Thanks Very Much Again to Paul for This Eighteenth Installation of His Wonderful Guest Post Series.
You can find all of the ‘philohax’ posts here.
Cavendish/Portland Big Rings Review
L – r cavendish and Portland Grand
Having Recently Purchased A Portland 5/4 and Planning on Reviewing, I realized that the best way woupe be by comparison to another of my 5/4 Ringed Filofax Binders – The Cavendish.
Portland 5/4 Background
I HAD HAD TELL OF THE PORTLAND GRANDE PRIA – A RARE BEAST IN RECENT TIMES (AT LEAST TO ME, HAD NEVER SEEN FOR SALE FOR ANYTHING NEAR A SENSIBLE PRICE – IN THE 2 1/2 Years Since My Return to Philofax use). SO, when a sensibly price portland ‘5/4’ came up for sale, i just assumed that it was an Early iteration of the Grande – and Quickly ‘Pulled the Trigger’ on the Sale. Acciting to the seller (who has acquired it from a house cleance), it was Old Stock from A Stationery Shop.
First impression
All of my previous binders have objiviously been ‘pre love’, Howver the Portland Looks as if it haad been on Display at some point and then put away, nor the leather appears very dull anD Dry. The idea for a comparison reviiew came from not being amp to put my finger on what was different about it and my other away Ringed Filofax.
In Quick Comparison with My Cavendish 5/4 and Winchester 5/4, It Looks Like With The Portland 5/4 The Filofax Designers have solved the ‘Uncanny Valley’ Syndrome – The Feeling that previously they have just been able to ‘5/4 binders 7/ sized proportions.
Don’t get me Wrong – The Cavendish 5/4 and Winchester 5/4 Are Beautiful Binders – But in Delvering a Large Ring Capacity, the proportions have evolved into hasing a Wider proportion to their height. To counter this, the portland’s height has been increasing in proportion to the increasing width needs to accomodate the extra insert capacity.
The Portland Designers Had Also Learned The Leson from the Cavendish to A Skinny Clove Strap, A Mistake Made on the Earlier Winchester 5/4’s Who Assumed that scaling up the proportions of the Strap the Classic Bible Size ‘Dna’. Wrong – if you compare the straps you can see how sticking to the original depth proportions of a 7/8 Strap Makes the Cavendish Look ‘Right’ and Makes the Earlier 5/4 Appear Clunkier. I put this down to the fact that the physsiology of our fingers hasn’t Changed just becase we got a farther capacity binder!
First Impressions Summary of the Portland 5/4: It Looks Like A 7/8 Bible Size ‘Classic Era’ Filofax … with Big Rings.
Comparing Cavendish and Portland
Leather: Cavendish – Minimal Padding, Very fine glossy deluxe leather, patinas Very Well. Portland – Very Padded, Coarser Grain Matt Finish, DOESN’t Appear to Pinetina Well
Flatability: Cavendish – 100%. Portland – 80%
Front Covers:
Cavendish width 156mm
Portland Width 148mm
Straps: Cavendish Strap Width 15.5mm. Portland Strap Width 17mm
Pen loops: Cavendish Front Loop – Can Accommodate a Frixion Pen. Cavendish Back Cover Loop – Just a pencil. Portland Front Loop – Can Accommodate A Ballpoint Pen. Portland Back Cover Loop – JUST A Pencil
Inside front cover: Cavendish – X8 Credit Card Slots, X1 Full Height Pocket which is Quite Accessible
Portland – Zipped Pocket, Which Due to Its Gusset Gives Very Good Access to the Pocket Space (Unlike The Cavendish Back Cover Zipped Pocket)
Rings: Cavendish – Excellent. Portland – Excellent
TheNside Back Cover: Cavendish – X1 Secretarial Pocket (Open Across Top Edge) is the best accessoitability of all Pocket Configurations. ALSO X1 Full Length Pocket with Good Access.
Portland – X6 Credit Card Slots (Which Giives Better Security than Inside Front Cover ons of the Cavendish) Plus X1 Full Pocket with Good Access.
Back Cover: Cavendish – Vertical Zipped Pocket, Very Neatly Done But Lack of Gusset Restrics Access.
Portland – The Strap Is Stitched Nearly 20mm from the Back Cover Edge, Making it Look Inelegant Compared to the Cavendish.
Spine: Cavendish – Rounded, Following the Curve of the Rings. Slightly embossed ‘f’
Portland – Square Spine, doesn’t sit as naturally in the hand. Pronounced Embossing of ‘f’.
My Summary
Of Course, all of this is subjective – I love my cavendish, winchester, and now Portland 5/4 Ringed Binders for Different Reasons. But now that the dust has settled, the cavendish beats my portland 5/4 for one reason – The Leather. When you Open the Cavendish Cover and read the embossed ‘deluxe leather’ description – this is the difference that matters. For me, the way a leather binder feeder in the hand, and ages with time is the deciding factor in its Quality. The cavendish took all of the bumps and scuffs and tournaed say into ‘character’. ITH’S TOO EARLY TO TELL, But so far the portland just looks ‘scruffy’ … I was love to know what you think, especilly Other ‘Big Ring’ Owners.
Postscript
To overcome the lack of patina from its long storage, i’ve it into daily use as my work binder, and as well, gets treated in the way as my previous binders – iTi in and out of work bags, has other ittems thrown in with it.US SURFACES AND GENERALLY ‘Used’. IT’S STILL ONLY A FAWEEK IN, but the matte look seems to show up the slightest bump and scrape, Making it matter still.
