IMPORTANT NOTE: Since I wrote this review the new Moleskine paper HAS improved considerably. It still has a mechanical grain and a noticeable front and back, but the differences are not as great as they were back in 2014 when I wrote this article. If you ever come across old stock of the watercolour moleskine sketchbooks I would recommend you buy them, as the old paper is superior.

If you haven’t already heard about this … the biggest news in the sketching world in recent times is that Moleskine has changed the labels on its sketchbooks….

so is the paper different?

In a word YES it is different and not as good – in my opinion. Sigh! I love the old paper very much!

Last month when I was in Tasmania I spent the first week using one of the new labeled books (referring to this as NEW for the rest of this post) and the second week using the OLD. I thought the best way to test the paper was to use it in my typical travel sketching situations. Today I have done some more controlled tests in the studio to confirm what I discovered out on location.

Please note:

This is a very personal review based on the way that I work with watercolour. It is not a scientific, careful test – I am far from being an expert on watercolour paper (though I would love to be like ‘Mr Handprint’ one day!)

I use watercolour in a fairly loose and spontaneous way – I don’t think that I could possibly do 3 perfectly even washes for a comparison – so I have tried to do tests that mean something to me & the way that I work.

I love granulating pigments so have done some tests with crazily reactive mixes. I have also done test patches where I varied my brushstrokes – this means that every swatch is inherently different – but I think the characteristics of the paper is still visible. I am very interested in other people’s comments on my findings.

Ok… before I start with today’s test I will share some on location experiences.



But before I do that… the major issue with the new paper is that there is a marked difference between the two sides of the paper. The paper is bound in the book so that a spread has the same side across both sides.

One side is more textured – this is what I am calling the ‘front’

The other side is less textured and more like the old paper (in texture anyway) – I am calling this the back.

So I am comparing three types of paper surfaces

old – new front – new back





In Tasmania…



New-Back: First real sketch I did was at Salamanca to the “New Back” side. I was pleasantly surprised that I got some good granulation- more than normal? But felt that in some patches it was flat (eg. the sandstone on the side of the building)

I also felt that there were harder edges (visble in the sky)



New-Front: The front side of the paper has a strong texture (and it appears to have a grain that runs on an angle) and in general I wasn’t liking the results at all. Look how strong the texture is to the side of the building. I wasn’t liking what was happening with the sky so I got a plastic card out for a little scraping… hmm. that wasn’t what I wanted either.



New-Front: Now sketching tea and scones is something I do from time to time (ah hem…what??) Ok…I do it a LOT and it is a kind of reflex action…so I was a little surprised at the yucky bits that appeared on the page (hmm is that a technical term? I told you this wasn’t going to be that scientific!) Obviously the paper was behaving differently from what I instinctively expected from it -my reflex timing of working wet into wet was off – so must be a different drying time and/or a different sizing?? (the same thing happened a few days before as well)



New-Back:

(This is part of my street view of Richmond and it is a little tragic to be highlighting the worst part of the sketch which some of you might not have noticed… but in the interest of this review I will do so.)

I was very conscious of the greater tendency for hard edges so was careful with my sky and was happy with what I achieved(getting to know the paper helps to work with it)

However the sandstone shop was a bit of a mess. I tried to do some varied brushstrokes, didn’t like what it was doing so went in while still wet (so I thought) to adjust and it got worse. Ended up trying to lift off and re-work (something that I rarely do!)



Comparison: New Front sky on top, Old Below

Hopefully this shows the strong paper texture on the top (New-front paper) compared with the varied pigment granulation that I have been able to achieve with the Old paper.

In the Studio

I did a number of tests with highly granulating mixes and a staining pigment (I was also doing the same tests on Stillman & Birn beta paper… but that is for another review)



Here are the more interesting comparisons:



French Ultramarine wash with varied brush strokes (the way I normally do my washes)



Raw Sienna first wash with varied brush strokes – French Ultramarine wash (two simple brush strokes over the top) when first wash was 100% dry



Raw Sienna and French Ultramarine mixed on the page.



Crazy granulating Daniel Smith Goethite used a wide flat brush single stroke down the page(though in the New-front sample I momentarily paused)



Varied brushstrokes wash of quin rose (staining colour that blossoms easily)

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to tests that could be done (I can think of numerous more consistent ways to test the paper… the ones that I have done are simply the way I work)

Summary of the characteristics of the new paper

– Texture on the front side was too strong for my liking – diagonal grain and uniform pattern

– The back side seemed to be flat and I think there is less sizing(or more easily dissovled?) so that I was unable to work with the paint as much as I normally do (interested in other people’s assessment of this as I am no real expert on sizing)

– Harder edges around washes

– Staining colours more prone to blossoming

– Washes dry a lot quicker on the back side

– The paper sounds different when I flick through the pages of my book – more hollow sounding and feels stiffer.

– A little more buckling (I do use a lot of water)

– No noticeable difference using ink



So… what is the verdict?

The new paper is inferior in my opinion to the old paper (which I loved so much!).

I do not like the texture and worry about the sizing/ flatness of the ‘back side’. The differences between the two sides is very surprising in a quality sketchbook like this.

But …. is it a deal breaker?

My experience from using the book in Tasmania….

I had moments of frustrations while I was using it but I was certainly in the process of adapting the way I was working to suit the new characteristics. It made me be more sure with my washes because I didn’t want to touch them again (not a bad thing!)

Is my sketchbook from that first week full of disasters…. NO NO NO! I am very very happy with nearly all the sketches in the book. The paper, the format and make of the book still suits the way I work. As I flick through the pages of the book now, being distanced from the process, I ask myself – Was the new paper really that bad?



So once again… what is the verdict????



Well, lets put it this way… I have gone and bought as much stock of the old books as I can so I don’t have to make a final decision for a while.

But I will certainly be testing the Beta paper again as my ‘serious outing’ watercolour sketchbook.

(I use the Alpha book for my daily sketches and notes)

I hope that you have found this review useful and I am very interested in any questions and comment – and particularly if anyone else has used the paper (I know that Shari Blaukopf has – she was the first person that I know to use a new book) How do you find it?

IMPORTANT NOTE: Since I wrote this review the new Moleskine paper HAS improved considerably. It still has a mechanical grain and a noticeable front and back, but the differences are not as great as they were back in 2014 when I wrote this article. If you ever come across old stock of the watercolour moleskine sketchbooks I would recommend you buy them, as the old paper is superior.