Memorial Weekend Savings! Extra 8% OFF w/ Code:
MEM2023
This 3D Embossing Folder, Tufted, is from Spellbinders. This folder features a diamond-shaped tufted design. This folder measures 5.5" x 8.5" and will work for a variety of card sizes from A2 (4.25" x 5.5") to slimline 3.5" x 8.5"). This embossing folder is compatible with leading die cutting machines and embossing machines that have at least a 6" wide opening (sold separately). This folder can be used for a variety of cards, scrapbook pages, tags, journal and planner pages, anywhere you need a background. This embossing folder will emboss cardstock, patterned paper, vellum, and more. For best results, lightly mist your paper on both sides with water before embossing.
This is even prettier in person than in the picture. It really does look like a tufted couch or pillow. It is quite dimensional. As always, I also like the fact that this folder is big enough to do a full background on my A-7 cards. I think it would work for slimline too. Thanks, Spellbinders, for thinking outside the A-2 box!
Love this embossing folder. It came out so beautiful to make the most beautiful card. I would highly recommend it for anyone who wants a very detailed embossing..
This embossing folder is very nice in pattern. The tufts are larger than shown in the photo shown here, but still pretty and classy. I would rather have them the size shown here, but that's not a problem for me. I will contact Spellbinders and see if they have this pattern in a smaller size. If not, I will still be glad to have this embossing folder.
I can think of so many ways to use this new embossing folder.. nice job Spellbinders
I was very impressed with how quickly my order got here but so disappointed with this folder. It's my own fault - I didn't pay close enough attention to the project pictures. The quilting diamonds are HUGE!! I was looking for a version of this folder with much smaller diamond-shapes, with the little 'buttons' in between, like the one that vanished from my craft room. I had hoped this would be an acceptable alternative, but no. :0 (
You must be logged in to comment. Please click here to log in.
