Talk:Moleskine

At around 23:54, 21 Nov 2004 UTC, Pedant found the following in the sandbox:

Moleskine (mol-a-skeen'-a) is a style of notebook claimed to be used by famous artists and writers, such as Picasso, Matisse, Hemingway, and most famously Bruce Chatwin. A moleskine notebook is bound in oilcloth-covered cardboard and has an elastic band to hold pages closed. The notebook lays flat when opened. A moleskine notebook has a romantic image as a traveler's notebook of choice, mostly due to Chatwin's heavy endorsement during his own many travels. (He used to get all of his notebooks from a small store in Paris.)

The modern moleskines are manufactured by Modo & Modo of Italy.

Chatwin's original source of notebooks dried up in 1986, when the owner of the stationer where he purchased them died. The modern moleskine is fashioned after Chatwin's descriptions of the notebooks he used and are not a direct descendant. It is not clear that any of the famous writers and artists Modo & Modo claim used "moleskines" used the same style of notebook that Chatwin did, though there is evidence that they used some kind of "pocket notebook."

Moleskines have an almost cult-like following today, and at around US$11 for a single 3.5x5.5" 192 page lined notebook, they would almost have to.

==References==

==External links==

==See also==

Moleskin

Comments from 203.216.105.47

Why are this company's products being advertised in the Wikipedia?

The whole myth of the "moleskine" is marketing BS. This site has details: [1]

Indented line Kleenex is a brand name often used as a generic term for facial tissue. If people want to use "moleskine" to mean "notebook", let them. --98.240.153.125 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Moleskine marketing people turned out to have written this entry.

The term "moleskine" is not a generic term for a sort of notebook. It's a trademark of this particular company. Bruce Chatwick did not use a "moleskine"--he used a notebook. All references to "Moleskine" should be capitalized. Nobody shoule be credited with using or liking Moleskine unless they actually used this particular company's brand of notebook.

-- 203.216.105.47, 19:16, 5 Jun 2005 UTC

I just finished reading Bruce Chatwin's Songlines. He talks at some length about Moleskine notebooks and names the brand specifically. I came here to find out what the product is and I am very pleased to see the extensive coverage and full details. There are many perfectly valid pages about consumer products in Wikipedia. This is one of them. The fact that the original manufacturer died and the product was revived by another company using descriptions by Chatwin and other writers does not invalidate the article, especially since the fact that this happened is prominently mentioned. Jules Siegel 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This product is being "advertised" because it is popular enough and used by enough people to warrant its own article. I believe the article contains sufficient criticism of Modo & Modo's advertising. If you do not agree, please feel free to change the article (though keep in mind that POV edits will be changed or reverted). --bdesham 01:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that Moleskine warrants its own page. There are enough fan sites and supporters of its productst that it has formed its own little circle. This is comparable to other people who enjoy cars and discuss the horsepower and model and prices, though if people started forming charts of information of a companys car models and pricing, i dont think we could accuse it of advertisement, for it is being factual, just as this is. And is not this entire project to be as factual and truthfull as it can be? arent we as contributors supposed to supply as much info on the world as correctly as possible? maybe i was wrong and we're only supposed to put in what others see correct and leave out what others just dont like. (unsigned)

I think the article is good and far from being an advertisement. I've always faintly disliked the Moleskine stuff as being precious, but felt it was an unreasonable prejudice on my part. This article has shown me that my dislike is justified. Cooke 08:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the snobby comments here. Sure Moleskine is just a re-creation of a classic *STYLE* of notebook, more than its actually the official *BRAND* that Chatwin, Picasso, and Hemingway used. Sure the internal pamphlet is ambiguous regarding the precise nature of this fact. Who cares? They might use slightly cheap paper... but... hurm... okay... I'm starting to talk myself out of liking their product. The point is, while being maybe $4, or $5 dollars too expensive per notebook, they're still damn fine little books. If they provide the added benefit of allowing a burgeoning writer to identify with Hemingway, or a starving artist with Picasso... what kind of asshole buzzkill are you to think you have a duty, let along a right to piss on that parade?

I care! Deceitful people like you are slowly dragging everything under. What right do you have to sacrifice reality at the altar of self-esteem? And how dare you invoke the "starving artist", no less, when the price of this notebook is inflated precisely because of this ambiguous pamphlet! If more people cared, maybe young artists wouldn't be wasting their money on tarted-up notebooks when they could have been spending it on food! Do you think there isn't a social cost to this kind of marketing which undermines the consumer as a so-called rational actor?

Do none of you realize you're fighting pretension by acting pretentious? Do none of you see the irony? Worst case scenario... its an eleven dollar notebook. A hobo begging for change out front of Borders can afford a spare $11 now and then. This isn't so bad. 207.154.101.137 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree with the who-cares thing; what's hilarious is that I *knew* there would be a long talk page on this. This brand has apparently gotten big with the GTD crowd (or at least, with some of them -- I bet htere are others who are "anti-Moleskine"). Luxury products are luxury products, and I will say I'm surprised this is the first time I've really seen a "commodotized" luxury notebook (I've seen pretty cool handmade journals and whatnot). The best thing is, no matter whether you criticize this or defend it -- if even belong to the "community of Moleskine supporters" (I assume you do this by wearing some kind of ribbon, perhaps an acid-free one? Fine Corinthian leather? I snorted so loudly I got a jumpy look from anxiety lady here when I read about how some artists and whatnot are supporters. I assume its ok for me to duly note that some artistic people are also not supporters. Or...

Point: Sometimes Wikipedia is funny, and rules don't work. Thank you all, though, for this -- and to whomever intends to angrily delete what I just wrote, remember: you're the guy who defended the honor of a high-end notebook. I mean, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.159 (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moleskine in Popular Culture

This section is unencyclopaedic and serves little value in the article, particularly as it is becoming home to little more than speculative commentary; indeed the most recent contribution specifically stated that the volume in question was not a Moleskine! I would suggest that it is removed, Chatwin and Van Gogh are reasonable to discuss in text, being associated with the marketing campaign, the rest is superfluous.ALR 08:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this has been a month with no response. Given that there is no support for leaving them in I'm removing the popular culture section.ALR 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

~~The company website~~ A retailer of Moleskine products says "( mol-a-skeen'-a)". We say "/mɔleˈskine/". I'm not an IPA expert and the "vɛnəˈzwelə" example from WP:PRON at least convinvced me that the syllabification might be right, but these are still not the same ... right? Originalname37 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Guides--a curious normalising affair

On first glance, it seems that the « City Guides » edition is quite interesting and allows the user to write their own guide to the city. But on further thought, especially after seeing how Modo & Modo labels the various pages for us, I cannot help but think that there is a particular way that we are encouraged to encounter a city with sections labelled as Food, Drinks, People, Places, and each of these sections having subsections. Yes, there are several non-labelled areas but the labelled areas are more prominent.

Thinking back to my recent trip to Paris, food, drinks, and people were not the way I encountered Paris. As a student on a budget, food mostly was sandwiches and groceries brought from one of the supermarché. As for drinks, nothing but water and tea for me. And as for people, I really didn't interact in any deep way with most people except one inhabitant of Paris. The other people were visitors to the city and they were only brief encounters. Rather, the way I encountered Paris was by walking through various segments of the city and just using my eyes to absorb the scene and look and sense.

My observations are not necessarily categorisable into "food", "drinks", "people" and rather are a mumble jumble of thoughts and experiences which are much better written in a blank journal rather at first trying to impose a pre-existing hierarchical category on them.

I really wonder: who buys these « City Guides » and how do they really use them?

For me, I'd rather just buy a blank journal (usually a Moleskine) and then create my own journal of my experiences by pasting maps, timetables, ticket stubs, and handwritten observations. I don't need a pre-printed and pre-categorised « City Guides » for that. It seems rather uncreative and formulaic. --71.146.29.69 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you DIDN'T identify with Paris in regards to its "food", "drinks", or "people"... it would seem like you would have *MORE* use for the Parisian city guide, not less. Its a city most famous for these three things, and you can hardly blame any city guide for giving recommendations/directions to these wonderful qualities of the city.

I think you're mistaking the city guides for a standard journal. No one is saying that if you keep a city guide, you're not allowed to keep a journal, or vice versa. The city guide is for helping you find good food, interesting shows, wonderful landmarks, etc. The journal is the place where you express yourself about how you felt about your experiences. They're two entirely different things. Its a "write your own guide" sorta thing, because theres room to make notations about your experiences... which restaurant has the best food... which route is quickest during the times you're most likely to be taking the streets... which cafe has the cutest girls while you're taking a break. That sort of thing. You perhaps had time to aimlessly wander the streets of Paris... most visitors don't. Most visitors to any of the worlds greatest cities are on a rigid time table. Two days, three nights. Seven days, six nights. Whatever. They don't have the unprecedented privilege you seemed to have enjoyed by simply immersing yourself into the culture.

Lucky you.

Most people have a certain number of days, to do a certain number of things, and at least a little bit of structure can maximize the experience. These are the people for whom the Moleskine city guides were created.

You enjoyed Paris in a truly wonderful way. I envy the trip you've made. I hope you understand how unique an opportunity that was, and how dissimilar it is to the Parisian holiday most people will take. For whatever reason, you've experienced something most of us never will. The true Bohemian vacation. For the rest of us, more than a few hours spent walking aimlessly means we have to choose whether to leave Paris without visiting the Louvre, or the Eiffel Tower. Structure means both can be enjoyed, and thats the sort of "uncreative", and "formulaic" vacation most people spend their life dreaming about.

Simply because you've had an opportunity few will have, please don't assume your experience is the baseline norm for the average European vacation. 207.154.101.137 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement tag

This page was tagged as being written as an advertisement. There was no reasoning for this offered here, and I think it is a fairly neutral article, even including a "Controversy" section. Therefore, I removed the tag. --Pstanton (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moleskine and Rue de l’Ancienne Comédie

The stationery shop in Rue de l’Ancienne Comédie is a fiction of the writer Chatwin. There has never been such a shop. I think that should be mentioned in the article, which gives the false impression that the stationery shop in Rue de l’Ancienne Comédie is a historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.43.77 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate

Moleskine Asia says, after referencing the Milan head office, 'Since the year 2010 Moleskine has stopped using the covering material containing the Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. This means that all the products that were made since 2010 are all PVC free.

The new materials have been tested and they are perfectly compliant with proposition 65'.

Here is contact information:

Mickey Chan, Administration and Orders Assistant, Working Unit Ltd., M/F. Chak Tong Building, 16-18 St Francis Yard, Wanchai, Hong Kong, Tel: +852-2529 1163, Fax: +852-3015-8519, Email: mickey@workingunit.com

NantucketNoon (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]