Yes, Don, thanks for that. Here's the key section from Don's website:
"The specifications for true archival paper are --
"Manufactured with only high alpha cellulose pulp from purified wood fiber with 25% cotton or greater
"Buffered with calcium carbonate 2-3% alkaline reserve, pH 9 ±0.5
"Passes the PAT (Photographic Activity Test) ISO IT 18916 (formerly ISO 14523 ANSI IT9.16)
"Sulfur content is less than 0.0008% reducible sulfur
"Lignin content is tested by TAPPI 236 cm-85 and has a Kappa number of less than five"
"This quality paper is costly, the costs for 8-1/2 x 11 paper can range from 15-18 cents per page. Compared to the typical 1-2 cents for the inexpensive 'acid free' paper found at your local office supply store and you can see why some folks gravitate towards the lower quality paper . . . ."
And that tells you all you need to know about why typical stamp collectors go to Staples and buy "acid free" paper. They don't want to spend a lot of money. They don't have any idea where they'd find genuine archival paper (and it's too expensive if they do find it). Staples or Office Depot is much easier to deal with. And so on. Offhand, I don't know of any seller of archival paper, either locally or online. I'm sure they exist. This is one major reason why I collect not on office supply store paper but on real album pages from major album manufacturers. Even their paper may not be truly "archival," though. I don't like 8.5 x 11" size album pages, don't like three-ring binders, and I"m suspicious of the quality of office supply store paper. But there's nothing I can do about the fact that print-your-own albums are very popular and many collectors see them as a way to save money. You pays your money, and you makes your choice.
For comparison, blank (or even printed) album pages from major stamp publishers can cost from 50˘ a page up to a few dollars a page. An annual supplement from Scott might have 10 pages and cost $15. That's $1.50 a page. A set of pages from Scott might have 70 pages and cost $50. That's 70˘ a page. And that's at the cheap end of the album spectrum. Schaubek, Davo, and Lighthouse pages are well more costly than that, costing a few dollars a page, at least. Part of this is whether a page has mounts or not. Even their blank pages are about as expensive. If I remember correctly, White Ace album pages used to cost $1.00-2.00 a page before they closed up shop.
I think of $1.00 a page as my upper limit and 50˘ a page as what I'd like to pay -- or less. That rules out Lighthouse albums (unless they're used) and some others. Scott pages will work, though.
The one bright spot I've found is blank
Schaubek pages. They retail for between 30˘ and 50˘ a blank page, depending on border, background (quadrille or not), and whether they're "all blank" with no border or not. That's a stone-cold deal for high quality large album pages. But are they "archival"? I imagine so. But I don't know. Their hole-punch is for their own binders, but they can also be used in springback binders and punched to fit others, as well. I know because I've done that, punching Schaubek blank pages for 22-ring binders. It works really well. Just a tip. No charge.

By the way, typical office supply store cover stock at Staples comes in 200-250 sheet packages for the 67 lb. variety, and sells for about $18 a package. That's 7-8˘ a page, not 1-2˘ a page which would, I imagine, be for ordinary printer paper. Don't use ordinary printer paper to make a stamp album. Please.
So the range in cost for blank paper seems to be:
Around 7-8˘ a page for cover stock from Staples. No extra charge for the acid.
Maybe 30˘ a page for Schaubek blank paper. MIght be "archival"?
Maybe 50˘ a page for Scott blank paper.
$1.00 and up for the other blank paper like Lighthouse, Davo etc.
Linen-hinged and fancy paper is going to cost you at least $2.00 a page, maybe. .
If you can find real "archival quality" paper at a price toward the lower-end of this spectrum, it would be a real bargain. Now if I could just find archival, linen-hinged blank paper for 25˘ a sheet, that would be nice . . . .
