A few days ago I wrote a post about the Miquelrius notebook, and a comparison of it to the Moleskine I’d found over on Loosewire.com. In the comparison, Jeremy’s friend was explaining that the Miquelrius held a lot longer of a record in less space. I was very intrigued by this idea of writing-space density, so I decided to investigate a bit. Of course, since I have an engineering background, it wasn’t enough to just notice that one was thicker
First I picked up a Miquelrius “notepad”, which is what they call them on their miserable flash website at Barnes & Noble for $7 (thanks Jim!). I got the 4×6 square ruled jobby, and it seems to be a pretty nice binding. It’s very floppy and flexible, which may annoy, but also means you’ll never have a cracked or broken cover. One thing that is not right is the spacing of the gridlines – they are at that awkward size where they’re too big to use every other line, but too small to use every line. They are smaller than the Moleskine’s, but a nice shade of light blue instead of black.
Anyway, it’s 4.09″x5.90″ x .77″ thick, which is a total volume of 18.58 cubic inches. It has 200 leaves, each with 2 sides (i.e. pages) for a total of 400 sides to write on, or a pretty hefty 67 square feet of writing space.
The Moleskine, (pocket size, square ruled) on the other hand, is 3.6″ x 5.6″ x .52″ thick, which is a total volume of 10.48 cubic inches. It has 96 leaves, for a total of 192 sides to write on, which is a measly 27 square feet of space.
The Miquelrius has about 3.6 square feet per cubic inch, Moleskine has 2.6. If you are someone who’s looking for the greatest amount of writing space available for the space taken up in your bag or pocket, Jeremy’s friend Jim has it on the nose.
Now is there another, more dense notebook out there? If Moleskine made the pocket notebook exactly as it is, but two or three times as thick, would you buy it? How about if they used onion skin or bible stock paper?