dknelson I really would prefer to keep my MRs in blue binders and have one binder per year of MR. The current page count would justify returning to the size of binders from the 1960s, and they could be just a bit shorter too. This may sound petty and in the bigger scheme of things I suppose it is, but it is on my wish list. That and world peace. Dave Nelson
I really would prefer to keep my MRs in blue binders and have one binder per year of MR. The current page count would justify returning to the size of binders from the 1960s, and they could be just a bit shorter too.
This may sound petty and in the bigger scheme of things I suppose it is, but it is on my wish list. That and world peace.
Dave Nelson
dknelsonThis may sound petty and in the bigger scheme of things I suppose it is, but it is on my wish list. That and world peace.
A great sentiment for the season.
I suspect that paper is a dying technology. Maybe Kalmbach bought a truckload of those at a time? Could account for why they're still big and floppy when the magazine reduced its size maybe a decade ago?? It's going to be tough justifying buying another truckload if they're near the end of the current one if that's the case.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
dknelsonAt some point the binders were also cheapened a bit -- originally springs held the rods in place very tightly, then the binders just had wide gaps for the rods to fit into (and fall out of).
Interesting. I didn't like the springs. I thought that the "gaps" were a much better idea.
Back when my folks got me my first subscription to Model Railroader as a Christmas present in 1964, they also began the tradition of giving me the Model Railroader blue binder, where wire rods would hold the magazines in place, each year for Christmas too. I have been keeping my MRs in those blue binders ever since, and was able to secure entire years in blue binders at estate sales going back to 1953. The four years before '53 I have in bound volumes. And of course now I enjoy the All Access Pass to the digital archive back to 1934, but I still like having the paper copies particularly for the scale drawings.
From 1965 to 1969 the binders were about 2 1/2 inches wide when filled. In 1970 they started to get just a bit wider, and a bit taller too. As the MR page count grew, so did the width of the binders and they became positively huge by the 1980s -- about 5 inches wide when filled at the max, and 4 3/4 inches other years.
At some point the binders were also cheapened a bit -- originally springs held the rods in place very tightly, then the binders just had wide gaps for the rods to fit into (and fall out of).
Over the years the MR page counts began to go down again, and the magazine also became a bit smaller in height and width. But the binders they sell remain very large, and not only take up way too much shelf space, but the magazines flop around in the binders both due to excess width but also excess height, with the result that the centerspreads get cut into.
In fact you can cram two full years of modern day MR into one binder if you buy some .055 music wire for more rods. That does make it cumbersome to read and to remove an issue for closer study, but shelf space is precious so that is what I now do. MR is missing out on at least one binder purchase every year by me, and at some point I may just switch to the library magazine holders that are quite cheap at office supply stores. (I also hunt estate sales for older binders, and give away the MRs that are contained.)