Keep in mind that it is perfectly fair to say these are "the same". The
difference below are very very nitpicky. All of the metrics are the same
(line spacing, print on the pages), and all my overlays and templates that I
place on the pages all still line up. The sections at the beginning and end
are the same (I flipped though them side by side). So what changed?
* The ink is slightly more gray than tan. In the 2006 edition, the ink had a
slightly tan color to it. In the 2007, the ink is slightly more gray.
* The print is slightly more sharp. At first I thought the font was tweaked,
but the edges of the letters are just slightly more defined with a bit less
feathering. The halftone of the overlapping months is also affected as a
result. I'd place a guess that this is a result of the ink change.
* The elastic has changed (again) and is wider than the (already wide) 2006
edition, making it significantly more wide than the elastic on the hardcover
Moleskines. Unless of course they've also changed the elastic on the
hardcovers recently. I like the feel of the new elastic, and it
doesn't "roll over" as easily as the thinner one.
* The logo is hot pressed into the back cover rather than cold stamped.
It's a bit more defined as a result and has sharper lines.
The rest of it seems the same. The tight back envelope, the soft cover
that allows you to toss in more things without damaging the spine, etc. I
can't comment on the signatures and the block, as my 2006 edition has enough
stuffed into it to have expanded the block. I would hazard a guess that
there is even more give in the spine, with a larger loop of cover on the
spine (allowing it to lay perfectly flat even when jammed full of extra
papers). I can't be sure, as my 2006's cover has been deformed a bit by
having a pen and binder clip of 3x5 cards attached for the last year, and a
full folded map glued into the inside of the front cover. The sewing on the
signatures themselves is tight and looks like the same thread. The block is
nice and solid.
With only a few days of use, I can't say much about the durability, but if
it is as good as last year's volume, I'll be happy.
(Now having made this post, somebody will now point out there's a big
obvious difference that I missed by focusing on the minutia. Ah, well).
--
Evan "JabberWokky" Edwards
http://www.cheshirehall.org/
615.517.6900
Obvious question: my 18 mo. 2006--7 model still has 6 months left in
it, is your model Jan 2006 -- Jun 2007?
Thanks for the commentry, I've been thinking of getting the 12 mo.
model for 2008; I like the design of lined paper for notes facing the
weekly diary page.
K.
No, my 2006-2007 model was retired six months early. In part it was
because I had developed my current daily and weekly system in it, and I
wanted to start a new volume with the same indexing throughout. In addition,
I got married in June, and it just felt "right" to switch then.
The overlap is nice. I spent a Saturday morning going through the six
month overlap and transferring and thinking about calendar items. As a
side-effect, it was a nice higher level review.
Thanks, that stopped me fruitlessly searching for a book that doesn't
exist ;-)
> because I had developed my current daily and weekly system in it, and I
> wanted to start a new volume with the same indexing throughout. In addition,
> I got married in June, and it just felt "right" to switch then.
Congratulations.
I agree: a new start calls for a new book. The reason I switched last
year, dumping my regular diary for the 18 month Moleskine, was I
started studying again. (It was a relief not to have all those old
entries reminding me of my old job.)
Best regards,
Kevin.