- Thread starter
- #1
One thing that's bugged me about the hobby for at least 25 years is the 9-card sheet. Obviously, the configuration matches up nicely with the 3-ring binder it was designed for, and back in the day (70s-80s) it was fine for storing the base sets, which is pretty much all we had. You'd have your 660, 726, or 792 card sets and they didn't come out evenly but after 80-odd pages didn't seem to matter if the last one was only half-full. And echoing the 9-man baseball team is a nice bit of poetry. I remember assembling the starting 9 of the 1980 Phillies from all 3 companies in 1981 in sheets, and I thought it was really cool (it was). But 9 cards is less than ideal for the modern hobby, where sets are usually multiples of tens, and inserts sets are almost always in tens. I hate having a full sheet with one or two orphans left off on their own in another sheet, or doubled up on the back of another. So I think it's time to develop the 10-pocket sheet. Two tall by five wide is the obvious form factor, I think, and it would make for nice viewing. The drawback is that, even if binders were made to match, they wouldn't fit spine-side out in a normal bookcase. And they'd take up more room when opened, which maybe unwieldy in some circumstances, such as when you're looking at them on a dealer's case at a show. But these would be more catering toward home viewing by a collector. Going 5x2 is another option, although again an extra 7+ inches of height wouldn't make for easy, vertical storage. Alternately, some weird 3-3-4 combination of pockets would work. Or possibly going to 3x4. There are some Magic card binders made in this way because a "playset" of Magic is 4 copies, and it's easier to deal with them that way. Magic cards are a little smaller than standard sports cards, but it could still probably work. If you've got a ten-card insert set, putting them into a 12-pocket sheet is still not ideal, but I guess I'd rather the two blanks than one oddball stuck into the back of the page.
