Are there better 3-ring binders out there?
September 20, 2024 2:41 PM Subscribe
Most 3-ring binders are made roughly the same way, and they all therefore share the same problems. Are there better ones out there, particularly for thinner ones? See below for more details.
Here is what my ideal binder would be like:
1. Rather thin. My ideal size would accommodate max. 1/2" to 3/4" of paper/filler thickness (but up to 1" would be okay). (I would be filling with 8.5"x11" paper, ideally graph paper.)
2. Better than the typical open/close mechanism. The typical mechanism is relatively hard to open and close, and is prone to developing problems like gaps between the ring prongs, through which the pages can slip out. These things are especially true for the thin type of binder I'm going for. I also intend to use the mechanism a lot, adding and removing pages pretty regularly.
3. More durable than typical binders. I would be getting a ton of use out of this binder, and ideally use it for many months or years before having to replace it. The typical cardboard-in-sheet-plastic type would probably wear out in a matter of weeks given the use I intend to get out of it.
4. The ability to flip the front cover and front pages to the back of the binder, in the way that a spiral notebook does, or something like that. This might actually be the hardest feature to achieve, so I don't have high hopes for it, but it sure would be nice to have.
By the way, the binder doesn't necessarily have to be a 3-ring type. I do need to be able to add and remove pages from it fairly easily, and 3-hole/3-ring is by far the most common binding type for it. But I'm open to others, if the corresponding paper type and/or hole-punch type is also readily available.
I'm willing to spend a good amount of money for the right binder; if it lasts for years and functions well, why not?
Here is what my ideal binder would be like:
1. Rather thin. My ideal size would accommodate max. 1/2" to 3/4" of paper/filler thickness (but up to 1" would be okay). (I would be filling with 8.5"x11" paper, ideally graph paper.)
2. Better than the typical open/close mechanism. The typical mechanism is relatively hard to open and close, and is prone to developing problems like gaps between the ring prongs, through which the pages can slip out. These things are especially true for the thin type of binder I'm going for. I also intend to use the mechanism a lot, adding and removing pages pretty regularly.
3. More durable than typical binders. I would be getting a ton of use out of this binder, and ideally use it for many months or years before having to replace it. The typical cardboard-in-sheet-plastic type would probably wear out in a matter of weeks given the use I intend to get out of it.
4. The ability to flip the front cover and front pages to the back of the binder, in the way that a spiral notebook does, or something like that. This might actually be the hardest feature to achieve, so I don't have high hopes for it, but it sure would be nice to have.
By the way, the binder doesn't necessarily have to be a 3-ring type. I do need to be able to add and remove pages from it fairly easily, and 3-hole/3-ring is by far the most common binding type for it. But I'm open to others, if the corresponding paper type and/or hole-punch type is also readily available.
I'm willing to spend a good amount of money for the right binder; if it lasts for years and functions well, why not?
Look for ones that have a 'D' shape to the ring, similar to the Avery model that xedrik linked to above.
I found that traditional 'O' shaped 3 ring binders where the ring was along the spine always caused issues, but the 'D' ring variants with the ring along the back avoided most of the issues.
posted by SegFaultCoreDump at 3:01 PM on September 20 [1 favorite]
I found that traditional 'O' shaped 3 ring binders where the ring was along the spine always caused issues, but the 'D' ring variants with the ring along the back avoided most of the issues.
posted by SegFaultCoreDump at 3:01 PM on September 20 [1 favorite]
This is a rather specific option, but you might look into Levenger's Circa ring system. I used these extensively for tabletop RPG notebooks for a few years and was generally content. Some focused notes:
1. They can handle the thicknesses you specify by choosing the appropriate ring type (1/4" to 3"). Further, you can always shift a notebook to a different thickness by replacing the rings.
2. I find it easier to add/remove pages to these than with additional binders.
3. This is probably a con -- the fact that there are more contact points than a three ring binder means more potential for tears, etc. Also note the lack of thick covers.
4. Very easy to flip the front cover to the back, etc. It's a 360 degree system.
Also, it's a pricy system. You said cost wasn't the most important factor but you're gonna want to buy a custom hole punch and spend some money on the rings/discs. My guess is that they're not quite right but it's worth taking a look.
posted by Bryant at 3:14 PM on September 20 [4 favorites]
1. They can handle the thicknesses you specify by choosing the appropriate ring type (1/4" to 3"). Further, you can always shift a notebook to a different thickness by replacing the rings.
2. I find it easier to add/remove pages to these than with additional binders.
3. This is probably a con -- the fact that there are more contact points than a three ring binder means more potential for tears, etc. Also note the lack of thick covers.
4. Very easy to flip the front cover to the back, etc. It's a 360 degree system.
Also, it's a pricy system. You said cost wasn't the most important factor but you're gonna want to buy a custom hole punch and spend some money on the rings/discs. My guess is that they're not quite right but it's worth taking a look.
posted by Bryant at 3:14 PM on September 20 [4 favorites]
I bought one similar to this one second hand and the metal hinges definitely add to the durability, it's lasted 15 years so far (though I don't use as much as it sounds like you will). I'm curious about a fully aluminum one like this. It seems like it would be even more durable than my canvas metal hinged one, but no personal experience to back that up.
Telescoping seems to be a good key word for the ones that fold flat, but I'm having a hard time finding telescoping AND durable metal hinges in the same binder.
posted by Eyelash at 3:18 PM on September 20
Telescoping seems to be a good key word for the ones that fold flat, but I'm having a hard time finding telescoping AND durable metal hinges in the same binder.
posted by Eyelash at 3:18 PM on September 20
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
The 1/2" capacity Avery #68052 binder has "gap free rings", which, if they haven't changed their terminology in the last couple years, means that instead of the usual flat faces or sort of S-curve matching faces on cheaper binders, on these "gap-free" rings, one side of the ring has a protruding nipple, which meets a recess on the matching ring. So when the rings close, they are self-centering and firmly remain so, without becoming misaligned. This type of binder also has the rings mounted to the rear cover, not the spine. There is a small spine segment and front cover segment, allowing you to open the front cover and fold it back on itself, and, to a degree, fold pages sort of... 180 degrees around and to the back, as you would a spiral notebook. Not quite as perfectly, but darn close.
posted by xedrik at 2:54 PM on September 20 [4 favorites]