When the InTouch wide margin Bible arrived the obvious thing is to compare it with my Cambridge wide margin Bible. What else?!
Physically, the InTouch is beefier but narrower - a whole inch narrower. In real world use, that 1" is significant. It terms of portability, like carrying to the church, the InTouch is more "manageable". Sounds odd for just 1" difference but its true - at least for me.
While the Cambridge is bound in goatskin, InTouch has calfskin binding. Both Bibles are exquisite & beautiful on the outside. I do, however, favour the InTouch calfskin slightly more... And somehow I also prefer the "casual" look of the InTouch... ;)
Unfortunately, InTouch isn't as "perfect" as I would like it to be.
One common "complaint" on the InTouch wide margin Bible in the blogsphere has to do with its "paper wrinkling" in the gutter. Well, I don't really notice that in mine... or at least it doen't really bother me that much... not enough to distract me from reading it.
But there is one MAJOR issue that I wish InTouch Bible could be as good as Cambridge Bible. When u open up both Bibles, Cambridge is just amazingly "flat". No other Bibles open up like the Cambridge's. Perhaps the only close competitor is R.L Allan's.
For these wide margin Bibles, there is a MAJOR advantage in being able to open up flat.
The usefulness of the inner margin is greatly enhanced by the "flatness" as u can see from the pictures above.
This is my only gripe for InTouch.
The 1" wider disadvantage (in terms of portability) mentioned earlier becomes advantage here for the Cambridge Bible - the outer margin area. The extra 1/2" margin is significant. U will be surprised how much more u could write in that 1/2" space.
Update @ Dec 9th:
After using my InTouch WideMargin for a while, I realise it actually has MORE space for ur notes! Simply cuz of the Verse-Format presentation.
The other features that make the Cambridge wide margin Bible a more "serious" tool - a whole stack of lined papers & phonebook like pages for u to scribble all the notes u want.
Another feature - center-column references - could be important for some in their bible study of which is lacking in the InTouch. Or others might prefer the bigger typeface InTouch offers.
Lastly, the gorgeous art-gilt makes the Cambridge Bible just so much more..."classy". Like a English Gentleman ;)
In summary, I LOVE both.
Perhaps the Cambridge wide margin Bible is a better tool for classroom or "serious" note taking. Whereas the InTouch Bible excels in "casualness" - like journaling? Or as a Preacher's Bible?
God bless Dr Charles Stanley for his preaching & his InTouch Wide Margin Bible!
The other features that make the Cambridge wide margin Bible a more "serious" tool - a whole stack of lined papers & phonebook like pages for u to scribble all the notes u want.
Another feature - center-column references - could be important for some in their bible study of which is lacking in the InTouch. Or others might prefer the bigger typeface InTouch offers.
Lastly, the gorgeous art-gilt makes the Cambridge Bible just so much more..."classy". Like a English Gentleman ;)
In summary, I LOVE both.
Perhaps the Cambridge wide margin Bible is a better tool for classroom or "serious" note taking. Whereas the InTouch Bible excels in "casualness" - like journaling? Or as a Preacher's Bible?
God bless Dr Charles Stanley for his preaching & his InTouch Wide Margin Bible!
2 comments:
Ben, Check and see that that the spine of the binding isn't glued to the spine of the textblock. Sometimes this can prevent your bible from laying flat.
Hi Jeff,
Hmm...so far i don't see the text block been glued to the spine. Actually, it's only a small "gripe". In daily actual use (so long as u don't write stuff on the inner margin), this Bible is awesome to use.
Btw, the papers used by InTouch version is incredible. The most "opaque" so far of all the Bibles. When I use hi-lighter to mark up verses, I don't see ANY bleed-thru on the other side. Incredible!
Post a Comment