Why February '26 Remains in Prototype

Template #4 | Prototype #4

January '26 was spent resolving three material constraints:

1. Leather availability and grade The project requires museum-grade leather to meet durability and longevity goals. Local sourcing proved inconsistent in both quality and repeatability. A reliable supplier has been identified, but this introduces longer lead times and limits choice. Without dependable material at the required grade, stock cannot be maintained responsibly. I wish I was spoiled for choice.

   
   

2. White pen behavior These journals are designed to be used, not displayed. White ink behaves fundamentally differently than standard inks, and no single pen has proven reliable across writing styles. If writing is unpleasant or inconsistent, the system fails regardless of how well the book is made. Pen testing is ongoing, with the goal of identifying a small, reliable starting set. For more information on the current white pen test set see: December Tests, January Decisions

   
   

3. Paper surface interaction The current archival paper is intentionally smooth, but that smoothness is unforgiving with white ink, at least with the current test set. This introduces a secondary decision point: continue solving the problem at the pen level, or change paper stock to a more toothy surface that is more forgiving. Changing paper means restarting paper selection and absorbing additional cost and time, so it remains a fallback should the next round of testing warrant it.

Template 4 was completed today with additional tolerance to accommodate heavier, five-ounce leather. Informed by the limitations observed in prototypes two and three, 2 additional millimeters were added all around to allow binding ease, and hopefully keep the cover proud of the text block sufficiently. If it serves it's purpose, templating upgrades to wood material and the ole Dremel earns it's keep.