, the LaserWeld sheets are amazing and are the reason that I am finally moving to binders.
I found some references to MJ Roop binders on the internet. It looks like they used the 2.5 inch Archival Methods binder for 1972 and 1983 Topps sets, plus page lifters and inserts (a tight squeeze based on a picture I found), so 660 should be ok. I also think the flatness of the new BCW sheets will increase binder capacity slightly.
I have some MJ Roop binders and these are the same thing. High quality but expensive.
They typically run an annual sale - forgot what time of year & I believe they are up to 20% off. A few years ago I researched heavily to find equivalent somewhere else and couldn't find them.
https://www.archivalmethods.com/category/binders-albums/
You will easily fit a 660 card set in the 2.5" size.
One other thing I recommend is to have a page lifter on the front & back of the pages. While I have seen minimal page curl because the width of the hardware is wide, they work well. I have had zero issues in storing the binders upright over many years of storage.
https://www.archivalmethods.com/product/archival-page-lifters
I believe you can find these page lifters a biit cheaper on Amazon or an office supply store with a little digging.
Last, I would recommend that you find some vinyl stickers that can be applied as they can be removed easily and given the value of the binders - you don't want to damage them. You can find places on Etsy that will likely make a custom vinyl sticker for you - be sure to firmly apply it and smooth over it so it doesn't curl up over time.
Erik
I found a pic I took a while ago in what 88 9-pocket Ultra-Pro pages look like in the 2.5" binder, which equates to hold a 792 card set. I store my baseball sets by team by year and by alphabetical order in last name as that's how the team cards did it when I first opened packs. I like that uniformity better.
So a 660 card set uses 73 1/3 pages - so you will be good. It's worth getting binders with slip covers. I notice the amount of dust that collects on the black binders I bought. I like the black the best - more neutral and better resale later.
Notice how big the space is from the 3-ring metal binder to the sheets of the cards? It's why the pages don't curl with cheaper binders. I still like the page lifters. This pic only shows it on the bottom but I later added it to the top as this was one of my original MJ Roop versions with gold stenciling - which is really cool but tough for resale.
Erik
Erik, that picture of a 792 card set in the binder is exactly what I was looking for!
I agree with you about the slant-D mechanism, which is a major reason that I decided to get the Archival Methods binder. I was disappointed to see that the BCW and UP albums have D rings that are not slanted. I am temporarily using a Walmart Pen & Gear binder that has a slant-D ring and the pages lay beautifully, completely flat with no tension. (I plan to store the binder laying down)
PS - those are some good looking 59s!
Thx. That's a pic of my Senators / Twins cards. To be clearer, the vinyl stickers are for the spine of the binder.
I have MLB logo vinyl stickers since I have my vintage baseball by team. I'm sure you could find someone to make custom vinyl stickers for sets by year. Best to keep the binders as clean and unscathed as possible as the resale value can be good for the next collector.
Erik
Update: I tried the Archival Methods binder and it certainly is excellent quality, though it is larger and heavier than it seems. I also noticed that the ring mechanism is tall enough that it causes the bottom pages to sag down slightly. This is more pronounced on the BCW binders where the D ring isn't slanted. I added a sheet of cardboard to the bottom of a full sheet page lifter to raise it up to the level of the ring, allowing for a perfectly flat lay. I think this is important if the binder is stored flat.
I also tried the Unikeep binders. Some people that say that the UP 9 pocket pages are too tall and brush against the top or bottom of the binder. I tried it with BCW LaserWelds and it is a perfect fit (with slight clearance all around). The rings are glued directly to the case with no mechanism, so the pages lay very flat and neat. Overall, I like the smaller size, light weight, and lower price of the Unikeeps.
Interesting - thx for sharing.
FWIW, I have page lifters on the front and back (like you) and highly recommend that.
I haven't seen any curling, despite the slight gap you mentioned from the closing mechanism - which caused you to use cardboard. Without that, I have zero curl or bend on the sheets - let alone anything that would affect the portion of the page reaching the cards itself.
I also store the binders upright. They've been like this for years and I've had zero issues.
BTW, your page lifters look a bit thicker than mine - which are hard black/thinner/flexible plastic.
Erik
I use Unikeep and UltraPro pages do slightly brush against the top, but not horrible. Thanks for the BCW page reference - I'll have to check those out.
Estang, thanks for your earlier pic and advice about spine labels. The page lifter in the picture is from Archival Methods. It is extra wide and extends past the edge of 9 pocket sheets. It is the widest page lifter I have seen for sale anywhere.
Lahmejoon, here are some pics showing the top and bottom clearance of the LaserWeld pages.
Thank you. How would you compare the pages to Ultra Pro Platinum pages? I use the Unikeep binders also. I keep telling myself I will create nice inserts for the wrap-around, but never get around to it. There had been someone on this board who had made some nice ones for the 1970s baseball sets, but wasn't able to obtain them.
The new BCW pages are the only reason I decided to use a binder. They are much flatter and clearer than UP. They don't work well with sleeves (UP premium sleeves just fit) but I think the cards present much better without sleeves. Some Amazon reviews say that there are quality control problems with missing welds but I have not encountered any yet. The only downside is that they are so clear that I noticed flaws that I couldn't see when the cards were toploaded! But your cards will also appear more vivid.
It is difficult to make a cover for the Unikeep since you need a sheet of paper that is about 11x22 to do it in one piece. I think the Unikeep website allows you to design one but it is something like $20 per cover. I plan to cut a 11x22 piece of colored paper from a roll, print a label for the spine, and slide that under the plastic.
I wanted to bump this thread to see - has anyone tried the Unikeep version of 9-pockets?
https://www.unikeep.com/product/9-pocket-card-sleeves-colored-edges/
The BCW pages are superior, I am sure, but wasn't sure if anyone tried these to see if these fit perfectly in the Unikeep binders.