This isn’t even all of the teas I have. There’s a pantry shelf, another small kitchen cabinet, and teas on probation sit on the dining table (which they shouldn’t).
I’m thinking of getting this one or maybe the other one from Target:
Though that depends on the size of the space I plan to put this thing in.
But my teas would be much happier, and my spices would be happier as well, since they’re currently banished to part of the kitchen counter. Because tea is much more important than food.
Spontaneous ∂erivation 
Ah, I can only sympathize. I’m not into tea, but there’s a wee bit of a European comics collection and just a few books, mostly SF, nothing much.
Just checking, but you do realize when you wish your teas to get ‘display space’ again, you’d end up with a rather more, ah, sparse packing algorithm compared to your current one?
So then it would, I guess, become a question of available floor and wall surface and monetary criteria and the answer to the question: “Can I put two (or three) of those buggers next to one another and still have it look good?”
First choice for me would be height: your teas have a housing issue that befits a major city so first thought there is: the higher the sky scraper, the better.
Then I can imagine they want some breathin’ space, now that they get the prospect of getting to live on up-scale down-town Media Centre St.
So how affordable are two scrapers instead of one?
‘this one’ is higher and has more (and lower) shelves, which reduces, erm, ‘risk’ of cramping the teas together again in a year or so, as they are now. Which might be considered a ‘bonus’, depending on how you look at it.
So ‘this one’ might be better, if not for the little ridges[*] of the floor piece, which prevents two of them to sit closely together.
Then again a bit of browsing at Targets leads me to believe all those media towers of theirs have a ridge at top or bottom so ‘cuddling together’ will be an issue with any two of ’em, I guess.
Although, and this may cause the raising of an eyebrow, I think I would opt, on second thought, for the ‘Large 4-Sided Spinning Tower’ they have on offer: high, small and you get to use more ‘depth’; put a few next to one another and you’ve got plenty surface space to go.
You may shake your head at my despicable taste.
… “But dear, it’s comes in wood finish too!”
Whenever I find storage space like Wall-E got (oy, oy, those rotating shelves!) so that you can read labels and there’s no ‘third class, back row’ in there that’s hard to get or gawk at, then I’m sold for life.
Up till that moment arrives I think your Media Tower idea is pretty slick for my SF collection too. No irritating ‘back rows’ any more. Dang it, why didn’t I think of this before?
[*] English is not my native tongue and now that I finally go and check, the dictionary calls them ‘protuberances’ but that word made me chortle as it made me think instantly of Opus (Berkeley Breathed), and once you get that far you can’t but succumb to laughing.
Must have taken the wrong braincorner somewhere; anybody got a map?
Hello Ger!
Yup, a sparser algorithm but more space, and likely the shelves are short enough to increase the frequency of shelf space to make up for the sparseness.
My space is structured such that a wall of X is almost impossible, so it’s pleasant to not have to worry about putting two together (if I did get two, it’s likely that one of them would be on the other side of a window space). I think the “Rainier” collection or something has very tall but very thin media shelving that can sit closely to each other, having been designed that way, but they were too skinny for my taste.
And yeah, I like the wood veneer. :)