“Opaque, Lightweight and Writeable?”: Putting an Allan Brevier to the Test

Nicholas at R. L. Allan kindly provided me with a set of unbound signatures for the recent Allan Wide Margin Edition of Oxford's Brevier Clarendon KJV. I'll have more to say about the new Breviers shortly, but first I want to talk about the paper. The product description refers to "opaque, lightweight writeable India paper," and since we're sticklers for paper around here, I thought I'd put these words to the test. 

Image0002

First, a teaching moment. In the photo above, you see the unbound signatures stacked up. This is what your Bible looks like inside, before it's stiched together, trimmed, gilded, and the cover is glued on. A signature is a folded booklet. In this case, there are eighteen sheets folded over. Each is printed with two pages on front and two on back, so that's a total of 72 pages. There are twenty-two signatures in the stack, for a total of 1,584 pages (not counting the map insert in back). There are 1,158 numbered pages in the OT and 348 in the NT — 1,506 total — plus front matter, back matter, and some blank note pages which we'll get to in a moment.

In typical book manufacture, you'll see signatures ranging in size from 16 to 32 pages. Paper thickness is the limiting factor. If you include too many sheets in the signature, it will be too fat and the fold will distort the way the print impressions overlap on successive pages. Thin Bible paper allows more pages to be folded over without bulk, so it's not uncommon to see signatures containing page counts in the 90s. 

Image0003
The Brevier text blocks (both the wide margin and standard editions) were printed in the Netherlands by Jongbloed, where they were also bound, with upgraded cover specs. I don't know what type of paper this is, or its listed weight. But there's one surefire way to test a wide margin, and that's to write in it and see how the paper stands up to ink. For a really grueling test, nice, wet fountain pen ink is preferred.

File this under "do not attempt at home." Despite the fact that most of the Bibles you see here are review copies kindly provided by publishers, I am still reluctant to do any damage to them or mark them up in any way. Sure, it would be fun to know whether the goatskin cover on your Allan Bible could withstand a gunshot or a flamethrower (and naturally I do have a flamethrower handy next to my desk), and I could conduct these tests without harm to my bottom line … but don't hold your breath. I prefer non-destructive methods of evaluation.

In this case, however, we're talking about an unbound text block. The liklihood that it will ever become a proper book is nil. Plus, there are pages in back marked NOTES, so I had an opportunity to do some testing without even scribbing on pages devoted to actual Scripture. With that in mind, I pulled out the pens.

Here's what happened:

Image0000

From top to bottom, here's what you see. First we have the much-vaunted Pigma Micron pen — unfortunately the one I had handy is orange, which didn't show up very well in the photo. Next is a fine-point rollerball and a ballpoint, which represent the sort of pens most people are likely to have handy. Then a series of fountain pens with nibs in various sizes: Extra Fine, Fine, Medium, a Flex, another Fine, another Flex and then a Broad. The respective inks were Montblanc Irish Green, Noodler's La Reine Mauve, Noodler's Ottoman Azure, Noodler's Nikita Red, Noodler's Bad Belted Kingfisher, Noodler's Black Swan in Australian Roses, and finally De Antramentis Plum (a scented ink; I'll let you guess the aroma). 

Convention wisdom would be, don't write in your Bible with a fountain pen. If you do, use a dry-writing EF or F nib (not too sharp, though). I'm no ink expert, but the two things that typically frustrate fountain pen users are "feathering," where the ink gets kind of runny and veiny as it spreads onto the paper, and "bleedthrough," where the ink actually soaks through the page and mars the other side. 

[A brief aside: When I first started writing about Bible paper, a lot of people used "bleedthrough" to describe the phenomenon where the words printed on one side of the sheet are clearly visible on the other, giving the page a gray five-o'clock-shadow appearance. I started using the word "ghosting" to describe this, since the problem wasn't that ink was bleeding through, just that the page wasn't sufficiently opaque to block the reverse image's visibility. I'm not sure where I picked up the term — somewhere in my print/design journey. It's not original to me, at any rate.]

With all the inks I tested, I don't see any feathering on the page. The paper takes the ink well, and the lines look crisp. Now let's turn the page over and see whether anything has bled through:

Image0001

None at all. You can clearly see the writing — what I call "ghosting" above — but that's actually quite common with thin papers, even the ones that take ink very well. For example, if you take a look at the enthralled fans of Tomoe River paper, which is used in the handmade Design.Y notebooks from Japan, at the same time they rave about the paper's phenomenon fountain pen performance, they concede that there's ghosting or "show-through," and that it's a fact of life with thin papers. (For the record, count me as an enthralled fan, too. A Design.Y LP Record notebook is on my birthday list, along with the Single Column Journaling Bible.)

The only exception I can think of to the "thin papers show through" rule is Smythson's blue featherweight paper, which has an almost miraculous ability to be both thin and opaque. Because fountain pen nibs don't need to dig into the paper like ballpoints, you won't even see the impression of the point on the reverse side. Of course, this paper comes at a high premium — and even Smythson doesn't print the Bibles it occasionally offers on the blue stuff!

All this to say, the Allan Wide Margin Edition of the Brevier lives up to the description. The paper is lightweight and opaque, and it is also writeable. There is some ghosting, as you would expect, but it is not nearly as pronounced as you'll find in the typical Bible. I'd say this bodes well for the edition. We'll take a closer look in a coming post.

 

 

4 Comments on ““Opaque, Lightweight and Writeable?”: Putting an Allan Brevier to the Test

  1. Wow, even the last bold nib sample in dark ink behaved nicely!
    So how thick are those 22 signatures of 1584 pages? Looks like it might be well over an inch thick. And that’s my point. All paper–Bible, tobacco, bond, or newsprint–comes in a variety of thicknesses for the same paper composition. I’d love to know the paper specs but I suspect the good ghosting performance is more a matter of using THICKER paper than necessarily great quality paper.
    We need to convince the publishers that there’s a sizable market that are glad to carry thicker volumes in exchange for readable text. Wide-margin Bibles are not aimed at the thinline “fashion accessory” market so they can use thicker paper and still be a market success. I’m not a “notationist” but if a wide margin is what it takes to get readable volume, I’ll buy it and trim it down in the next rebind.

  2. I often make small marks with a ball point in my bibles, instead of the Pigma Micron pens (which I always use a .01 in black). While the Pigma pens are great for precise notation, when I want to make short jots I find that the zebra ballpoint/lite highlighter is a good combo…convenient. Plus I do not have a problem with ghosting or imprinting any more I suppose than the montblanc above (not degrading the Montblanc by any means).
    http://www.samsclub.com/sams/shop/product.jsp?productId=187293

  3. Why do you link to sites? I cannot stand that practice. I “clicked” on the Design.Y notebooks. That was an expensive “click”. I too am an enthralled fan. Let me know if the upcoming Bibledesignblog X Allan collaboration will be featuring the Tomoe River paper. If so, I need to start the loan qualification process now.

  4. I recently bought the 5WM wide margin from R.L. Allan. Was seriously disappointed in their lack of forthrightness as a company, their refusal to admit they had misrepresented their product and total unwillingness to deal with the legitimate concerns. I returned it to them and cannot recommend this company; not because of the quality of product, but because of a lack of forthrightness in their marketing strategy. A Bible publisher ought to be beyond this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>