I have moved over 40 times in my life, and have found that it is essential to do the following: Pack everything you can into Banker's boxes. You know, the ones that have two handle holes, fold up flat, a lid, and a box already written on for labeling. They are more expensive than normal boxes but well worth it. You will find that when you get into your new house, you will have all of this stuff you can't stand to bring into the house. You will want to store them for later consideration.
Here are the Merits of the Bankers box: * They have handholds. Regular boxes don't. * They have Lids, not folding tabs. Fold 20 or of those and you will want a lid. * They collapse neatly for storage. * They cannot be overloaded. Load it up with books, and it can still be carried by most people. Try that with a big box. * It if can't fit into a bankers box, you probably should not pack it or it probably requires special handling and packing anyway. Most things in your house will fit into one. * Bankers boxes stack neatly and efficiently. Different sized boxes will require you to play "put together a really dumb puzzle of different sized block into your moving van". * Later when you store them, you will have a collection of odd shaped, brown ugly boxes you will try to stack in an orderly manner. It never works out well. * Write numbers on the Boxes, then keep an index list of what is in each box. You will want to reuse these boxes, and you will want to store filled boxes later. Numbering is neater and easier to manage. * You can safely fit 4 bankers boxes onto a hand truck ( a dolly). You cannot safely carry big boxes on a hand truck. Well, that's my speech from a veteran mover. Bankers boxes, Bankers boxes, Bankers boxes! Nerd From Hell > -----Original Message----- > From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 7:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Irregulars question on packing > > > Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > > > At 05:31 AM 5/20/02, you wrote: > > >At 19:42 19-05-2002 -0500, Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > > > > >>The boxes I used in my last move aren't in very good shape, > > >>either. Problem is, there's still a lot of stuff in > them. It doesn't > > >>help their condition that I have to periodically dig > through some of them > > >>trying to find something . . . > > > > > >Why do you not tape a piece of paper to each box, and list > the contents of > > >each box on that piece of paper? That should make it a lot > easier to find > > >what you are looking for. > > > > > > > > >Jeroen "simple solutions" van Baardwijk > > > > You are assuming that the contents were sorted prior to > being placed in the > > box. As it is, all of said boxes are labelled "miscellaneous" . . . > > > > (Hint: Unlike Julia and her family, I did not have two or > three months to > > plan the move and pack . . . ) > > Two or three months? Try more like 4. The packing started > in the last > part of February, and the move is in early July. > > Of course, we want to get as much of the packing done as > possible before > June 12, which is when we close on the house, and after which point > there will be all kinds of things needing doing at the new house > (child-proofing, getting furniture delivered, getting the > furniture that > needs assembly out of storage and assembling it, taking the > dogs over a > few times to get them used to it, buying some things we'll need and > taking them straight over, etc.). > > How many boxes do you have with the "miscellaneous" label? I > had about > 9 in the last move that didn't get unpacked immediately, and I still > have 5, having gone through the 9, put some things away, thrown out a > few things, decided to donate a few things to charity. I'd say maybe > get 3 nice, new boxes, go through one of your "miscellaneous" > boxes and > sort the contents some, use the 3 new boxes to sort into, > label the new > boxes. Depending on the size of the boxes to be gone > through, maybe do > one a week until you've at least gotten the contents somewhat more > organized and you have a net loss of 1 box. :) > > (I hope my atrocious grammar in this post doesn't cause excessive > confusion.) > > Julia > >
