Rhodia vs Leuchtturm1917: Which Notebook Wins for Fountain Pen Writers?

I’ve filled over 400 fountain pen notebooks in the last decade, and the Rhodia vs Leuchtturm1917 debate comes up every single time I recommend paper to a fellow collector. After burning through dozens of each, here’s my unfiltered take: Rhodia wins for pure writing performance, but Leuchtturm1917 wins for daily carry and organization.

The Core Difference: Paper Philosophy

Rhodia builds notebooks around their legendary 80gsm Clairefontaine paper—the same smooth, bright white stock that’s been the gold standard since 1934. Every Rhodia Webnotebook prioritizes ink performance above everything else.

Leuchtturm1917 takes a different approach. Their 80gsm paper is good—not legendary—but they compensate with pre-numbered pages, a table of contents, archive stickers, and dated editions. It’s a notebook system, not just paper.

Paper Performance Head-to-Head

Factor	Rhodia	Leuchtturm1917
Smoothness	Glassy smooth, almost no feedback	Slight tooth, pleasant texture
Showthrough	Minimal, even with wet nibs	Noticeable with saturated inks
Bleedthrough	Rare (only with extremely wet pens)	Occasional with broad/stub nibs
Dry Time	3-5 seconds (longer due to coating)	2-4 seconds (slightly faster absorption)
Sheen Display	Excellent on smooth surface	Good, but less pronounced
Shading	Moderate (coating limits absorption)	Better depth and variation

When Rhodia Is the Better Choice

You Write With Wet, Broad, or Flex Nibs

My Pilot Custom 823 with a FA nib absolutely destroys Leuchtturm paper—feathering, bleedthrough, the works. On Rhodia, it’s flawless. If you’re running wet Japanese nibs or anything broader than a Western medium, Rhodia’s paper coating is your safety net.

You Prioritize Ink Expression

Sheen chasers, listen up: Rhodia’s dot grid notebooks let Organic Studio Nitrogen and Diamine Aurora Borealis sing. The coated paper surface shows every shimmer and color shift that Leuchtturm’s more absorbent stock mutes.

You Want Zero Bleedthrough Guarantee

For two-sided notes where you can’t afford ghosting, Rhodia is the only answer. I use it for client sketches and design annotations where both sides of the page need to be pristine.

When Leuchtturm1917 Is the Better Choice

You Need Organization Features

Those pre-numbered pages and table of contents aren’t gimmicks—they’re game-changers for indexing. When I need to reference a meeting note from three months ago, my Leuchtturm lets me flip straight there. My Rhodia requires scanning every page.

You’re a Leftie or Fast Writer

Rhodia’s longer dry time is a smudge machine for left-handed writers. Leuchtturm’s paper absorbs faster, making it more practical for quick journaling or note-taking where you’re not waiting for every line to dry.

You Value Notebook Longevity

Leuchtturm’s binding consistently outlasts Rhodia in my field tests. After 6 months of daily carry, my Rhodia Webnotebooks show spine stress and loose pages. The Leuchtturm thread-bound construction holds tight for years.

Format and Layout Considerations

Rhodia’s dot grid has 5mm spacing—perfect for precise technical drawing and consistent handwriting. Leuchtturm’s dots are slightly larger at 5.5mm, which I find too spacious for small handwriting.

Leuchtturm offers dated daily planners and specialized formats (bullet journal edition, music staff paper). Rhodia sticks to blank, lined, grid, and dot variations across fewer sizes.

Page count matters: standard Rhodia Webnotebook has 192 pages, while Leuchtturm A5 hardcovers have 249 numbered pages. That’s 57 more pages of writing space.

Price Reality Check

As of 2026, expect to pay $20-25 for a Rhodia A5 Webnotebook and $22-28 for a comparable Leuchtturm1917. The difference is negligible, but per-page cost favors Leuchtturm due to higher page count.

Both brands hold up to refill frustration better than cheap alternatives. I’ve wasted more money on $8 notebooks with garbage paper than I’d ever spend on proper stock.

The Hybrid Solution I Actually Use

Here’s my honest setup: Rhodia for fountain pen testing and ink swatches, Leuchtturm for daily work notes and project journals. I keep a Rhodia Rhodiarama on my desk for pen reviews and a Leuchtturm in my bag for meetings.

Stop overthinking this. Buy one of each, fill 20 pages in both, and your own handwriting will tell you which to commit to.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Rhodia or Leuchtturm handle iron gall inks better?

Rhodia’s coating resists iron gall corrosion slightly better, but both handle modern formulations like R&K Salix without issue. I’ve had 5-year-old iron gall entries in both brands with no paper degradation.

Which notebook has better binding quality?

Leuchtturm1917 uses thread binding that lies flatter and lasts longer. Rhodia Webnotebooks use a hybrid binding that’s good but shows wear faster with heavy use.

Can you use Tomoe River paper substitutes in either brand?

Neither brand offers Tomoe River paper natively, but Rhodia’s performance comes closest to TR’s ink resistance. If you want actual Tomoe River, look at Taroko Design notebooks instead.

Which notebook is better for pencil and ballpoint use?

Leuchtturm1917 wins here. The slight tooth in the paper gives pencils better grip and control. Rhodia’s ultra-smooth surface is optimized for fountain pens at the expense of pencil performance.

Do either brands offer A6 pocket sizes?

Yes, both brands make A6 hardcovers. Leuchtturm’s pocket notebook includes all the organizational features (numbered pages, index), while Rhodia’s A6 Webnotebook is just scaled-down paper quality without extras.

My Final Verdict

If you only buy one: get the Leuchtturm1917 A5 hardcover in dot grid. It’s 85% as good for fountain pens while being 200% more useful as an actual notebook.

If you’re serious about collecting and testing pens: keep Rhodia on hand for ink-heavy work and challenging nibs. The paper performance justifies the organizational sacrifices.

Neither notebook will disappoint. Both are light-years ahead of Moleskine, Field Notes, and generic journals. The real question isn’t which is better—it’s which matches how you actually write.