Hi,

Pelikan M400 is my daily writer pen for almost a year now fitted with an XF(stock) nib. Hoping that I can smooth the nib, I tweaked it by using a very fine grit. I used to repair my own nib with no problems(very minor ink flow adjustments only) but this time I messed up. After smoothening a few times my XF nib wrote a rather thick line. Heck, boiled with frustration I just played with my nib instead. Beleive it or not I made my XF write like a stub nib (at least I made it write smooth). Still, the nib is writable and I often use it for signing and quick notes. Now I learned my lesson the hard way.

Since i'm an XF nib writer and instead of buying a new stock XF Pel nib, I was leaning through a custom Binder flexible XF or XXF nib. So anyone has/had a chance to use his flex nibs? Do you think that an XXF flex nib would be too scratchy and thin lined and vulnerable if used daily?

Thanks

I have a Binder full flex XXF and it is not scratchy at all and has plenty of line variation. I use it in rotation but quite a bit of the time!

I think the first question when the "flex" comes up is "can you write with a flex nib?" Most of us can not and will never be able to develop the skill necessary to properly control a flexible nib. There are reasons why flex nibs are uncommon in the wild and stiff fines are common.

I would go with, and I am seriously considering, a Binder or comprable XXF stiff nib.

This brings up a question that's been pestering me. Is a Binder flex comparable to vintage flex? Or is it more like the Emotica/Falcon level of flex? When I asked John Mottishaw about getting a Falcon that he'd added extra flex to, he said it would be comparable to an Emotica. Which ain't all that flexy.

I could have saved myself a lot of time and hassle if all I needed to do was buy a pen from Richard.

But "can you write with a flex nib" is an important question. It's relevant to "true" flex, but I don't think folks who are used to fountain pens would have any trouble writing with a semiflex or modern flex. Heck, you need to bear down like you would with a ballpoint to see any line variation in modern flex anyway. So even if Richard will make a full flex, a little bit of communication with him should help someone find a level of flex they can write with.

Good point RLTodd! That makes me think twice before going for a flex. But I apply a light pressure when writing. Hope that would help to control a flex nib.

Hi Splicer,

That is the question why I am intrigued with a Binder Flex.

regards

These are, IMO, questions best directed to Richard himself, who, I am absolutely sure, will not attempt to sell you anything which won't work with the way you describe your writing to him.

Ultimately I agree, but I'd like to hear from people who have Binder flex as well as vintage and other things to provide points of reference. There is almost no standard language when describing pen widths or flexibility, so the more information we can get the better.

I have an EF that writes like an M. I sent it to Richard and he wrote back that it already wrote like an XXF but that if I wanted he could grind it to XXXF. I figured I must have sent him the wrong pen or based my assumptions on a fat-spreading ink like Polar Black, so I had him send it back without working on it. It came back to me, and it lays down a line like an M (well, a Japanese M anyway) even with known-well-behaving ink. nibs.com makes it sound like the Emotica is a full-flex pen, and it's nowhere near.

I'm not saying there's dishonesty or bad judgment in either of these examples, and I don't claim that either is a typical experience--I have the greatest respect for Richard Binder and John Mottishaw. I'm just saying it is very difficult to communicate about the characteristics of fountain pens without points of reference.

Splicer,
You should write a line with Richard's beloved Waterman ink using a pen/rapidograph that leaves a linewidth you desire. Send him the sample with the pen you want altered. Then, he'll know what you want.

That's what I'll probably do, but it only solves the specific case, it doesn't mean that hearing from people who have Binder flex pens wouldn't be helpful. My case was just an illustration of the difficulty of communicating without common reference.

Though I'm skeptical that waterman ink would work in a rapidograph, which is designed for india ink. Still, yes, when I send it back, I'll do so with samples.

As was said you are going to have to talk with the craftsmen to get the information you want.

My two cents on this subject.......

As I understand it, at this point in time, if you want the very flexible fountain pen nib, referred to as the "wet noodle" you have to get one of the remaining vintage nibs. ( I understand few were made, and many have been over flexed and permanently destroyed) I get the impression that modern nib designs (the alloys & architecture) can only be safely modified so far in flexibility before they become unforgiving to excess pressure (bend or break).

Currently my understanding is that use of even the standard flex, much less the extreme flex, requires some training and a very good hand to do anything with. I really doubt if they were ever intended for anyone other than professional penman (the for pay scribes and engrosses), calligraphers, and artists.

Being one of that class of person, I'm quite interested in getting a pen that has good flex that I don't have to dip in an inkbottle every few seconds. A two-dollar dip pen seems to have no competition from two hundred or two thousand dollar fountain pens in this regard. I hope that I'm wrong.

Why not send Richard an example from a dip pen (or, better still, a range of examples from dip pens) and have him tell you what he can and can't achieve for a modern Pelikan (or Namiki or Omas or ...) pen?

Splicer,

In my conversations with John Mottishaw, he indicated that the best modern candidate for a flex nib was the older, 14k, Pelikan M250/400 nib, since the 14k M800 nibs are no longer available. I also spoke with John about Pilot's FA nib on the 743, and he indicated that he was not a fan of the side cut-outs on the nib because it weakened the integrity of the nib too much (not his exact wording but my recollection of the gist of it). I purchased one of the last 14k M800 nibs that John had and had him modify it to be XF, extra flexy, which the M250/400 would approximate if similarly modified. I don't have a scanner but I could send you a writing sample if you are interested. I have been very happy with this nib - using it for Spencerian style writing. Due to its cost with customization, I don't use it as a daily writer; that's why I am interested in another one, the M250/400 size, for daily use. I too am curious about Richard's flex nibs. I have several of his .6mm stubs that I enjoy very much, but have no first hand knowledge or experience with his flex nibs.

Regards,

Greg~

Japanese sizes are usually much finer than the modern American/European sizes. Richard has a PDF on his site that shows his nib sizes in fractions of an mm along with examples that are pretty reliable if you print it at 100% on a laser printer. (On screen isn't good enough because screen resolution is low.) Of course, inks and papers can still make fountain pens write differently but at least Richard specifies his standard ink so you can test with that to compare to your nibs.

Yes, it is (I recently bought a vintage Waterman from Richard Binder; he described it as a "wet noodle", which is why I was willing to pay the asking price, but while the nib is superb in every way, I doubt I would have called it more than semi-flex; certainly not more than full flex. But it's a marvelous pen anyway, so for now I'll be keeping it). The terminology isn't even used consistently from seller to seller (e.g. Gary Lehrer seems to describe a nib that flexes even slightly as "flexible", moving up the scale to XXXflexible or some such to describe full flex, a reasonable enough approach, but it still ends up being rather subjective).

As for what nibs.com says about the Emotica, all they say on their site (now, anyway) is "[t]he titanium nib is the most flexible one we have seen in the past 40 years from OMAS." Not having ever met an Omas that's more than about 10 years old, that means nothing to me (I don't read it as implying they're full-flex, but that hardly matters), but by chance yesterday I had occasion to write with both an Emotica and an Ogiva (albeit merely in a store - I couldn't do extensive comparisons). The Emotica nib feels softer, but in terms of the marks left on the page as a result of flexing the nib, I doubt I could tell which were written by which. At most, semi-flex.

And as for Richard's flexed Pelikan nibs, I don't own one but have written with them at pen shows. They don't feel quite the same as the better vintage flex nibs, but one thing his XXF nibs have in common with, say, a Waterman Pink nib, is very fine hairlines (unfortunately I can't remember how they compare for "return"), something you can't say of any modern nib (that's flexible) out-of-the-box. (I've seen pretty impressive copperplate/spencerian script written with Richard's creations.)

Simon

I think that this seriously depends on the nib, an not just on differences in individual skills.

Personally, I cannot write normally with most flex nibs. However, the vintage Conway Stewart nibs and the modern Danitrio flexnib are notable exceptions.

So my suggestion would be to speak to Richard about these nibs, as well as to other persons who have these specific nibs, before jumping to the conclusion that you will or will not be able to use them.

I am a bit late to this thread but I'll chime in with my 2 cents. Disclaimer: I am not an expert at flex and I'm still looking for a good vintage flex pen.

That said I recently bought a Binder XF/XXF duo nib full flex and I got an Arco Milord with a Portico F nib (14kt) modified for some flex.

Keep in mind it is comparing apple to orange since the nib/feed unit of these 2 is very different in design and in material (plastic for the Pel and ebonite for the Omas feed).

Here's my finding:

The full-flex Binder nib requires quite a bit more strenght to flex, not having been told I would have thought it was semi-flex. On the other hand the size of the M250 nib is smaller than the Portico so I'm sure it limits what can be done, i.e. the amount of material that can be safely removed and the natural springiness coming from the length of the tines.

The Binder nib has exceptional flow control, I can flex a lot and let go and get and XF line right there. The way the nib/feed react to flex is exemplary but it requires enough strenght to be tiring for the light pressure writer that I am. On the other hand the Mottishawed nib flow is problematic after flexing I get a LOAD of ink and so it removes much line variations I would get I had requested a relatively wet nib so the fault here might be mine for getting what I asked for the nib will be going back and I'll be able to give an update afterwards.

Here are some pictures showing a bit of these nibs (please excuse my in "retraining" handwriting). You'll see that the more the page progress the worse my handwriting gets due to getting tired:
http://picasaweb.google.com/PenWritings/FlexExemples

One more thing to consider, the body of the Milord beeing much larger it may provide more of a lever effects hence why the Arco felt easier to flex than my Binder XF flex nib in my M620.

A short description of the Binder XF would be "striking line variation"
for the Mottishawed Arco it would be "smooth and wet flex"

The Mottishawed nib is much more pleasurable to flex, more progressive and less tiring on the end so I'm especially curious to see how it will turn out after beeing adjusted.

I had never used XF or finer nib. The Binder XF/XXF has a lot of feedback, much more than I expected, but I guess it makes sense because there is not much tipping material left with a nib of this size! When debating which size to order I was debating between an XXF/XXXF duo full flex or an XF/XXF duo full flex and went with the later. From what I can tell the difference between upside down (XXF) and (XF) is minimal, I can see it, but there is not much difference in term of smoothness so I would say go with either they will be equivalent except the XXF will give you a slightly lighter line, slightly. I am sure that XF/XXF/XXXF etc experts can appreciate better than I their differences.

I forgot to add that an Emotica is very high on my wish list....!

I also forgot to add a little bit. As it is I can write all day with the Binder XF nib without getting any variation, the efforts requires to see flex makes it a conscious thing.

When discussing this with Richard and he mentionned that with the gold alloy currently in used today it is impossible to achieve the level of flex vintage nib can gives.

In my experience, that's true of most vintage flex nibs too, especially those with good "return" - provided you're capable of writing with next to no pressure in the first place, you get a very even (if usually extremely fine) line, leaving aside the pooling/shading these typically wet nibs usually create. (This is true of most of the pens I used for a flex comparison I posted a couple of months ago, at any rate.) Perhaps a definition of a wet noodle would include the near-impossibility of doing this... (I have one or two pens which can't help spreading their tines at the slightest hint of pressure, including any downstroke). Someone who writes with very little pressure should have no problem at all writing with a flexible nib, provided it's not a wet noodle. The difficulty lies elsewhere - learning the technique required to do, say, copperplate; but that's a rather different sort of difficulty.

Simon

Reading this thread, it seems people put flex into two categories: a little flex, like stock modern Pelikan nibs; and wet-noodle flex, aka "vintage flex."

I see "wet noodle" as something quite different from "vintage flex." I've a 400NN that has quite a bit of flex, but it isn't a wet noodle, and thus you don't have to be extremely careful in using it to keep yourself from going to F to 5B. If I'm writing lightly, standing up into a notebook, I see only a tiny bit of flex; when I'm sitting down and am writing at a lower angle, I see quite a bit more. I'm not applying a ton of pressure, and I don't think I'm about to spring the nib. This seems common with many vintage nibs- I imagine they were "semi-flex" in those days. I see this with steel nibs and gold nibs.

The biggest advantage, IMHO, is that these vintage nibs have great return; the modern pens I've used with some flex often catch on return if you aren't writing really slowly, or turn the pen as you release pressure. It drives me nuts, and is one of the main reasons I find myself looking almost only at vintage pens these days.

Aaron

Some people can't write, but for those of us who thought 'digital' had to do with fingers, and who learned with fountain pens, a flex-nib is a treat, allowing MUCH more expression than a mere uniform line.

A more correct reasoning as to the supposed emergence of 'nail' nibs over flex-nibs is A. COST-welcome to stamped steel nibs., and B. 'Nail' nibs made good carbon copies-a flex-nib will not.

Back when only the Library had a 'Xerox' machine, carbon paper was a mainstay.

Flex-nibs; if you can't write well, you WON'T like them.

Blue Fingers