Paper in the new planners
Steve
dates on one side of the page spread and a notebook page facing that.
It felt to me that the paper in this edition was thinner than in my
current planner. A buddy at work recently took possession of the
softcover, 18-month weekly planner and concurs that the paper is
definitely thinner. I don't think this is a huge problem since I use
pencil in my planner, but it may be an issue for those who use ink.
It's disappointing to see Modo and Modo degrading the quality of the
paper in this way, which is one of the best things about their product.
I will be interested to hear what other's perception is on this.
Evan Edwards
> softcover, 18-month weekly planner and concurs that the paper is
> definitely thinner. I don't think this is a huge problem since I use
> pencil in my planner, but it may be an issue for those who use ink.
> It's disappointing to see Modo and Modo degrading the quality of the
> paper in this way, which is one of the best things about their product.
> I will be interested to hear what other's perception is on this.
Granted, I haven't found a 18 month planner (I've been looking, and my two
reliable sources of Moleskines seem not to carry the calendars), but I'm
interested in your perception that thinner paper is lower quality.
Personally, I'd like bible paper... tissue thin and tough. It's terrible for
sketching, and limits the use of certain pens -- and also is the best
solution for someone looking to maximize the amount of actual notes and
writing one can put into a given volume.
They have (and have been working on improving) the sketch side of their
line. Thicker paper, then making it better for watercolors. At the same
time, they are also making volumes with more and more pages devoted to the
more prose and list oriented uses. Coming in at over 200 pages, I was hoping
the paper would be thinner. But then, I don't plan on sketching in a lined,
organized journal. I need a daybook, and thin is perfect.
--
Evan "JabberWokky" Edwards
http://www.cheshirehall.org/
Steve
subsequent pages. It diminishes the legibility of the page. There is
some show through in my current planner, but it's minimal enough not to
be distracting. There seems to be more show through in the new
planners (I can't say about the "classic" planners).
I really like most of the changes in the new planners, so I'm sure I'll
enjoy using it, and I think it's still the best pocket planner
available. And I might have put down my impression of the paper to my
imagination if my friend hadn't had the same impression of his new
planner (unprovoked by anything I'd said).
Daly de Gagne
doesn't seem to result in problems writing with a fine nib fountain pen.
Daly
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:57:43 -0500, Evan Edwards <jabbe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
--
Discuss and learn about David Allen’s Getting Things Done:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Getting_Things_Done/
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0625-6, 22/06/2006
Tested on: 22/06/2006 12:18:23 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Jim-L
numbers show through. Who decided I need to know the number of the
week of the year in the MIDDLE of each new week!!? As to paper, I use
Private Resrvre ink, usually a bit heavy, and it doesn't bleed through.
Hold a single sheet up to the light and it shows, but only the same as
a bp or pencilled note.
BTW - this is the first of my use of this type of calendar. I intend
it to be my new standard. I used the Hallmark (card co.) books before.
I like to have matching volumes on my bookshelf.
Anupriyo
overall. The paper is thin and the binding is not as good. The pages
for first two weeks came off the binding with just 2 weeks' use. Also,
the pocket at the back is not the same as the other moleskines. Not
accordian style. Overall, I'm a little disappointed.
Daly de Gagne
the reporter notebooks' bindings.
I have a pocket and a large 18-month planner. I like the soft cover.
However, I am not crazy about the back pocket.
As for the paper, I think a thinner paper is being used because there are
more pages with it being an 18 month book. I find for a thin paper I do
not have much bleed through with my fountain pen as long as I keep it
moving.
It is imperative that all complaints about quality go to Moleskine -- the
more that is documented, the better the chance of improvements.
Even with the problems, I do not see notebooks in the marketplace that I
like as much.
But it is only a matter of time until Moleskine knock-offs flood the
market, and some of them may deal with the binding problems. I hope.
Daly
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0627-2, 06/07/2006
> Tested on: 06/07/2006 7:56:26 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
--
Discuss and learn about David Allen’s Getting Things Done:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Getting_Things_Done/
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0627-2, 06/07/2006
Tested on: 06/07/2006 8:17:33 AM
Steve
keep the bulk down, but the red, 2007 special edition is only one year,
so there's no reason it shouldn't have the same paper as the regular
planners. I don't know about the "classic" pocket and large planners
for 2007, whether the paper for them has gotten thinner as well. I
would be interested in hearing from someone who has one of those styles.
Evan Edwards
> I find for a thin paper I do
> not have much bleed through with my fountain pen as long as I keep it
> moving.
I rather like the fact that you can see the ruling on the back of each
page when writing on the left hand side. I write two lines of text per rule,
and the quality of printing keeps those lines perfectly lined up with the day
ruling.
I can't comment on the binding; I have yet to run into a problem with this
one yet. I do like how it lies a bit more flat than the hardcovered models
do. I'm happy to give up the hardcover in exchange for a volume that lies as
a pad on my desk all day long while working. It feels a bit like a
Miquelrius now (only the Miqs don't lie flat).
I do agree with the comment about the folder in the back, but I'm very
used to doing "surgery" on the folder and making it hold significantly more.
I haven't done it yet, but I may well. Or I may not: as my planning book, it
tends to have post-its in it, and the folder looks like it will be good at
holding those, and my pocket plain can serve as my trusty wallet replacement.
Jim-L
my moleskine on top of a Clairefontaine lined book (not planner) that I
bought to experiement. Same height but half-inch wider. The CF is
thicker, at 96 pages,because of thicker paper. Don't know the
Moleskine page count. White paper instead of the tan. Absolutely no
bleed-through. Cost was 7.00 on sale. Strong black cover, tape
reinforced binding, and stitched folio pages.
So the CF becomes an after-the-fact log, while my todo lists are on the
opposing blank pages of the Moleskine planner. Just serendipitous that
the two make a nice matching set.
P.S. For really hardbound books with lined or blank pages, useful on a
desk but not for carrying, I've found very nice books, all sizes, at
various chain bookstores and card shops, also Levenger's, Office
Depot (really) and a huge book for $11 at Lee Valley's online catalog.
But concerning fountain pens and the paper, over at acpp
(alt.collecting.pens-pencils) those fountain pen afficianados
consistently rave about Clairefontaine for its paper quality, whether
in books or loose stationary sheets.
Daly de Gagne
Now I need to find a use for the Lee Valley book.
Daly
Evan Edwards
> The CF is thicker, at 96 pages,because of thicker paper. [...]
The thinner paper and the off-white color is what I like about the
Moleskine. Plus, interestingly (considering the debate on Moleskine's
quality of late), many years ago I had a Clairefontaine's binding
become "loose", and that prompted my switch to Moleskines.
I'm willing to pay a bit more to get a good notebook, but I buy for
quality, not name. I have yet to have a problem with my Moleskines (other
than a highly abused one a few years ago). If I start seeing the quality dip
others have reported in my Moleskines, maybe I'll take a look at
Clairefontaines again. I just dipped a toe in Miquelrius, my fiance's choice
for a scientific record notebook and decided I didn't like the binding, as I
like to lay my books flat.
Of course, I also use composition books and Red and Black notebooks for my
heavy lifting; Moleskine is my wallet (pocket plain) and daily book/logbook
(currently the large 18 month planner, previously a large ruled).
mink
scribbling notes everywhere and I don't know why I didn't think to get
a better system earlier. I want to get the small 18 month planner but
am wondering if it really is small enough to take everywhere - could
anyone tell me how thick it is? Amazon says 1/2 inch, but that's what
it says for the 12 month as well - I think that's just what they
generally put for all the small notebooks.