- Premium reviews
- Express reviews
- Reviews rated
- Ratings received
A few months ago we moved home to Aberdeen from London. After an hour or two in our moving van, I felt that my lips were drying out. I reached for my backpack to get my trusty Nivea lipbalm, only to remember that I had changed “van” backpacks at the last minute.
A few hours later I was really desperate for some lip balm - the air in the van must have been really dry. We stopped at a small filling station in the early hours of the morning and I bought some Chapstick Original, although it seemed a bit pricey at £2.99 for a rather small tube. I’ve never bought Chapstick before as it just never attracted me, but frankly I needed something to relieve my dry lips. And it was that or nothing, so Chapstick it was.
I pulled the cellophane off, twisted the balm out of the tube, and smeared it over my lips. Oh, the relief. I didn’t really give much thought to the scent or texture at that point. It certainly worked though - that first application was a great relief to my dry lips, and I applied it a few more times during the remainder of the journey. I barely needed to apply it at all once we arrived, so it had clearly done its job of restoring my lips to their normal state.
The scent isn’t much to speak about. There isn’t really one - it’s just got that kind of moisturiser-like smell which is typical of “original” fragranced lip salves. It is very like Nivea Original or Boots Essentials Original. The lipsalve itself is a bit thicker than I prefer, more than Nivea Hydracare which is my current favourite. It’s not particularly greasy or sticky though, and was quite comfortable to have on my lips.
My initial experience of the Chapstick was that it quickly and effectively relieved dry lips, so it is good as a treatment. I think it also works as a preventer - I continued to use it as a regular lip balm for a while, and it kept my lips moisturised and soft, no hint of dry or chapped lips.
The Chapstick was something of an emergency purchase, and it did the job I needed it to do admirably. However I haven’t continued using it; I did for a while after the van journey, but although I couldn’t really say that I dislike it, I do prefer Nivea Hydracare which I usually use. The Chapstick is just a bit thicker than I like, but perhaps that wouldn’t have bothered me if it was one of the fragrance varieties, i.e. strawberry. Saying that, although it’s not my first choice, I do have a good opinion of Chapstick Original because it was there when I needed it - and it soothed my dry lips.
I first tried Boots Nail Polish Remover Pads years and years ago, I think my mum bought them for me. I’ve bought them on and off over the years - if I’m buying nail polish remover, sometimes I’ll see these and decide to get them instead, thinking they’re more convenient than remover and cotton wool.
The nail polish remover pads come in a small tub, and are the size of an average cotton wool pad. There are 15 pads in a tub, current price is £1.50.
When you open the tub, you get a whiff of that unmistakable chemical smell of nail polish remover - unpleasant, but par for the course. I find the wipes themselves to be really quite damp, they are properly soaked in remover. They also seem very thin, certainly thinner than the average cotton wool pad.
This thinness is, I believe, a contributing factor to why I’m not very keen on these pads. I find they aren’t particularly effective. I’m sure products like this are meant to be easy to use and will wipe nail polish off with little effort, but frankly I find that a good deal of rubbing is involved - and not just with these pads, but with standard nail polish remover on cotton wool as well. However, if I compare these pads to other alternatives that I have used, I think they need more effort than nail polish on cotton wool. I think that the thicker cotton wool enables you to rub your nails more effectively, therefore getting the polish off more easily. The nail polish remover pads do work, they do remove nail polish, but not as easily as you might hope.
Additionally, I find that as these pads are really quite wet, they tend to be messier than cotton wool - the polish which is removed gets spread around on the pad, and my fingertips end up coloured by it.
The pads are labelled as “conditioning”. I don’t think they make any difference to the condition of my nails at all - compared to standard nail polish remover that is. My nails after using either product are in the same condition.
I should point out though that these pads make it easier to get at the nail polish right on the edges of my nails easier than cotton wool, because they are thinner.
A bottle of nail polish remover used with a few bits of cotton wool is considerably more economical than these pads, and generally more effective as well. Every so often I buy these pads - and then remember that although they sound like an easy way of removing nail polish, they’re actually not that brilliant. Maybe now that I have collected my thoughts for this review, I’ll remember not to buy them next time.
For the last couple of years, my favourite lip balm has been Nivea Hydro Care. I’ve liked Nivea lipbalms for years, but had tended to stick to the more “standard” looking varieties until one day I couldn’t find my preferred variety in Boots, so I decided I’d give Hydro Care a go.
Nivea Hydro Care lip balm comes in a twist up tube like the various other Nivea lip balms. The stick of balm is white in colour. The blurb on the front of the pack states that it offers “long lasting intensive moisture” and contains “pure water and aloe vera”. It is also SPF 15, which is an added benefit.
Applying the lip balm is very easy - simply smooth the stick over your lips. I find that a single application is adequate, just once over each lip - I never feel the need to go over my lips more than once per application. The lip balm has one of those standard lip salve fragrances which I can’t name - it’s similar to any original fragrances lip balm/salve, and bears a resemblance to Nivea Soft moisturising cream.
I find that the Hydro Care lip balm has just the right consistency - it’s thick enough that I only need to smooth it over my lips once, but it’s not so thick that it feels too much. It’s not sticky or very greasy, and it absorbs into my lips reasonably quickly.
I use Hydro Care probably once in an average day to keep my lips soft, and it is very good for that. I don’t feel the need to reapply, as it stays on my lips for a while even if I’m chain drinking tea, and it has a long lasting moisturising effect.
Of course, there are times when my lips get a bit dry or chapped - usually in winter, but sometimes in hot weather or during bad bouts of hayfever. Then I tend to use lip balm a bit more than usual. If my lips are dry, the Hydro Care lip balm sorts them out within one or two applications. If they are properly chapped, it can take a bit longer for them to heal, but that can be hindered by me biting my lips.
Overall, this is one of the best lip balms I’ve ever used, and I fully intend to keep buying it.
I use cotton wool balls mainly for my facial toner, and currently I am using Boots Basics Cotton Wool Balls. I have no loyalty to cotton wool brands, and just buy them from whatever shop I’m in when I need some - recently I was in Boots and remembered I was running low, so Boots cotton wool it was!
The cotton wool balls come in bags of 100, the bag is mainly clear with a lilac strip across it with the product info on it (different to the older picture shown). The cotton wool balls are from the Essentials range, and are found in amongst the baby products - I find that “baby” cotton wool is usually cheaper than “make-up” cotton wool, and I don’t see what the difference is.
When taking the cotton wool balls out of the bag, they rarely stick together so I only get the one that I need out. The cotton wool is really soft and fluffy - Boots warn that you could find small pieces of cotton husk or seed in, but I never have.
Using this with my toner, I upend the bottle onto the cotton wool twice, and then smooth over my face and neck. The cotton wool feels soft and smooth on my face once it’s damp with the toner, and I find it a very effective way of toning my skin. It is very absorbent though, so I find that by the time I’m finishing off my face and giving my neck a quick sweep, it’s actually drying out a little bit. Not so much that I feel I need to use two balls with toner on though.
I have also used these cotton wool balls for removing nail polish, obviously by putting nail polish remover on them. This does work and it tends to be more effective and less messy than nail polish remover pads, but I do find that strands of cotton wool can separate as I wipe at my nails, and they get caught on the edges of my nails. Using make up cotton pads with nail polish remover is better than cotton cool balls, but I’m not going to bother buying them for occasional use.
I much prefer cotton wool balls to a cotton wool roll or pleat - I think those are more economical, but I find that when you’re pulling bits off, you end up with loads of strands and you can end up leaving bits stuck to your face.
I’ve got no complaints about these Boots Basics Cotton Wool Balls, but on the other hand I can’t really say anything makes them stand out from their competitors. This is a perfectly good product, but I’ll just as happily pick up my next bag from Tesco.
Melissa Bailey's The Medici Mirror is a novel about an architect, Johnny Carter, who discovers a mysterious mirror in a secret room under the Victorian show factory that he is renovating. The mirror fascinates and worries both Johnny and his assistant Tara, and Johnny's new girlfriend Ophelia is sucked into its influence as well.
The Medici Mirror sounds like an interesting historical mystery; I think time-slip is the correct term, including sections in the past and present. Overall, that is exactly what it is, but unfortunately there are flaws. In the context of the storyline, the issue is that the sections from the past just don't fit in. They bear very little relevance to the present-day main storyline, and are only there to explain why the mirror has such a dark aura about it. However, that information is presented in a more succinct form by the present-day characters, so the sections about Catherine de Medici are rather superfluous and a bit of a waste of space. I felt they should have been tied in to the main storyline much more.
The storyline itself is reasonably predictable - mysterious object from the past turns up, everyone starts feeling a bit odd, leading to a dramatic showdown.
As for the characters, this is where the novel really failed to impress me. I quite simply didn't care about them. I felt no sympathy for Johnny or Ophelia, I didn't particularly like them, and I didn't care whether the mirror ruined their relationship or not. Although we learn something of their pasts, both of which are troubled, I felt the characters were one dimensional, relatively selfish, and completely unendearing. I didn't mind Tara, there was a bit of spark there, but she was a supporting character. With a novel where you can assume from early on that the characters are going to end up in danger, you need to care for them, you need to feel a bond so that you can root for them and feel the tension of the final showdown. Bailey has failed with her characters.
Unfortunately I didn't enjoy the writing style either. Despite there being a reasonable amount of information given, and the language used being appropriate, I found it very simplistic, and I think this is largely due to the fact that it is narrated in first person by Johnny. It is very straightforward and factual, and sometimes even comes across as stilted. I picked up little or no emotion or feeling from the narration, and this of course contributed to my ambivalence towards the characters.
I was very disappointed with The Medici Mirror. I don't think I ever expected it to be brilliant, but I expected an enjoyable and exciting tale, and while it had all the ingredients for this, it simply fell far short of the mark.
When our old TV died, I was delighted to discover I could get a free one when upgrading my mobile at Carphone Warehouse. The TV in question is the Toshiba 32W1333, a 32 inch HD ready LED TV. Useful features include built in freeview and HDMI inputs. The specs say that it has 16.9 aspect ratio and 1366x768p resolution.
Despite being packed in a huge box, the TV is incredibly light (9.5kg including the stand). Set-up was pretty straightforward. The stand had to be screwed on which was very easy. It was up and running quickly, and it wasn’t long before I was watching my shiny new TV.
In terms of display, it is a good TV. Colours are bright, images are crisp and clear. I really notice the difference between previous TVs and this one when watching something like Jurassic Park. Nature programmes are a good benchmark for measuring the quality of the display. The non-HD display on this Toshiba TV is also an improvement on our previous CRT; the colour on it was getting a bit washed out in recent years, and now we can see the Simpsons in their full bright coloured glory again.
Having a few hiccups at first with BBC on our new Sky+ HD box, we used the built in freeview when watching BBC1. We found it easy enough to use, and the display quality was good.
We have the Sky box, Xbox and DVD player plugged into the TV. When I press the Source button on the remote I get to choose which input I want to view. It’s really easy to change from Sky to DVD for example - press one button, choose from the list (and they are actually named as Sky etc, not “Input 1” or other unidentifiable names) and there you go.
The sound is also very good on this Toshiba TV. We don’t have any extra speakers plugged into it, so we rely solely on what the TV itself produces. It never sounds tinny or weak, and the volume is easy to adjust using the remote. The gaps between volume levels aren’t too big either so you can find the volume level which suits you best - no danger of one level being too quiet but the next one up being a bit loud.
Despite being light, it is fairly sturdy and well balanced. With three cats bouncing around, sometimes things get knocked over in our flat, but the TV has always remained upright.
I absolutely love my Toshiba TV. Possibly because we kept our CRT for so long, possibly because it was free - but definitely a large part of the reason is because it’s a good TV. I would be delighted with it if we had paid for it. Display is very good, sound is very good - it’s just a really good TV.
On my last trip to Boots, I happened to be having a bad skin day, and I’d been thinking I should pick up some facial wipes while I was there. There was money off the Soap & Glory range, so I decided to try Soap & Glory Off Your Face Cleansing Wipes.
Having just checked the Boots website to verify what the full price of these wipes is, it shows £4.50. The wipes come in a pack of 25. The Off Your Face wipes claim to be 3-in-1 - cleansing, toning and smoothing. They are suitable for all skin types, and include Soap & Glory’s “blackhead-fighting PORESHRINK-RS”, and have peach and gojuice extracts.
When I read the pack, I discovered that the “smoothing” part of the wipes is that if you scrub hard at your face with the wipes, they would also exfoliate. Excellent, I thought. In the morning before work, I usually just moisturise and go. Sometimes that can leave my skin feeling a bit clogged up, so I was keen to try these wipes before moisturing and see if they helped.
The wipes are textured, unlike the Boots Cucumber Wipes which I have used before. They don’t have a very strong fragrance, but it is peachy and I think it is recognisably Soap & Glory - it is not the classic “Original Pink” fragrance which I love, but there is a hint of that in there.
Using the wipes is really easy - just pull one out of the pack and wipe over your face. I use it on my neck as well. I find that the wipes instantly refresh my skin - it feels much clearer after using a wipe, as the wipe clears off the moisturiser from the night before and leaves my skin clear to apply the morning’s moisturiser. The wipes cleanse very well, lifting off moisturiser and grime, and they leave my face feeling toned. I like using the Off Your Face wipes - my skin feels fresh and clear, and it provides a nice start to the day.
I’m not convinced by the exfoliating or smoothing function of the wipes though. I’ve tried scrubbing quite hard with them, and although I can feel the texture of the wipes on my skin, which other wipes don’t have, I don’t think it’s enough to actually do anything.
I really like the Soap & Glory Off Your Face Cleansing Wipes. Compared to Boots Cucumber Wipes, the only other facial wipes that I have used, I think these are much better. The pack seals better and keeps the wipes fresh, they have a nicer scent, cleanse very well, and have a good texture. The only drawback is the price - £4.50 is a lot for 25 wipes, so I’m trying not to use them every day. If I can get them on offer, I’ll certainly continue using them.
Paris Requiem by Lisa Appignanesi is a murder mystery/detective novel set in Paris in 1899, a time of racial tensions with the Dreyfus affair at its height, and the city preparing for the universal exhibition and the new century.
James Norton, a Harvard law professor, arrives in Paris, sent by his mother to bring back his brother, Raf, and sister Ellie. Yet what is already likely to be difficult is complicated when Raf's Jewish lover, Olympe, is found dead in the Seine. James is plunged into the investigation, trying to discover what happened to this captivating woman, and to clear his brothers name when the police turn to him.
While the bare outline of the story could be that of hundreds of crime novesl, the setting of Paris Requiem is what makes it different. Not the fact that it is set in Paris, but the Paris of 1899, a different world. So much of it is recognisable as what we know of Paris today - the beautiful architecture along with incidents such as the police chief who refuses to even consider a discussion on the developments in the case until he has had lunch - yet so much is foreign, such as the murky underworld of prostitution and the discrimination against the Jewish population. It is at once familiar and different.
James is a good lead character for this novel, a straightforward American professor sent to sort out his wayward siblings. Given the high spiritedness of other characters, and the vagaries of the city, this solid man is exactly what is needed in a narrator. He keeps the story on course, and ensures that the reader is able to follow developments - which would be much harder if a character like Raf were the lead, as he is always shooting off on madcap hunches.
The characters are one of the issues I had with Paris Requiem. The main characters are easy to keep straight, but the peripheral characters, particularly those who crop up in the investigation such as several doctors, are much harder. They seem to blend together very easily, despite not having similar names. Several times I found myself trying to remember who a character was, especially the various doctors.
Another negative was that I felt the novel went on for too long. There was never really any sections of what you might call "filler", and I did enjoy it, but it wasn't until later in the novel that I really found it gripping. Coming in at just over 500 pages in paperback, I'm sure the same story could have been told just as effectively, and without losing any of the evocative feel of Paris, with 100 pages less.
Despite these negatives, Paris Requiem is an exciting and atmospheric read, with Paris of 1899 being as much a character in the story as the people. Appignanesi may have gone on for a bit long, but she doesn't pad out her novel with unnecessary passages, and Paris Requiem is a novel which should appeal to fans of crime fiction as well as those of historical fiction.
Last year, my attention was grabbed by a novel called Night School by C.J. Daugherty, the first in a series of the same name. However because I read so much, by the time the sequel was published, I'd half forgotten about it. I have recently rectified that and read book two, Legacy - and quickly followed it by book three.
Legacy picks up shortly after Night School left off. In Night School, our protagonist Allie is sent to the mysterious Cimmeria Academy after regular expulsions and arrests. All is not as it seems though, and she struggles to find out what is going on. In Legacy, Allie is back at Cimmeria and beginning to get answers about her place in the school and everything that is going on - but the danger is increasing and their enemies are moving against them.
Being set in a school, this is a young adult novel, but it is one of those which I think can appeal to readers of all ages. Despite the majority of the characters being sixteen and seventeen year olds, there is very little annoying teen-speak and slang - personally I think this shows that Daugherty respects her readers and doesn't feel the need to crowbar in references to music or celebrities just for the sake of it. The fact that as an adult reader I don't find the novel too childish also shows respect for her readers; she doesn't talk down to them and writes in a mature style.
I found Night School to be gripping and tense, and Legacy is no different in that respect. What is different is that we get the answers which Allie (and us readers) craved in Night School - but as they open up yet more questions, the tension is not lost. Allie joins Night School itself, which gives an insight into what was a very mysterious group in the first novel. I was slightly disappointed by this - it was so unknown and possibly creepy in the first novel, that it's a bit of an anticlimax to find out what's really going on there.
Allie is a good lead character. Despite being only sixteen, she's been through the mill a bit and is no stranger to pain and loss. I was immediately on her side in Night School and this continued in Legacy. This time though, I felt it was more obvious as to which side was the "good" side, and so I was urging Allie to make the right choices.
Perhaps the one element of this novel which shows up it's intended audience is that Allie and her friends make the occasional comment about understanding things more than the adults, or thinking they know better. This is such a typical teenage view, and is sure to appeal to teen readers. Yet what is interesting is that they're not always right - and they're shown up to be wrong. This appealed to me as an adult, because the teenagers plans were usually a bit harebrained and I was sure the adults were already on it - and lo and behold, they were.
I was just as hooked on Legacy as I was on Night School, perhaps more so, and as soon as I finished it I downloaded Fracture, book three in the series. Now I've got quite a wait until book four comes out, but as I'm well and truly hooked on the story of Allie and Cimmeria, there's no danger I'll forget about it again.
About a year ago, I convinced my manager that I needed to buy a small desktop printer to take with me to offsite conferences that I organise - having managed to break two lent to me by the venue during a recent conference, I wanted something reliable which I knew how to work.
I spent some time browsing our office supplies catalogue trying to decide what to get. I wanted a good quality printer, easy to set up and use, with copier and scanner functions, able to print photos (I didn't need it but I thought I might as well have that option) and not too large or heavy. I also didn't want a horribly ugly boxy looking thing, which is where the Canon Pixma range had the edge - they're fairly attractive things as far as printers go, so I chose the MG5450 which was in the price range I was looking at (under £100) and which seemed to be getting good reviews.
Set up wasn't as easy as I'd hoped, but frankly I think it's just me. I always have issues with setting up printers, and this is further hampered by my work's IT security procedures which mean my laptop gets upset when I try to install something new. It seemed to take me ages to get the printer set up first time round - which fortunately I did when still in the office, rather than waiting until I actually needed to use the printer offsite.
Once the printer was set up and my laptop had got over it's tantrum, reconnecting the printer every time I need to use it has been incredibly straightforward - I literally just connect it to my laptop by USB cable, plug in the printers power, and we're off. Now that my laptop knows the printer, it's fine.
So, the printer. The first time I used it, I noticed the speed of printing. Of course it's slower than the massive multifunction printer we have in the office, but for an inkjet printer I thought the MG5450 was really quite nippy. You don't have to wait ages for a document to print - but if you're printing a sheet which is solid print, i.e. a powerpoint slide with a full background, that does take a bit longer.
Print quality is also very good. I can tell that my printouts come from an inkjet instead of the laser multifunction one that I'm used to, but printing is clear, and doesn't smudge. The ink on paper feels ever so slightly damp when it first comes out of the printer, but I've not managed to smudge anything yet. The printer is also fairly quiet when printing.
I find using the printer to be very easy on the whole. I just send the document to be printed to the printer, and out it comes. However, when I step away from straightforward printing, it gets a little more tricky. I only recently discovered how to do double sided printing, a year after purchasing the printer. Copying is easy, but scanning has caused me a lot of trouble. I have tried so many times to scan something by pushing buttons on the printer, but it just never works, it never pops up on my computer. Some time ago I figured out how to do it - and then promptly forgot. So when our laser multifunction was broken for about a week recently, I was using this little printer and had to spend ages figuring out how to scan - eventually I remembered that I needed to control the scanning from my computer, not from the printer. I still haven't figured out how to scan to PDF though - this seems to be an option on the little screen on the printer, but not an option when starting the scan from my computer.
I have printed some photos on the MG5450, and it is very good quality - I was certainly happy with the results, although it might not satisfy serious photographers.
Ink usage is something I've found hard to track. Until recently I was only using the printer for a few days every month or two, and during that time I wasn't generally using it heavily. Yet I remember being surprised I had to change one of the ink cartridges during the first conference I used the printer at. As I mentioned previously, recently I was using this printer as the main office printer, which meant more regular use, and higher levels of use. Over the course of about a week and a half, I had to change three of the five ink cartridges, two colours and the black toner thingie - but the cartridges weren't fresh at the start of that period, they had been used previously. So I'm not sure what the rate of consumption is - I think in honesty that it is fairly high, but that will really depend on your use. If you were to use this like I did recently as the main printer in an office, you'd find you were going through ink at an awful rate. If this were your home printer and it was only getting used once or twice a week, ink would last quite a while. The ink seems to me to be reasonably priced - you can buy multipacks of the colours for about £35, and the black toner is about £12.
The Canon Pixma MG5450 is a really decent little printer for what I need it for - it has always run smoothly, print quality is good, and it works quite quickly. I've been very pleased with it - although it can't replace the large multifunction device we have in the office, I've left the Canon set up on my desk for odd bits and pieces of printing. The only trouble I've had with it is scanning, and there is the possibility that that trouble would disappear if I read the instruction booklet...
I have a black Sharpie Permanent Marker which I'm pretty sure was a freebie from some office supplies tradeshow or other, because I certainly don't remember buying it. The pen is matte silver metal with a black plastic lid, and is quite wide, about 1.5cm diameter.
I'm not generally a fan of marker pens. They're often messy, almost always smelly, and write through the paper. But having one around my desk is necessary for when I need to address parcels, cross out barcodes or addresses on boxes that I'm reusing, or making temporary notices for the office.
The Sharpie Permanent Marker is pretty good as marker pens go. The matte surface makes it nice to hold, and it doesn't easily slip out of my grip. It's not too wide, and is easy to write with - it doesn't require any extra pressure to write clearly.
The ink is a good dark black - it doesn't come out a bit faint or grey, but properly black. I don't need to go over my writing a second time to make it clear. The tip of the pen is wide enough to write clearly if you're writing large letters, but it can also cope with quite small writing without making it indecipherable.
There are, however a few small issues with the Sharpie Permanent Marker. Firstly, the most obvious - it smells. There are no doubt people out there who like marker pen fumes while at their desks, but I'm not one of them (at my desk or anywhere else for that matter). Frankly the smell of a marker pen makes me feel a little bit queasy. I've definitely used much worse than the Sharpie one, when I've only had to take the lid off the pen to feel ill, but with the Sharpie pen I can manage to write a full address before starting to want to put the lid on.
And on the subject of the lid, it's very easy to accidentally leave the lid not properly on the pen. When you put the lid on, it needs a good effort to get it to click closed, and because it needs more effort than most pens, it's easy to think that you've got the lid on properly when actually you haven't. Saying that however, I've done this several times and the pen hasn't dried out at all.
The final negative is one which I find with every marker pen I use - if you use it on regular paper, it stains through the paper and onto whatever is underneath. If it's more paper, it's annoying but not a disaster. If it's your desk and you've been writing a really grumpy notice asking people to stop helping themselves to the catered lunch you ordered for a meeting, it's a bit more of a problem if said grumpy message then stains itself onto your desk.
Most of this review has turned out to be negative points, but the smell and staining through paper issues are ones which I've had with every marker pen I've used, so I'm inclined to discount them and treat those as standard negatives of the pen type. The lid issue is specific to this pen, and is an irritation rather than a real problem. Overall I'd say the Sharpie Permanent Marker is a decent marker pen.
My pen was a freebie, but these are available in packs of 12 for around £9 online.
When yet another piece of cheap office equipment let me down, I turned to my trusty stationery catalogue to find another. There's only so far you can go with saving money - my manager praises my thriftiness but even I can recognise when spending more than a couple of quid on a hole punch might be a sensible idea.
I was faced with quite the array of hole punches to choose from. I was just looking for something that could handle a decent amount of paper at a time, and not die with a sad squeak when I got lazy and tried to punch an entire contract in one go. I ended up choosing the Rapesco Two Hole Punch - two holes were all I needed, it looked fairly sturdy, claimed to be able to punch 30 pages at once, and at around £7 with corporate discount, wasn't too expensive for what it is.
My hole punch is black, which is very dull. Having checked the stationery catalogue to check the model number (827), I can see it also comes in silver. I have no idea why I didn't order the silver one, at least it would be nicer than boring black; the snazzy red one in the picture here doesn't seem to be available from my supplier.
Anyway, aesthetics aren't really the reason you choose a hole punch. I wouldn't say I'm a heavy user of hole punches, but I use it regularly, particularly during my conference season of winter and spring when I file anything I can lay my hands on in case I need it for the inevitable shouting-at-a-venue session which will come later (the other day I had a panic when I couldn't find my petty cash records; they turned up in one of the conference files).
So during this time, when I'm rushed off my feet, I don't want to muck about punching documents in small sections, I just want to punch something and be done. In more ways than is relevant to this review, but we're not here to talk about my violent tendencies. The Rapesco Two Hole Punch needed to do its job, and do it quickly.
Most documents that I need to hole punch don't test the limits of this hole punch, at under ten pages. For smaller documents, the hole punch works quickly, smoothly and with very little effort on my part. Once you get past about fifteen pages, you need to exert a bit more pressure on the punch, and it might take a moment longer, but it will still get the job done. Thirty pages is about the limit of this punch - it's hard work with the more pages you have, but more to the point, any more simply wouldn't fit into the punch.
The resulting holes are neat and tidy. The only exception is if I use it for a thicker document and don't put enough force on it quickly enough, sometimes there will be a few of the pages still with the little cut out discs of paper attached.
Like most hole punches, the Rapesco one has a placement guide, a strip of plastic which can be pulled out from the body of the punch to show you where to place your paper in order to get the holes in the centre of it, depending on its size. This is a necessity for me in a hole punch: I have files where you can see where I've tried to judge where to put the punch without using the guide, and some documents stick out the top or bottom of the file. I'm useless at it. The guide on the Rapesco punch is a good one, as it sticks nicely in place when you adjust it to your paper size, and doesn't slide about while you're doing your punching.
I've had this punch for over a year now, and it still looks good as new. Given that it sits in a corner of my desk and isn't subjected to any bashing about, that's not terribly surprising; I've never thrown it at anyone or even at a wall, although given that it's quite a solid and heavy thing, it would probably do more damage to them than they would to it.
It's not the most interesting thing on my desk, but it's a necessity. This Rapesco Two Hole Punch does its job quietly and efficiently, and hasn't let me down yet.
At times, my office can be very quiet, even when it is quite full. After several occasions of feeling very self-conscious while making a racket with brown parcel tape - you know that screechy-squeaky-ripping noise it makes as you pull it off the roll? - I bought some Scotch Low Noise Packaging Tape.
By appearance, this is regular parcel tape. It's brown, shiny, about 5cm in width, and comes on a large roll. I use it for taping up boxes and packets before sending them by post or courier.
The tape is about as easy as any other tape to peel off the roll - that is, not very easy. My biggest problem is finding the end of the roll. I know the sensible thing would be to fold it over once I'm finished using it so I can easily find the end next time, but I never remember, and the tape tends to restick itself to the roll very quickly. Once I've found the end of the roll, it's a bit fiddly to get hold of the tape, and I find that it tears quite easily. Brown tape tends to tear easily when you're picking it off the roll, but I think that this Scotch Low Noise tape is particularly bad. Pretty much every time I use it, I end up with a thin bit torn off before I manage to get the tape as a whole going.
Once I do get it going, it peels off easily. It it easy to cut, and is very sticky so easy to stick onto your parcel. It seems to be reasonably strong despite its tendency to tear when starting to peel off the roll, but when taping up a box I always use more than one layer of the tape along each opening to make sure it stays taped shut. No one I've sent anything to has told me their parcel arrived open, so I assume the tape is holding my parcels shut. I use it on boxes which I take from the office to conferences, and they hold up fine, although they don't get thrown about as much as something in the post or courier network would. The tape is easy to cut to open a sealed box as well.
So far, so good - this is a reasonable quality brown parcel tape. But the reason I chose this above other varieties was the "low noise" claim - Scotch claim that this tape won't make that nasty squeaky racket that is normal with parcel tapes.
And they're not lying. It really is a quiet tape. It's not silent, it still makes a peeling noise but no worse than any regular roll of tape. I no longer find myself apologising to my colleagues when I have a parcel to send, as I shatter the peace of the office with noisy tape.
Despite the tearing issue, I can't see myself buying any other kind of tape again. It may tear when being pulled off the roll, but it holds boxes closed and lives up to its main claim of being low noise.
A few months before I was due to upgrade my mobile, I started thinking about what kind of phone I would like to get. I really liked my Samsung Galaxy Ace, but it had limitations - it ran an older version of the Android operating system, which seemed to mean I couldn't watch videos on BBC iPlayer or the BBC mobile site, or on Google Play. So I wanted something which would allow me to do this, and the Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini seemed to fit the bill - plus it was on Skys listed of supported Android devices for using the Sky Go app.
In October, when the battery on my Galaxy Ace suddenly became rubbish (receiving a text and replying drained it), I decided to upgrade one month early. I did this through Carphone Warehouse instead of directly with o2, as they were offering a free TV with certain handsets, which was convenient as our TV had also recently died. Having endured the very long add-on sales pitch for cases, car chargers and insurance, I walked out of the shop the proud owner of a shiny blue Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini.
Aside from the fact that it runs Android 4.1., aka Jelly Bean, which allows me to play videos, I chose the S3 Mini mainly on its size and appearance. I was really pleased with the Galaxy Ace, so I was fairly sure I wanted another Samsung - especially as phones from other Android brands seem to be quite angular, and I like a phone with curved edges. Size was key however, and this ruled out Samsungs headline offerings of the S3 and S4 - I don't want a phone that's half the size of my (small) tablet, I want a phone sized phone which will fit in my pocket. The S3 itself has more memory and perhaps is a more powerful phone, but I don't need that and would rather have a sensible sized phone, which is where the S3 Mini comes in.
The S3 Mini is comparable in size to iPhones and the Galaxy Ace. It has a 4 inch screen and is roughly 1cm deep. According to the specs it weighs 120g, and this is a nice weight, it doesn't feel too fragile. My one has a blue back and sides, but it comes in other colours too. The back is quite shiny, and for the first couple of weeks I worried I might drop it easily if it slid out of my hand; I didn't actually drop it until last week, and it now has a lovely dent on one corner. It seems reasonably durable, as long as you take a bit of care - dropping it regularly is going to result in a battered phone, and the screen is glass so could potentially break easily if the phone landed on it.
As far as the basic phone functions go, the S3 Mini does have improvements on my old Galaxy Ace. One issue I had with that was that pressing the one physical button on the front of the phone while in a call didn't hang up the phone, but it did keep the call open and it was a bit tricky to then get back into the call to hang up. The S3 Mini has some clever technology in it which wakes the screen back up when you move the phone - when you're making a call, the screen goes to sleep, which is very handy as it means you don't push buttons on the touchscreen while it's against your ear, but then when you take the phone away from your ear, the screen wakes up showing you the end call button on screen.
Call quality is very good. I've had the odd problem when in areas with low signal, but that's to be expected and not the fault of the handset. I can always hear people clearly, volume is good and easy to control with buttons on the side of the phone. You can dial from your previous calls list, from a contact stored in the phone, or by entering the number on a keypad on the touchscreen.
The touchscreen itself is sensitive but not overly so, and in general is very easy to use. The phone is unlocked by swiping anywhere on the lock screen which appears when you push the button on the front of the screen or the power button on the side. This is actually not ideal, and has led to me unlocking the phone in my pocket by accident several times. On the Galaxy Ace you had to swipe across the screen in a particular spot, which meant that if you woke the screen up in your pocket by accident, it was unlikely you'd then happen to swipe the screen in the right place. With the S3 though, if you wake the screen up while it's in your pocket, all it then takes to unlock it is pressure and a bit of movement anywhere on the screen, which is easily done. I've not yet "pocket-called" anyone, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time.
Another slight issue with the touchscreen comes when texting. The keys in the onscreen QWERTY keyboard seem to be a bit smaller than those on the Galaxy Ace, and I frequently hit the wrong ones. This is compensated for by a feature of the keyboard, which brings up suggestions above it of what you might be trying to type - so if I make a mistake I generally don't have to delete to fix it, I just tap the word and it is corrected. This also saves time as it brings up words before you finish typing. It even remembers regular sentences - so if I type "anything", as soon as I hit space after that, it brings up "from" and so on, remembering that I sometimes text my partner asking if we need anything from the shop when I'm on the way home.
The display quality is excellent. The screen is Super AMOLED, and while I don't know what that is, it sounds good and it certainly seems to be pretty damn good. Everything is crystal clear, and the TV shows and movies which I've watched on the phone have been fantastic quality. The only issue with those is that the phone seems to take a couple of minutes to display them properly - at first they tend to be a bit fuzzy and jerky, but once it settles down the quality is very good. The screen is obviously a bit small for watching things on, but when you don't have any other option it's fine - I was able to keep up with a couple of shows before our new TV arrived, watch films on long train journeys, and watch a show live on Sky while visiting my parents who don't have Sky.
Internet use on a mobile is obviously dependent on your signal strength or wifi, however I've found using the internet to be even easier and faster on the S3 Mini than it was on the Galaxy Ace. There are occasionally delays if the signal isn't great, but aside from this it is quick and easy, and even non-mobile optimised websites work just fine. One improvement I have noticed is that the location finder on the S3 Mini works much better than on the Galaxy Ace - the TFL bus arrivals site knows where I am immediately without having to reload a couple of times, and the location on my weather widget is always very accurate. The Galaxy Ace once thought I was in Liverpool for three days after I'd returned to London, and when I was in North Berwick it thought I was in Fife.
The battery on the S3 Mini is excellent. Watching videos or heavy call usage will run it down quicker, but I find I need to charge it less than every two days when using it normally - for me that's a few texts a day, messing about checking buses and reading the news before and after work, a couple of short calls, and about a total of 1 hour of listening to music every day. I looked at the battery usage a few days ago, it was on 15% and asking to be charged after two days and six hours of use.
I listen to music on my phone every work day. I use the Amazon mp3 app, which so far is the best one I've found for Android. Sound quality is good, certainly comparable to any standalone mp3 player. My music is stored on a 16GB memory card, although the phone itself has a generous 4.55GB (at least that's what it says in the Storage section on my phone).
I've been very pleased with the camera on the S3 Mini so far. Like the Galaxy Ace, it has 5MP, but the photos I've taken on the S3 Mini seem to be clearer and more crisp. The camera is easy to use, and has a variety of special features like sepia or black and white.
I may have a few minor issues with the touchscreen, but overall I couldn't be happier with my choice of the Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini. It is a big step up from the Galaxy Ace, it's an attractive phone and I can watch videos including TV and movies on it. It also seems to have put an end to my slight hankering for an iPhone, and I now feel more committed to Android than I previously did. The S3 Mini is a great phone, ideal if you want a good smartphone but don't want something the size of a towel. As long as Samsung continue making mini sized versions of their top phones, I see no reason why I'd switch to another brand come my next upgrade.
If you have a Dymo LabelWriter printer, you're going to need labels for it or it will just sit on your desk gathering dust. I don't know if there are alternative brands out there, but I always buy Dymo labels.
I always choose the Large Address Labels, which are 89mm by 36mm. This is a fairly typical size for an address label, and is therefore the right size for most addresses.
For the last six months or so I've been using the clear labels, for a particular reason. I organise several large internal conferences a year, and someone suggested using a label printer to create onsite name badges - print the label then stick it onto a blank badge. The white labels looked a bit too obvious for this, so I started using clear labels instead, and I've continued using them for normal use as well, as it's not easy to change the roll in the printer.
The white labels are very slightly glossy. The address prints onto them very clearly, as you'd expect given that they are by the same manufacturer. There is never any wet ink as the label printer uses thermal print, not ink, so you can use them as soon as they finish printing without worrying about smudging them.
The clear labels are matte in finish, and appear to be more opaque than clear, as they look a little like frosted glass. However if you stick them over other text or printing, it shows through very clearly. The matte finish works particularly well for the name badges I mentioned previously, and it blends in well with the white matte card that forms the badge itself.
The large address labels come in a roll of 260. They're a bit of a pain to get into the label printer, something which I mentioned in my review of the printer itself. Once I do eventually get it going though (and I attribute the issues with that to the printer, not the labels), the labels feed into the printer fine, and come out the other side no problem. The only issue I have in this respect is that once printed, the labels are still very curly from being on a roll. This isn't a problem for a few, but there have been occasions when I've been printing 50 or 100 in one go, and I end up with a big curly mess of labels on my desk, which can get quite tangled.
These are good quality labels, and are not easily torn. I just tried it - I thought I'd better test it for this review, and I couldn't tear a label.
There may be alternatives available to use with the Dymo LabelWriter range, but these Dymo labels are good quality and you know for sure that they are compatible with the printers. I will continue buying them, as they ensure that my address labels and name badges are all printed clearly and legibly.