Mead 59878 Cambridge Stiff-Back 计划垫，四褶褶，21.59 x 27.94 厘米，白色，每张垫子 80 张
Plan Pad 具有坚硬的构造和专业的铰链盖。 重磅，特殊表面纸采用四褶设计，经过微穿孔，清洁撕裂。 垫子包含 80 张。 通用信息制造商：ACCO 品牌 公司 制造商零件编号：59878 制造商网站地址：http://www.acco.com 产品名称：Cambridge Stiff-Back Quad Plan Pad Packaged Quantity: 80 / Pad 产品信息床单数量：80 张 类型：打印纸张颜色：混色床单尺寸：字母 - 21.59 厘米 x 27.94 厘米 套颜色：*蓝 特点：厚重，微穿孔，坚硬
|5 星 (0%)||0%|
|4 星 (0%)||0%|
|3 星 (0%)||0%|
|2 星 (0%)||0%|
|1 星 (0%)||0%|
All share the following features:
- Ruled on both sides
- Tear-off from top
- Cardboard backing
AMPAD: This is by far the poorest quality pad of the bunch. Folded/wrinkled sheets, misprinted lines, misaligned grid (front-back on a single sheet as well as from sheet-to-sheet in the pad). That problem is compounded by the paper’s weight/thickness, which allows more transparency. That might be a good thing if you’re tracing, but even the lines from the back side of the sheet show through, thus obscuring the front-side's lines, and making tracing more difficult. The only good thing is how stiff the backing is (tie with Mead/Cambridge).
MEAD CAMBRIDGE: This was my runner-up pad. More sheets than Mr. Pad, gray lines make illustrations standout more than the brighter blue lines of Mr. Pad. Good number of sheets per pad, and very stiff back. It also features a fold-over cardboard cover, which none of the other pads have, which could be good for preventing smudges of drawings or confidentiality. Beneficially, that fold-over cover can be removed (it has perforations to tear it off).
MR. PAD: The clarity of the lines is good (strong). For my purposes, that's fine, though others may want their drawing to stand out more from the lines, in which case a gray or more subtle rule might be preferable. The backing isn’t as thick or robust as the others, but if you’re using the pad in a portfolio (like me), then this may not be a big deal. I also like how the sheets were cut so that the edges of the pad line up with the end of a square. No other pads have that attention to detail, and it just makes this pad look nicer than the others which all have partial squares at their edges.
AMAZON BASICS: I have no idea where they came up with the size of the squares. Six per fifteen-sixteenths of an inch (or five per 2 centimeter, but not exactly). Maybe I’m missing something here. The thickness of the back cardboard is nearly the same as Ampad and Cambridge, but it’s not as rigid/stiff.
For my use, I decided the Mr. Pad was the best way to go. I’ll be using the pad professionally, and want the tools of my trade to reflect how I practice: With precision. I don't need lots of sheets in a pad, since I less frequently hand-write notes and illustrations compared to dictation or typed.
Highly recommend this purchase.
This notepad comes with a solid back that is fine without a clipboard, but I used one to hold down the flip up pages once I got deeper into the book.
I've seen a few reviews about perforation issues, and while I did rip a few page corners, generally if you take your time it is a clean rip... rather this than have pages fall out.
What I love most about this particular notepad compared to others is the grid lines are not too thin, not too thick, just right. You cannot see lines through the current page like some note pads. Also, I use thick gel pens (Piolet G2) and they do not bleed through.