 | | Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage —Timothy P. Smith
| | | | (...) I found that glad-ware style containers weren't very space efficient and don't stck well. For smaller parts, fishing tackle boxes by Plano or Flambeau. Bigger parts in small stacking drawers. Abundant parts in bags in drawers or tubs like you (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.storage, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage —Frank Filz
| | | | | (...) I definitely agree with the point about inefficient containers (though I use some re-usable containers to on my work table to hold a working set of parts). But key is that's space efficiency. My system is less time efficient. You need to find (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.storage)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage —Eric Lind
| | | | | (...) My primary factor, at the moment, is cost. I have a large enough collection that better storage is necessary (how large, exactly, I'm not sure - it's big enough to fill a good-sized, non-walk-in closet), but I don't have the money to go to (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.storage)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage —Frank Filz
| | | | | (...) Definitely sounds like the right method for you. If it fits in a non-walkin closet, your collection is probably under 100,000 pieces. At that size, your method has low cost, can be stored in a decent space (with good neatness) and sorting and (...) (19 years ago, 19-Oct-05, to lugnet.storage)
| | | | | | |
