I took Baby Henry to his first trip to Staples this evening after supper. He stayed awake the whole time, oddly enough. Came home with a three-dozen pack of Staedtler Norica pencils in black. When I emptied my pocket, I realized that everything in it matched these pencils. (Review coming soon; I like ’em!)
Earlier this week, we reviewed the fragrant pencils that Field Notes sent us for review. Today, we will review the ubiquitous brown notebook. Field Notes thoughtfully send us a Mixed Pack, with one lined, one graphed and one just naked. We’ve put one through a good number of pencil tests and offer this pencil-specific review. (And thanks for Field Notes for the great mention on their site!)
Cover Material: French Dur-O-Tone 80#C “Packing Brown Wrap.”
Paper: Boise Offset Smooth 50#T “White.”
Binding: Three-staple saddle stitch.
Size: 3-1/2” X 5-1/2”.
Page Count: 48 pages.
Unique Characteristics: Witty information printed in front and back of cover, including reward/address blank; possibly also being made in the USA.
Origin: United States.
Availability: From FieldNotesBrand.Com and select online and brick-and-mortar retailers.
When you first open a three-pack of Field Notes, you might notice that the package resembles a certain “Cahier” produced by a company whose products and historical claims are not without controversy. There are three identical, soft-covered notebooks held together by a central, horizontal band. However, the notebooks diverge there.
For starters, let’s compare the claims. One notebook claims to be the favorite of Hemingway, Chatwin, et al., although the company was founded in the 1990s and produces its notebooks in China. While I don’t have a problem with Asian production in itself, and while the company in question has revised its statement to call their notebooks the “heir” to the classic used by some of my literary heroes, lots of people have felt intentionally duped. For myself, I have a softspot for Moleskines that I can’t seem to quit. The claim made by Field Notes is that they are inspired by classic pocket ledgers and farm notebooks. No one is claiming that Field Notes will boost anyone’s creativity. Field Notes claim to be useful. The premium price ($10 + shipping for three thin notebooks, unless you’re lucky enough to live where you can get them in person) seems to run contrary to the simple and down-home heritage. However, I honestly have no idea how much old farmers’ notebooks used to cost, let alone with taking inflation into consideration.
So, Field Notes are useful pocket tools for writing down information on the go. Their size and weight definitely lend themselves to this purpose, and their solid construction continues in the same vein. There are myriad other reviews on the net (see Field Notes’ site for a list) which call them durable, practical, attractive and a pleasure to use. I found all of these claims to be more than true.
First, the cover is stiff, with clean printing. Even after rolling around with graphite pencils, in a vintage Army bag and being stuck in piles of other books and notebooks, my Field Notes book actually looks barely used. The book tends to stay open as a result of the stiffness of the cover. This doesn’t bother me, but I can imagine it bugging the heck out of some Comrades. There is no bookmark, which did bother me a bit, but a tiny binder clip did the trick nicely and actually looked very good doing it. (A Field Notes binder clip one day?)
The paper is white, with lines that match the cover (in this case, brown). They are well-spaced and even throughout the notebook. The last time I bought a pack of pocket “Cahiers” with graph paper, two entire books were off-center, one so much that it was difficulty to use. The Field Notes’ paper feels both thicker and stiffer than a “Cahier,” and it has a better tooth and more consistent texture. That bodes well for pencil lead being able to make nice and dark marks. I noticed that lighter and harder pencils are difficult to use on this paper. Anything lighter than an HB Mirado or Grip 2001 didn’t leave a mark that I could read. The paper works very well with soft pencils and exceedingly well with pencils with a bit of a scratch factor. As you might remember, I said that the Field Notes pencil had a little scratch to it and that I thought it made sense, so that Comrades could write on the run and know they were leaving a mark. I think something similar can be said about the paper. Pencil doesn’t glide across it the way that it glides across Rhodia paper, but that’s not what Field Notes are made to do. They are made to travel in your pocket and help you to remember things, solve problems, etc. A durable pencil and durable paper, especially when the “feedback” indicates that you are, in fact, writing down legibly the name of that author your Comrade mentioned on a hike or the contact information of someone you met on a trip. Besides — overly creamy paper in a rough and stiff brown cover seems like a bizarre contradiction somehow. One problem I found with using pencils in these notebooks is ghosting. “Ghosting” is what I call the transfer of graphite from one page onto another by means of the pressure from writing on the backs of pages. This happens with soft pencils all the time in notebooks. But it feels like Field Notes are especially prone to this messy graphite shadowing. However, I’m sticking with my idea of these as practical notebooks, not pieces of art. As such, ghosting is only a moderate issue, when writing is still perfectly legible. Unless you actually pet your notebooks and re-read them often, it’s not likely to bother you.
Not only that, but the notebook and pencil make a great pair, with their matching aesthetic (not just the print), durable and practical design, and slight edge. I like to think of Field Notes products as akin to bags made of Army canvas. Their roughness amounts to, as I said, an edge. They are hardy and do seem to sacrifice delicacy for practicality. That’s what I personally like about my vintage Army map case (shown above) and, often, about pencils in general. They always just work.