Why are gold nibs so desirable?

[Glenn-SC]

Lets add to this discussion the fact that stainless steel was not invented until the 1913-1919 time frame (there seems to be disagreement over who and when) and for original nibs, gold was probably the only material choice that had any kind of wear and corrosion resistance.

 

I image that stainless steel was a rather rare, expensive, and hard to use (correctly) back in the 1920s.

Gold was far more well known and had been worked for many many years by that time.

[Ondina]

Lets add to this discussion the fact that stainless steel was not invented until the 1913-1919 time frame (there seems to be disagreement over who and when) and for original nibs, gold was probably the only material choice that had any kind of wear and corrosion resistance.

 

I image that stainless steel was a rather rare, expensive, and hard to use (correctly) back in the 1920s.

Gold was far more well known and had been worked for many many years by that time.

 

You're absolutely correct. There is also the historical -custom- factor to be taken into account.

[MYU]

Stainless steel has also been improved over time... blend of alloys and tempering to improve resistance to rust. These days a good quality stainless steel nib can easily rival a gold nib. It all depends upon the metal quality, design, and finishing. I used to be a "gold nib" snob, but wised up after owning a few stainless steel nibs that are really great.

[vreeves]

Why are gold nibs so much better than nibs made from other materials? Are they more durable? Do they write better? Is it the flex gold has (although many gold nibs are quite stiff)? I have some gold-plated steel nibs (I assume a strictly aesthetic feature) that write as well or better than my gold nibs. So, why is a gold nib so highly prized in a fountain pen?

 

regards,

Blade

 

 

Very strange question to ask! Apart from the luxury of the metal, gold is immune from ink corrosion and last practically forever. Not so steel.

[MYU]

It is not a strange question to ask. Aside from the obvious value of gold, it is a small amount. The original poster goes beyond the thread title asking "Why are gold nibs so much better than nibs made from other materials? Are they more durable? Do they write better?".

 

Yes, gold will outlast steel IF the steel isn't cared for. I've seen plenty of vintage fountain pens with steel nibs from the early 20th century, and the nibs were pristine without any signs of corrosion. If the nib lasts beyond one's lifetime, the question becomes irrelevant.

[AndyH]

The Modulus of Elasticity of gold is approximately 83 GPa and of 304L Stainless Steel is 200 GPa.

The lower the Modulus of Elasticity (the slope of the Stress/Strain curve) the greater the deflection for a given force (as long as the material remain elastic, i.e. until it reaches Yield.).

Therefore, it takes 41.5% (83/200) the force for displacement of gold verses the equivalent nib cross-section of Stainless Steel. And since the yield point isn't reached (i.e. the material is still elastic) the gold or steel with "spring" back.

 

Science wins again!

 

Thank you for posting that. It's always good to know why something behaves the way it does.

 

From my limited understanding of metallurgy, the "springiness" of any physical object is the product of a combination of its thickness (which can be consistent or not, depending on the designer's intent), curvature (the more curve the greater the resistance to deflection), and general shape. From a technical standpoint, I don't see why one couldn't design and produce a flexible piece like a pen nib out of almost any metal with a reasonable level of elasticity. In jewelry making, the custom is to use lower gold-content metals, or even non-gold metals, where return to the previous shape after flexing is especially important. Do you know of any application of any kind that uses gold springs?

 

I think the buyer perception of quality and the relative ease of working gold over steel may account for the preference, but I personally don't see any difference at all between high quality, well-designed gold nibs of today vs. steel. For that matter alloys based on silver, platinum, palladium, titanium, and other metals ought to be equally useful if designed properly. I just don't think that people who value precious resin, fine hardwoods, and other luxury materials in common use today would be willing to pay for as much for a Titanium alloyed nib as a gold one, and buyer appeal is the main factor in manufacturing any consumer product.

 

This whole discussion is one of those that makes me reflect on the quality and advanced production techniques used to make my vintage Esterbrook nibs. That company seems to have been far, far out in front of the curve when it came to making steel nibs that compare favorably to modern products.

 

[ToasterPastry]

A soft metal is not automatically springy.

The Modulus of Elasticity of gold is approximately 83 GPa and of 304L Stainless Steel is 200 GPa.

The lower the Modulus of Elasticity (the slope of the Stress/Strain curve) the greater the deflection for a given force (as long as the material remain elastic, i.e. until it reaches Yield.).

Therefore, it takes 41.5% (83/200) the force for displacement of gold verses the equivalent nib cross-section of Stainless Steel. And since the yield point isn't reached (i.e. the material is still elastic) the gold or steel with "spring" back.

 

But gold nibs are alloyed with nickel and/or copper, which does change their properties from the pure gold. In addition to the wonderful comments here, I can add that nibmeisters tend to prefer gold, since it's more malleable. I've seen some steel nibs from other brands, and can agree, Esterbrook nibs were a top-quality product.

[AndyH]

Toaster Pastry: I agree, and I think the ease of working with the metal applies just as much (maybe more) in a manufacturing setting as in a workshop.

 

In jewelry making, I've made things with a wide variety of metals, and gold is by far the easiest to work - whether machining, finishing, bending, shaping, or soldering. I'm sure that the various gold alloys also translate into easier challenges in various mass production processes as well.

 

Which brings up the question of whether the material cost itself was as big an issue in the golden age of FPs as it might be today? In other words, does the material itself, whether gold or steel, constitute a bigger slice of the cost accounting pie chart? And was the cost differential between raw gold and high quality steel as large as it is today? It seems to me that mass production of high quality alloy steel may have driven down that cost, while the electronic age and legalization/rise of "gold bug" investors driven up the cost of gold?

 

Personally I love the appearance of gold nibs, and although plating a nib with gold is strictly a matter of appearance (unless you're using Superchrome or Iron gall inks!), I prefer the look of the gold-plated over the more aesthetically pure stainless steel.

 

(Great topic all, BTW - my FPN education never ends!)

[Johnny Appleseed]

Fifty years ago, given the state of ink, metallurgy, and the price of gold, the use of gold was an understandable addition to any higher end pen.

 

The tradition of gold nibs actually goes back farther than 50 years ago, more like 150, almost 200. Gold was still considered a necessary part of any higher-end pen 50 years ago, but in 1942, the percentage of gold nibs to steel nibs in the overall fountain pen market was 12% gold, 88% steel.

 

 

The story I've always heard is that gold nibs are supposed to be a bit smoother than an identical steel nib. Having used a few downright buttery steel nibs, I'm not sure that's the case, though it might have been thirty or forty years ago.

 

Nope - smoothness is a function of the hardened alloy tipping (historically called "Iridium", though most alloys since the 40s have contained only traces of the actual element Iridium), which is usually the same whether on the tip of a gold or steel nib.

 

Going back to the 30's and 40's the advent of the fast drying, but corrosive inks like the Parker "51" ink made the use of a gold nib necessary. The visual element was not a concern with pens like the "51" as you can only barely see any of the gold, it is mainly the tipping on show.

 

Inks were corrosive long before the Parker "51" inks. The tradition of using gold for fountain pens nibs goes back to the early-mid 1800s, when iron-gall inks could be particularly corrosive. In fact, by the time the "51" came out in the 1940s, stainless steel nibs were much improved over their highly corrodable predicessors and taking a greater chunk of the fountain pen market (see above - 88% in 1942). Gold was probably necessary for "51" ink and later Superchrome inks, though the Octanium nibs on the Parker "51" Special in 1950 seem to have held up fine.

 

Lets add to this discussion the fact that stainless steel was not invented until the 1913-1919 time frame (there seems to be disagreement over who and when) and for original nibs, gold was probably the only material choice that had any kind of wear and corrosion resistance.

 

I image that stainless steel was a rather rare, expensive, and hard to use (correctly) back in the 1920s.

Gold was far more well known and had been worked for many many years by that time.

 

Yes - that is one big factor in the tradition of using gold in Fountain pens. It is a practice that significantly pre-dated the invention of reliable stainless steel. Remember, the "modern" nib (gold nib with iridium tipping) goes back to the Hawkins designs in the early 1800s. Iridium tipped gold nibs (dip, mainly) were the standard for high-quality nibs throught the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th. Steel and brass dip-nibs were extremely common and made in much higher quantities, but they were considered disposable and had to be constantly wiped and dried after use because they quickly corroded. With a fountain pen, where the nib remained wedged into a section and constantly bathed with ink from the feed, a non-gold nib turned into a corroded mess in no time. Even gold-plated nibs corroded quickly with wear. That is why even cheaper pens in the 1900-1920 time period often sported generic "Warranted"" gold nibs, rather than the plated steel nibs that later generations of cheap pens would have (though there were also plate nibs at the time that were really bad).

 

 

 

The Modulus of Elasticity of gold is approximately 83 GPa and of 304L Stainless Steel is 200 GPa.

The lower the Modulus of Elasticity (the slope of the Stress/Strain curve) the greater the deflection for a given force (as long as the material remain elastic, i.e. until it reaches Yield.).

Therefore, it takes 41.5% (83/200) the force for displacement of gold verses the equivalent nib cross-section of Stainless Steel. And since the yield point isn't reached (i.e. the material is still elastic) the gold or steel with "spring" back.

 

Science wins again!

 

Thank you for posting that. It's always good to know why something behaves the way it does.

 

From my limited understanding of metallurgy, the "springiness" of any physical object is the product of a combination of its thickness (which can be consistent or not, depending on the designer's intent), curvature (the more curve the greater the resistance to deflection), and general shape. From a technical standpoint, I don't see why one couldn't design and produce a flexible piece like a pen nib out of almost any metal with a reasonable level of elasticity. In jewelry making, the custom is to use lower gold-content metals, or even non-gold metals, where return to the previous shape after flexing is especially important. Do you know of any application of any kind that uses gold springs?

 

 

This whole discussion is one of those that makes me reflect on the quality and advanced production techniques used to make my vintage Esterbrook nibs. That company seems to have been far, far out in front of the curve when it came to making steel nibs that compare favorably to modern products.

 

The whole discussion of the relative flex and springiness of gold vs steel is much overrated. Yes, 14K gold (with the right alloys) is generally the best material for the highly flexible nibs found on vintage pens, but that type of flex has not been made by any penmaker in decades - maybe even 50+ years. The Namiki Falcon and Pilot FA may be the only modern nibs for which felxibility is really an issue (and these are only somewhat flexible by vintage standards).

 

Though I will allow that the greater elasticity of gold may make it easier to make the slightly springier modern nibs that get called "flex" by some modern pen marketers. I suspect that the minor amount of give involved could be acheived with a steel nib as well as a gold one.

 

Steel nibs can be made incredibly flexible, and there are some super-flexy steel dip-nibs out there to show for it. There is more involved in the nib design than just the material.

 

And Esterbrook was a remarkable company for making relatively high-quality fountain pens with stainless steel nibs, but they started making those nibs at a time when Stainless steel was becoming a standard for lower-end pens. Frankly I do not find that much that distinguishes an early 2668 from other comperable folded-tip nibs of the time, though they may have had better quality controll than some. What made Esterbrook stand out was the fact they used better-quality barrel materials than other comperably priced pens, and used stainless steel for the trim, when most of their competitors used thinly gold-plated brass. Esterbrooks held up better to wear than most comperable pens, and I think that is what made the difference.

 

Which brings up the question of whether the material cost itself was as big an issue in the golden age of FPs as it might be today? In other words, does the material itself, whether gold or steel, constitute a bigger slice of the cost accounting pie chart? And was the cost differential between raw gold and high quality steel as large as it is today? It seems to me that mass production of high quality alloy steel may have driven down that cost, while the electronic age and legalization/rise of "gold bug" investors driven up the cost of gold?

 

As I understand it, the price of gold related to the price of steel is much higher today than in the past, though I am not sure how much the difference is. It would be interesting to find these figures, and see what percentage the cost of the gold nib material was in the overall expenses of different pen manufacturers (and I think some of those figures may be findable). I suspect it was not insignificant - Sheaffer switched to a 12K gold alloy for the WASP nibs, and it must have provided some cost savings, or they presumably would not have done it (on the other hand, nobody else did at the same time - though there were nibs in 12K and 16K around the turn of the century).

 

As an aside, there are interesting stories about the need to capture the "scrap" gold from nib-making operations. When the Wirt company sold its original production facility in Pennsylvania (I think after the company went under, but not exactly sure on that), the outfit that bought the building was able to extract enough "waste" gold (dust and scraps from grinding and shaping the nibs) from the building itself to more than cover their purchase cost.

 

John

Edited April 1, 2009 by Johnny Appleseed

[AndyH]

(Great topic all, BTW - my FPN education never ends!)

 

But I repeat myself...

 

I'd also be interested in the relative cost of stainless steel and gold, particularly in the more specialized and expensive steel alloys. I'd bet that the per-gram cost difference was much less significant 60 - 80 years ago.

 

On Esterbrook nibs - I think it's fair to compare the 9xxx series irridium-tipped nibs to modern nibs, and IMHO they compare very well. Even the lowly bent nib 1xxx series seem to be well-manufactured and to have a great "feel" for the paper and pressure.

 

Is the furniture on Estie J series solid stainless? or something nickel-based? They certainly look great and shine up beautifully today.

 

 

[scratchy]

Great thread - a really good read. I'm off to the pen history forum now

[troglokev]

A soft metal is not automatically springy.

The Modulus of Elasticity of gold is approximately 83 GPa and of 304L Stainless Steel is 200 GPa.

The lower the Modulus of Elasticity (the slope of the Stress/Strain curve) the greater the deflection for a given force (as long as the material remain elastic, i.e. until it reaches Yield.).

Therefore, it takes 41.5% (83/200) the force for displacement of gold verses the equivalent nib cross-section of Stainless Steel. And since the yield point isn't reached (i.e. the material is still elastic) the gold or steel with "spring" back.

 

You'd have failed my first year materials course, Glenn. The modulus measures stress, not force, as a function of strain. Young's modulus has little to do with the question of flexibility, because you can easily make the steel nib thinner and gain the same flexibilty as gold.

 

For a given design strength, the thing that limits flexibility is the strain at the yield point. The larger this number is, the more flex you can get before permanent damage occurs. This allows the nib to be made softer, and of the materials commonly used for nibs 14K gold is best, followed by stainless steel, then 18K gold.

 

Titanium would actually allow more flex than 14K gold, but it has other issues that make it a lousy material for making a nib with: it wets poorly, it is hard to weld, it work-hardens, it has poor ductility, the list goes on. Ask any Parker T1 owner.

 

Another way gold may win is vibration transmission: for a given strength it is both heavier and more flexible, and so has a lower resonant frequency. It would be interesting to do the maths on that: I expect that gold would transmit less vibration from paper roughness than steel.

Edited April 1, 2009 by troglokev

[dogpoet]

THanks, Johnny. I'm glad somebody's cleared that one up.

[rahulg]

Since the issue of gold vs steel came up, I am curious as to whether the percieved wetness of gold nibs can be attributed to varying surface tensions/physical properties of the ink against the two metals, when it passes through the slit. What I am asking is, does ink behave differently in steel and gold nibs?

 

I admit being horrible in science, so the question might have been framed in a better manner.

 

Assuming you got the sense of what I'm asking, could anybody throw some light on the issue?

 

Regards,

 

Rahul

[troglokev]

Since the issue of gold vs steel came up, I am curious as to whether the percieved wetness of gold nibs can be attributed to varying surface tensions/physical properties of the ink against the two metals, when it passes through the slit. What I am asking is, does ink behave differently in steel and gold nibs?

The answer to your question is "yes, but..."

 

The wettability is one factor, but the geometry of the slit, the feed material and the surfactants used in the ink will also affect the capillary effect.

 

Assuming you got the sense of what I'm asking, could anybody throw some light on the issue?

 

Not easily. The presence of surface contaminants (e.g. abrasives and oils, old ink) can have a large effect on wettability, and you can always modify the slit width to modify the flow.

 

There are too many competing effects to be definitive about this one without a lot of experimentation (difficult experiments, too).

 

I would expect the geometry (in particular the thickness of the nib) to be the largest effect. A thicker nib allows the tines to be closer together for a given flow rate, which would increase the capillary effect and improve wetness. Gold nibs do tend to be thicker because the material is softer.

Edited April 2, 2009 by troglokev

[oracle202]

ummm... cause they're made of GOLD!

[lapis]

Answer: Because of their looks. Many a steel nib writes better than a gold one.

Example: An M215 writes better than an M200.

 

Mike

[BladeArcher]

Answer: Because of their looks. Many a steel nib writes better than a gold one.

Example: An M215 writes better than an M200.

 

Mike

 

But you can gold-plate a steel nib, making it cosmetically identical to gold.

 

Regards,

Blade

 

[Glenn-SC]

A soft metal is not automatically springy.

The Modulus of Elasticity of gold is approximately 83 GPa and of 304L Stainless Steel is 200 GPa.

The lower the Modulus of Elasticity (the slope of the Stress/Strain curve) the greater the deflection for a given force (as long as the material remain elastic, i.e. until it reaches Yield.).

Therefore, it takes 41.5% (83/200) the force for displacement of gold verses the equivalent nib cross-section of Stainless Steel. And since the yield point isn't reached (i.e. the material is still elastic) the gold or steel with "spring" back.

 

You'd have failed my first year materials course, Glenn. The modulus measures stress, not force, as a function of strain. Young's modulus has little to do with the question of flexibility, because you can easily make the steel nib thinner and gain the same flexibilty [sic] as gold.

Thank you, I always loved professors who took only part of the answer and chose to grade that.

Thank you for trying to make yourself look smart by being insulting. Cute, real cute.

 

OK Professor, and Stress is defined as what?

Come on, think about it.

STRESS = FORCE/AREA

 

Since a nib is a non-uniform cross section beam simply supported at on end with a point load at the tip, the equation for the tip deflection is:

y_max = FL³/(3EI)

 

Do you recognize E in that equation? Yes, that's the Modulus of Elasticity.

 

You can get the same deflection (y) (i.e. the flex) by increasing the nib Length (L), decreasing the Moment of inertia (I) (related to the cross section) or INCREASING THE FORCE (F).

 

If you had read the entire thread I'd said that a SS nib could be designed and worked to provide the same flex as a gold nib except that more labor was required to make it that way and that the cost of the additional labor exceeded the cost of just buying the lower modulus material in the first place.

 

How many SS nib are made of sheet stock the thickness of gold nibs?

 

[welch]

In my opinion, there is nothing special about gold except the name. We write with a little blob at the end of the nib, and usually that's iridium. I've written with scratchy 14 kt nibs and smooth steel nibs. Maybe the all-gold nib was better, in 1950, but it seems more like decoration now. One of the smoothest writers I have is a $20 Lamy; I asked Parker about a gold nib for my Sonnet and they said I could have one for $90. I doubt that a gold nib will make the Sonnet, which I like for its heft and balance, four times better than the Lamy.

 

That's taste...I think a Parker 51 looks better than all of the pens I see in stores. I think the purpose of a pen (the telos?) is to write; not to be jewelry.

 

A few years ago, my wife and I were in Tiffany's to buy a pen for her mother. The clerk desperately wanted us to buy a pearl-studded Tiffany's pen. I asked why the pen needed pearls, and the clerk answered "for the intrinsic value". So far, it seems like that gold nib is a bit like Tiffany's pearl.