Unikeep Archival Binder

[mintacular]

Hi everyone I am thinking of moving my exmt and better '57 BB set out of vinyl sheets and into a more secure binder. I just don't like that the top of the cards could get bumped/dinged so easily. Anyway, I like having the cards in binder form so I can flip through them from time to time and was wondering if you all know of a binder that will protect them better. I saw someone mention a "unikeep" archvial binder but could not find one on eBay, could someone send me a link and tell me more about these? Would one binder fit the entire 400+ '57 set. Thanks!

[steve B]

The Unikeep are just an enclosed polypropylene 3 ring binder. Biggest is 1.5 inches.

http://www.unikeep.com/Products/Bind...se/index.shtml

Not all that good looking, and there's no d rings unless they're plastic. They are fairly inexpensive....

Something like this might be nicer, Usually a good quality D ring binder, and the slipcase allows it to be stored flat preventing the other binder problem of slumping pages.
http://www.wizardcoinsupply.com/prod...ng-binder.html

Or a more archival one
http://www.universityproducts.com/cart.php?m=product_list&c=548&primary=1&parentId=1271&navTree[]=548

Those just examples, there are lots of different ones out there.

If the problem is the pages themselves, you're in for a long search. In that case toploaders in 8 pocket pages might be the way to go.

Steve B

[mintacular]

Thanks for the links SteveB, will wait to see if anyone else has anything else to add...I don't see me doing the 8 pocket/sleeve option

[mickey7mantle7]

I too was thinking of transfering all of my Mantle short prints, inserts, serial #'d, etc...from top loaders and into 3 ring binders. Good topic and great links to go by for ideas. My only draw back is the time it will take to do it..lol

[Exhibitman]

All I use are unikeeps. Unikeeps are 100% polypropylene--no acidic materials or moisture absorbing materials, no rusty metal pieces. The unikeep 1.5" binders have straight posts with a flexible cap that snaps into place on top of the post (male-female connector), so there is no ring to get out of alignment from repeated use. I use an 8 x 10 sheet with a piece of backing board in it on the top, or a page lifter, to prevent any rolling of the top page. I like them because they are clamshell design--enclosed on all four sides--so no pages are exposed and they stand up straight. I use 4 pocket sheets with the cards in CardSaver I's to hold the better cards (works for cards up to tall boy size), different configured sheets to hold other cards (like PCs). Since there are no rings, they save a lot of shelf space too.

[steve B]

How are they for durability? The only all plastic binders I've used in the past were cheap ones I had for notebooks and the hinge for the covers gave out pretty quickly. I'd imagine the Unikeeps are much better, but I always see the durability of plastics as somewhat suspect

The really good quality 3 ring assemblies are excellent for both durability and retain alignment. The cheap ones are just that, good for a few uses only. The ones with slipcases sold by the stamp companies are routinely used to store even the most valuable collections. Many good albums are also post bound, so I think that may be a preference thing. I use 3 ring because it's easier to add stuff in the middle without restacking the whole thing. The postbound albums are better if all you need is to add the yearly update pages at the back.

I'm pretty open to new stuff for archival storage, there's plenty of options out there and I can't possibly try them all. (That's a good thing I think) Getting a first hand review from someone who actually uses a product can be very helpful.

Steve B

[Exhibitman]

I've not had any issues with durability on the Unikeeps. I still have and use the first ones I purchased. I found them to be better than the traditional ring-type binder. From a cost-benefit approach they are much less expensive than the Roop-type albums.