I just got a 24'' roll this morning so here are my feelings:
(printing with a HP Z3200)
-A little thinner than the gold silk, but almost feels a little like a real fb paper. "Reminiscent of darkroom prints" (cf ilford website) is maybe a little too much, but we're getting closer...
-It is indeed a little whiter (both in terms of colour and density).
-It is a lot smoother than the gold silk: no more pearl-ish surface (I don't know where the 'silk' side of the gold mono might be..).
I calibrated and profiled using Ilford's tips (preset: HP everyday pigment satin). After a few tests I ended up at 105 in both ink limit and gloss optimizer.
I printed a very dark/contrast B&W picture that looks pretty good. I compared it with the same picture on the Gold Silk. The differences are very few and very little.. The mono one is cooler and the paper white is indeed whiter, but apart from the surface texture, the two are very close. The mono seems to give less bronzing, but there is still a hard break between highlights and true whites under oblique light. It looks a little bit better when tweating the preset and pushing the amount of gloss optimizer.
Being thinner, I guess the mono have less curl problems. Anyway it warps (?) under huge ink amounts just like its older brother...
I am a big Gold printer (3000+ sqft over the past 2 years) and I like it despite its few flaws. In my case the mono may be a nice alternative to the Harman Gloss Baryta that I don't appreciate much..
(by the way colour pictures look great on it, too ..)
Due to its semi-glossy surface, protective sprays (I use Hahnemuhle's) seem longer to dry, but it works just the same.
Still a few tests to run before selling prints with confidence..
(sorry for my broken english, we don't know how to teach foreign languages here in france..)