A user's classification of fountain pens, inks, and paper.

[Luca]

Enjoy.

 

Luca

 

The counter for all previous downloads is 167.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Luca

[madman]

Enjoy.

 

Luca

 

The counter for all previous downloads is 167.

 

Forgive my ignorance, Luca. But how do I get to find the attachment to the .pdf file?

[artaddict]

Forgive my ignorance, Luca. But how do I get to find the attachment to the .pdf file?

 

I don't see it either, just the intro paragraph in pdf.

[jmkeuning]

Open Office?

 

 

meh

[Phthalo]

How about some context? An introduction to what these results actually are, or a link to your previous posts wouldn't hurt.

 

The PDF file Luca has attached contains a link to an .ODS file, which is a OpenDocument Spreadsheet created by the open-source office suite, OpenOffice.org. You must download and install the OpenOffice application to see the file inside the .PDF document attached in the first post.

 

I personally run MS Office 2003 and 2007 - nothing would compel me to ever install OpenOffice, and many others will feel the same. If you want people to benefit from and enjoy your efforts here, surely these results could be made available in additional formats?

 

 

 

[Luca]

... From Acrobat Reader 8, click on "View" in the menu, then click on "Navigation Panels", then on "Attachments". You should see the file "classifications.ods". Click on it once, then click on "save" and select your desktop. To see the file, you need either Microsoft Excell with the ods plugin, or OpenOffice. Both are free. I am open minded on formats, but if you have OpenOffice, which I strongly recommend, you can play with the file as you like. On the introduction, I will summarise previous posts and add the introduction in the next release.

 

Thank you for your continued feedback.

 

Luca

 

[Luca]

Although all pen grades are provisional, and adjust as new data comes in, the grades can only be confirmed or decreased. As clear from the next edition, the grades consist in the negative sum of unmet requirements; as they all start from zero, and move downwards, there is no hope that the new data will raise the grade.

 

After adding more data in the past days, only the Conway Stewart LE remained stainding. (Does anybody know the material of their feed? Is it ebonite?) The pen is a bespoke based on the serie 100, it is very nice (to my taste), but has a faulty name: it should either be "the british medical doctors fountain pen", or they should remove the medical logo from it (the PhD doctors are not necessarily meds). So I would never have it. As the standard serie 100 is ugly (still to my taste), either one asks for a bespoke version or has to move on into the limited guarantee area. (The GvFC and Caran d'Ache have the threads of the screw-on-cap on the section, and the Yard-O-Led has the push-on-cap, sorry.) In this area, are the Namiki (Falcon, Bamboo), MontBlanc (145, 144 Sterling Silver Korn Guilloche), Montegrappa NeroUno, Stipula Etruria Nera, and Visconti Opera; nice black pens whose only fault is to have a limited guarantee. New data will sort them out further...

 

Luca

 

[Luca]

And the winner is...

[Luca]

Update, including both the .ods and .xls file formats.

 

Luca

 

[Luca]

Update...

 

P.S. The "pens" section is ordered first by grade, then by price. The top lines are therefore the best pens (by the stated requirements) at the lowest price. Again, the rates will change as new data comes in, and dramatically too. The Conway Steart, previously in the top ten, it is now in the 12th position, and the Nakaya have fallen behind the 20th.---Assuming that at least one pen will survive the selection, which I hope, the true winner will have to pass the final test, being the hand-written survey. As I have no affiliation with any of the sellers, being a plain user, I will give them hell in the numerical selection before committing a single penny.

 

The counter for all previous downloads to date was 346+96=442.

 

 

Edited January 19, 2008 by Luca

[donwinn]

I have Open Office, but not Acrobat 8. I cannot upgrade my Acrobat, because it is my work machine, and belongs to the company. I could open the ODS file if I could see it, but cannot, due to lack of Acrobat 8.

 

Donnie

[Luca]

I have Open Office, but not Acrobat 8. I cannot upgrade my Acrobat, because it is my work machine, and belongs to the company. I could open the ODS file if I could see it, but cannot, due to lack of Acrobat 8.

 

Donnie

 

Hello,

 

it is not clear to me wether you have tried to open it with a previous version.

It should open also with version 7. What version do you have?

 

Luca

[donwinn]

I have Open Office, but not Acrobat 8. I cannot upgrade my Acrobat, because it is my work machine, and belongs to the company. I could open the ODS file if I could see it, but cannot, due to lack of Acrobat 8.

 

Donnie

 

Hello,

 

it is not clear to me wether you have tried to open it with a previous version.

It should open also with version 7. What version do you have?

 

Luca

 

I tried with Acrobat 6, which is the version IT installed on my laptop. It is the full monty, rather than the read only version, and they would prefer I not install any software without their specific permission. And my concern is that if I install a newer version of the reader, it might foul my installation of the full version, this being a Windoze machine.

 

Donnie

[Luca]

You are way out of luck with version 6.

 

On the brighter side, I have experience of mixed acrobat versions,

and I had no problems whatsoever. It is perfectly fine to install

the free reader 8.1 on top. (On a windows XP machine I have both

acrobat 5 full and 8.1 reader, and they are happy together.)

 

P.S. Your sysadmins are lazy fella with no sense of security...

Acrobat 6 is missing all the security updates, and a poisoned file

can put your machine in jeopardy. Always use the latest reader;

it is free, and secure to the last known infection.

 

Luca

 

[Luca]

Update, fourth in a raw.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Luca

[Luca]

Update, fifth in a raw.

 

The .ods and .xls files were not in sync. I am updating to fix this, and a little more. I am hitting the 2MB limit for uploads, and thus I have to drop the .xls file. Sorry.

 

It would be very helpful if every person who submitted a review (indexed by the Noble Savage) would please contribute with a numerical account of the pen (various lengths and other few details; see the PDF for the fields). Plain text is OK. Thank you.

 

Luca

 

 

There is no fifth without sixth...

 

Luca

 

 

Edited January 21, 2008 by Luca

[Luca]

In this update, I improved the aims, results on pens, and the references. I decided to remove the constraint on cost; the costs still appear, but no longer influence the grade. I think this is more democratic, and allows cheaper pens to compete on merit rather than marketing. I lament a difference in price of 70-100 EUR between EU and USA, the USA being cheaper.

 

I think I have identified two or three pens that qualify for my (FPN?) pen of the year 2007-2008, and I am finalizing on their details, although it is proving hard to catch them on the net and people at FPN are not helping very much, possibly due to the OpenDocument files. To meet their difficulty, if this is what it is, I decided to distribute the .XLS file instead of the .ODS. The templates are still in .ODT (OpenDocument Text, aka Open Word), but their content is visible in the PDF file (just browse its pages).

 

I am not sure wether FPN people care at all about this project. I can see the downloads, but I see little or no helping feedback. Perhaps I chose the wrong community? --- I will keep updating the project, but will not post any more. I will keep reading, and answering to personal messages. I will post one last update, at due time, when I will have reached a final decision on the Pen of the Year, and include its hand-written revision in the post.

 

Thanks for all the fish.

 

Luca

Edited January 22, 2008 by Luca

[Luca]

Final update.

 

Thank you all.

Luca

 

[Luca]

(Will somebody shoot me, PLEASE?)

 

Ink update...

 

The counter for all previous downloads at FPN, before the present edition, was 522.

 

 

[Luca]

This is a test template for my hand written reviews. While doing it, I had to face a few problems with devices calibration; I included notes on it. The aim was to match the digital ink sample to the real ink sample; the calibration and the available scanner got me as far as I could.

 

This is the comparison between my ink sample of Waterman Blue-Black and the sample by WritingDesk.co.uk, both core and shaded:

 

my sample: (23.5, 46.7, 64.3) ; (46.3, 69.0, 80.4)

TWD.co.uk: (00.0, 27.5, 84.3) ; (30.2, 51.8, 81.6)

 

The naked eye comparison shows that TWD either used a non opaque paper or enhanced the chroma to pierce the screen of potential customers. The real chroma is the one I have on paper, and thus one could rightly lament false advertising of TWD and other online sellers. I yet have to find an online seller whose digital ink samples correspond to those I have on paper.

 

The second ink sample in the review is a Sheaffer Blue, made in Slovenia. The naked eye comparison of my digital sample and the real sample on paper shows that either the calibrations or the scanner itself are not on their tip-toes. The real sample has more red in it, looking a purplish blue, while the digital sample lacks this emphasis.

 

A consequence of this is, that I have to rework the RGB data in my ink classification, as I trusted the sources more than they deserved. The calibration of one's own materials is very important, as much as devising exacting techniques to use them with profit. I am searching a device to measure the RGB directly from the real ink sample on paper. I am also searching a device to measure the pH. Suggestions are welcome.

 

On the pens, I reviewed my Graf von Faber and a Sheaffer. While trying the Faber in the shop, with MontBlanc Black ink, the tip seemed wet and much broader. I thought the skipping problem depends on the "fine" nib on a less than smooth paper, in addition to Waterman's own sensitivity to the slightest hand oil, but the second test with the Sheaffer proved that the paper is good.

 

Feedback is welcome.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Luca