Any Interest in this Product -- 8 by 7 Binder Page?

[HarryW]

My friends at StoreSmart.com already offer 22 inch by 28 inch rigid toploaders that can store and protect entire uncut sheets of playing cards.  I asked them if they could also make a larger version of the 3 by 3 pocket binder pages collectors use to store and display baseball cards -- a playing card also fits neatly into each pocket.  I was hoping for 8 pockets by 7 pockets, which would allow an entire deck of individual playing cards to be displayed as it would appear if still uncut.  I even sent them a prototype I made by cutting several 3 by 3 pocket binder pages and taping them together.

The response was yes, they could make such a product, but there would be a retooling cost.  We can spread that one-time retooling cost over the per unit cost of the initial order.  If we can sell 1,000 sheets, the cost can come in at under $10 per sheet.  After that, subsequent runs would cost considerably less.

At StoreSmart's recommendation, the 8 x 7 pocket sheet would come with a loop across the top that would accommodate a rod to support the weight of the sheet when filled with cards in case someone wanted to hang it on the wall.  I should also mention, the 8 by 7 sheet would be clear vinyl, which is suitable for display, but not necessarily for long-term archival storage.  For that they would have to use a poly material which would require more expensive retooling.

My initial idea for the 8 by 7 vinyl sheet was simply to display an entire deck of cut cards as if they were uncut.  Others who saw my prototype at the 52 Plus Joker Convention in Orlando pointed out it could open up a whole new area of artist design.  "Puzzle decks" could be designed with such display in mind, or collections of similar type cards -- just jokers or cards with cat designs could be displayed.

Anyway, I am testing the waters here to see if there is enough interest to justify pursuing this further.

[Don Boyer]

Just to provide people a clearer picture of what you have and what you're proposing...

He's already got hard plastic sleeves large enough to hold an entire uncut sheet - perfect for archiving or display of either side and providing excellent protection without being forced to roll the sheet into a tube.  And they're NOT expensive at all - a fraction of the cost of an uncut.

He's proposing making a single sheet with pockets, made of clear plastic, that can be used to display as much as an entire deck (up to 56 cards) in a single sheet, front or back.  And he's proposing that if it's popular enough, he could sell them at under $10 a sheet.

I would suggest that you go ahead, take the extra step and make it suitable for archival purposes with the poly material instead of vinyl - either that or perhaps they could be sold with poly sleeves to protect the cards individually, as such sleeves are plentiful and cheap, only a penny or two each when bought in quantity.  Sleeves measuring 2⅝" wide by 3⅝" thick would be adequate to protect a poker card - as long as your pockets could accommodate such a sleeve, vinyl would work.  But it would make for looking at the cards through two layers of plastic instead of one - poly sheet pockets would be the better solution, as long as they could be kept affordable.

[HarryW]

Don,

I really do not think at this point that we need to go the archival-quality poly material at this point.  The clear vinyl would be the same plastic as comprises the 3 by 3 binder pages most of us use to store and display playing cards now.  Most of them have been in such storage for years with no detrimental effects.  Playing cards have protective plastic coating that tends to protect them anyway. Still, the sheets would have to be stacked and pressed on top of each other over a period of time for the cards to bleed onto them.  I do not envision these 56-pocket sheets to be so heavily pressed as that.

I am inclined to go with StoreSmart's recommendation that we go with the less expensive clear vinyl.  If, at some later point, there comes a demand for the more expensive archival poly plastic, then we can take another look.

Harry

[Don Boyer]

Don,

I really do not think at this point that we need to go the archival-quality poly material at this point.  The clear vinyl would be the same plastic as comprises the 3 by 3 binder pages most of us use to store and display playing cards now.  Most of them have been in such storage for years with no detrimental effects.  Playing cards have protective plastic coating that tends to protect them anyway. Still, the sheets would have to be stacked and pressed on top of each other over a period of time for the cards to bleed onto them.  I do not envision these 56-pocket sheets to be so heavily pressed as that.

I am inclined to go with StoreSmart's recommendation that we go with the less expensive clear vinyl.  If, at some later point, there comes a demand for the more expensive archival poly plastic, then we can take another look.

Harry

Vinyl will be detrimental over time, especially if the cards are displayed in an area where they're exposed to any strong light - light should be avoided in the first place, but you can't display your collection in the dark, now can you?

As I said, an inexpensive workaround would be to simply place cards into cheap, flexible poly sleeves before inserting them into the pockets of your page.  They're literally between one and two cents each, adding perhaps a dollar to one's total investment in such a display - a negligible cost.  It's just less desirable to having an archival material for the page in the first place, as you're looking at the collection through two layers of clear plastic, not just one.

Go ahead, make them in vinyl, offer the sleeves as an add-on if you want or point people to where they can buy them.  Then if demand warrants, create a version that's archival-quality.

Meanwhile, I want some of those really cool hard sleeves for holding uncut sheets!  What's the cost on them, including shipping?  I'd have to count, but I'd need a good number of them, a dozen or more.