The Shame Of Nibs Being Outsourced?

[Mercian]

Reading the discussion about semantic niceties in this thread, it seems to me that Tinjapan wishes to use the word 'feasible' to convey solely a rather narrow, recondite or recherché, minor definition of that word.

 

As the word has other meanings that are far-more-widely used among the genral population, and are indeed commonly regarded as the usual - or even only - meaning of 'feasible', I suggest that the word 'feasible' is not an appropriate term to use on a popular international forum if one wishes to convey the particular meaning that Tinjapan is seeking to convey to us, (his?) readers.

 

In order to minimise ambiguity, and to prevent the proliferation of 'sidetrack' discussions of semantic issues, I suggest that a more-appropriate term to use in place of 'feasible' might be:

 

maximally-profitable-for-shareholders-in-the-short-term

 

I freely admit that the phrase above is a rather clunky construction, but it has two advantages:

1) it is an unambiguous summation of the concept that Tinjapan has been trying to communicate by using the word 'feasible', and;

 

2) it goes-to the heart of the intial topic of this thread. Indeed, I believe that it elucidates the reason for which the OP has suggested that outsourcing production of nibs might be describable as shameful.

 

My explanation for the second statement is on my next post, but - caveat lector - even in comparison to this one, my explanation of that is really going to enter the dread realm of tl;dr

[Mercian]

The impression that I get of TassoBarbasso's posts in this thread is as follows:

 

He does not seek to criticise the outsourcing of nib-production by small companies, or by low-volume artisan pen makers who are essentially making objets d'art (e.g. Ariel Kullock).

 

He does not seek to criticise companies that have outsourced nib-manufacture in order to still be able to sell their pens at low prices.

 

It seems to me that what TassoBarbasso does wish to criticise is the following business-practice:

The practice of certain large companies of outsourcing production of nibs, while still marketing their industrially-assembled pens as 'artisanal' products, lovingly-created by the company's skilled craftsmen in accordance with the company's long and glorious tradition, and then charging absolutely huge sums for them.

 

This practice is certainly likely to be maximally-profitable for shareholders in the short term if the company also takes the 'eminently sensible Business decision' of shutting down its factories in high-waged, high-rent, well-regulated countries, and moves/outsources production instead to other countries...

 

...countries in which employees (the people who actually make the pens) have NO rights, can be paid a nugatory sum, industrial rents are low, and in which there are no environmental protection or workforce-safety laws....

 

By moving production to those countries, the firm can use cheap toxic chemicals, routinely maim its employees in entirley-preventable workplace accidents, and dump any and all waste products wherever it likes (perhaps occasionally having to bribe a low-paid local official?), instead of incurring the cost of disposing of them safely.

 

This 'strategy' undoubtedly reduces the costs of manufacture, and is unquestionably maximally-profitable for shareholders in the short term.

Especially if the company decides to give all the cost-savings that result straight to shareholders, while simultaneously pushing its prices as high as they will go in the wealthy markets from which it has moved its production facilities.

[Mercian]

In the context above, a synonym for 'using marketing to convey the impression of artisanal manufacture within the company' would be lying.

 

And a synonym for the process of off-shoring production to 'low-cost environments' would be 'throwing people out of work so that we can instead treat the people who make our products as cheap disposable resources, and can also maximise our free money by polluting the planet with toxic waste'.

 

When one considers that the motivation for employing this 'clever strategy' is to give more money to shareholders - people who do nothing at all to make the product, and so can hardly be said to have 'earned' the money - one can further simplify the definitions of the company's chosen modus operandi:

 

It can be described as:

Deliberately creating unemployment in countries where the cost-of-living is high;

exploiting (and maiming) rightless serfs in poor countries;

polluting those poor countries;

using Lies to justify the flagrant overcharging of consumers.

 

And all solely in order to gift more un-earned income to parasites (because they contribute NOTHING, but extract resources) called 'shareholders'.

(N.B. I write this as someone who owns shares in telcos, water companies, and power companies. And as a Briton - a person whose country became rich by doing exactly what I have just desribed.)

 

Now, does anyone here wish to claim that the behaviour described above - ruthlessly exploiting the workforce as disposable serfs, needlessly maiming them, needlessly polluting the planet, and then telling lies in order to justify ripping people off, just to enhance the income of parasites - is admirable?

 

'Shameful' is a strong word; it is intended to convey stern disapproval in the hope of discouraging the behaviour to which it is applied.

It seems to me that it is an entirely appropriate adjective to use it to describe the practices I have described.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Mercian

[Mercian]

Right; I've finally shut up, and it is now safe to return to look at the thread without fear of being subjected to a Jeremiad

 

I wish you all a happy Easter.

[jar]

It seems to me that what TassoBarbasso does wish to criticise is the following business-practice:

The practice of certain large companies of outsourcing production of nibs, while still marketing their industrially-assembled pens as 'artisanal' products, lovingly-created by the company's skilled craftsmen in accordance with the company's long and glorious tradition, and then charging absolutely huge sums for them.

 

The issue is whether or not that situation exists in reality or only in the mind of the one presenting the criticism.

 

Huge sums of money is an entirely subjective assessment of the person making the claim.

 

Even artisans can use industrial processes.

 

And you would need to present the place where the claim of 'artisanal' products, lovingly-created by the company's skilled craftsmen in accordance with the company's long and glorious tradition was made when it is not actually a fact.

 

Yes, the OP is perfectly free to make the assertions that were presented.

 

But it is also true others are free to laugh at those assertions.

 

The whole discussing would have been unnecessary had the topic title been "I think it is a Shame that Nibs are Being Outsourced."

Edited April 14, 2017 by jar

[Mercian]

The issue is whether or not that situation exists in reality or only in the mind of the one presenting the criticism.

 

Within the context I just described, I would agree with the assertion. So it does not exist solely in the mind of the OP.

 

"Huge sums of money is an entirely subjective assessment of the person making the claim."

 

Indeed.

As is the subjective assessment by many manufacturing companies that Western wages are sufficiently 'huge' to justify outsourcing production to 'emerging markets'.

Given that this is common business practice, I think that the point stands.

How many workers at a plant in, say, China can afford to pay the prices for, say, Duofolds, Meisterstücks etc.

And yes, I realise that those are not made in China, but the examples convey what the concept 'huge sums of money' means.

Would anyone attempt to assert that production-line employees are paidcwages that are high enough for them to be routinely buying such products?

 

 

"Even artisans can use industrial processes."

And exactly WHO here asserted that they don't?

 

"And you would need to present the place where the claim of 'artisanal' products, lovingly-created by the company's skilled craftsmen in accordance with the company's long and glorious tradition was made when it is not actually a fact."

 

Have you ever read ANY Marketing material from ANY high-end brand?

Seen any that describe their product as 'industrially-produced plastic'? Or are terms such as 'precious resin' more likely to crop-up?

 

"Yes, the OP is perfectly free to make the assertions that were presented.

But it is also true others are free to laugh at those assertions."

 

They are indeed, but if they wish to ridicule such assertions then they would need to demonstrate why the assertion is so far beyond-the-pale as to be risible.

Otherwise their own comments are merely specious.

 

So far, it seems to me that the criticism of the OP's statement can be summarised as 'outsourcing is a sensible Business decision'.

No-one has said that it isn't a decision that will maximise profit.

 

The OP said that he finds some outsourcing worthy of the description 'shameful'.

He did NOT say that it is 'not a sensible business decision'.

The question is therefore whether ir not this 'sensible business decision' can be described as 'shameful'.

I described a situation that I would agree is worthy of that description.

Neither I nor the OP thinks that small manufacturers outsourcing production of specialist items is shameful.

 

Do you think that the situation that I described is admirable?

Edited April 14, 2017 by Mercian

[jar]

Within the context I just described, I would agree with the assertion. So it does not exist solely in the mind of the OP.

 

"Huge sums of money is an entirely subjective assessment of the person making the claim."

 

Indeed.

As is the subjective assessment by many manufacturing companies that Western wages are sufficiently 'huge' to justify outsourcing production to 'emerging markets'.

Given that this is common business practice, I think that the point stands.

How many workers at a plant in, say, China can afford to pay the prices for, say, Duofolds, Meisterstücks etc.

And yes, I realise that those are not made in China, but the examples convey what the concept 'huge sums of money' means.

Would anyone attempt to assert that production-line employees are paidcwages that are high enough for them to be routinely buying such products?

 

 

"Even artisans can use industrial processes."

And exactly WHO here asserted that they don't?

 

"And you would need to present the place where the claim of 'artisanal' products, lovingly-created by the company's skilled craftsmen in accordance with the company's long and glorious tradition was made when it is not actually a fact."

 

Have you ever read ANY Marketing material from ANY high-end brand?

Seen any that describe their product as 'industrially-produced plastic'? Or are terms such as 'precious resin' more likely to crop-up?

 

"Yes, the OP is perfectly free to make the assertions that were presented.

But it is also true others are free to laugh at those assertions."

 

They are indeed, but if they wish to ridicule such assertions then they would need to demonstrate why the assertion is so far beyond-the-pale as to be risible.

Otherwise their own comments are merely specious.

 

So far, it seems to me that the criticism of the OP's statement can be summarised as 'outsourcing is a sensible Business decision'.

No-one has said that it isn't a decision that will maximise profit.

 

The OP said that he finds some outsourcing worthy of the description 'shameful'.

He did NOT say that it is 'not a sensible business decision'.

The question is therefore whether ir not this 'sensible business decision' can be described as 'shameful'.

I described a situation that I would agree is worthy of that description.

Neither I nor the OP thinks that small manufacturers outsourcing production of specialist items is shameful.

 

Do you think that the situation that I described is admirable?

Yawn.

 

I don't think the situation that you described exists.

[Mercian]

Yawn.

 

I don't think the situation that you described exists.

So:

you claim to never have seen any mention of the workforce-exploitation scandals in China;

you appear to think that companies sack workers in the West and shift production to 'emerging markets' for some reason OTHER THAN because it lowers costs;

rather than attempt to rebut any of my arguments you chose to try to calumniate them by saying 'yawn'.

 

I think that that speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.

 

And the 'yawn' comment is merely an attempted insult.

You might as well have typed "LALALALALA! I'm not listening!".

 

Good day.

[jar]

So:

you claim to never have seen any mention of the workforce-exploitation scandals in China;

you appear to think that companies sack workers in the West and shift production to 'emerging markets' for some reason OTHER THAN because it lowers costs;

rather than attempt to rebut any of my arguments you chose to try to calumniate them by saying 'yawn'.

 

I think that that speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.

 

And the 'yawn' comment is merely an attempted insult.

You might as well have typed "LALALALALA! I'm not listening!".

 

Good day.

Yawn.

 

"you claim to never have seen any mention of the workforce-exploitation scandals in China;"

 

No and you are simply lying when you claim I think that. However I am old enough and educated enough to know that the US was one of the most effective nations at workforce-exploitation and in fact it still goes on even here.

 

"you appear to think that companies sack workers in the West and shift production to 'emerging markets' for some reason OTHER THAN because it lowers costs;"

 

Actually yes, I am old enough and educated enough to know that moving production to lower cost areas is ONE of the reasons it happens, here as well as abroad. A great example is the growth of non-unioun work sites in the south of the US. Other reasons are the availability of a well trained workforce and a workforce that shows greater concern for product quality.

 

"rather than attempt to rebut any of my arguments you chose to try to calumniate them by saying 'yawn'."

 

No, the reason I posted yawn was that your assertions are simply shallow and not well thought out, bumper sticker mentality sloganism. Boring.

 

 

http://www.fototime.com/9BBD3045B391113/medium800.jpg

 

 

 

http://www.fototime.com/D34DC872BF5E1B4/medium800.jpg

 

 

There is no shame in outsourcing pieces parts nor does that reduce or indicate any reduction in quality or the care of the management to produce good products.

 

AbE: Here is an article outlining workforce-exploitation scandals in the US

Edited April 14, 2017 by jar

[Andrea_R]

Hi Mercian, just wanted to point out that the modern Business Management Theory, CSR and Business Ethics theory reject in toto your points, expecially Friedman shareholder approach is dead and buried.

 

Just to be clear: I am not saying that is not common practice but a healthy company will NOT follow Friedman lead, for instance Sheaffer did and we all know how it has ended.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Andrea_R

[Bo Bo Olson]

Shaffer's end was easy to see, the un-watered lemon tree stopped making lemons, so was sold off for the leaves and bark.

What can one expect of a product where there is no advertising? Much too expensive....takes away from the bonus....of a fly-by-night management. (Standard US management now....here today.....gone the day after.)

 

But in the years after the Tagra, the shareholders got what ever remained of the 'dividends' (-Minus high bonus) something now only for very, very long term institutional investment....ie Coke now costs $60 and takes only 60 years to pay off and that is a high dividend product. A P&E of 60.

 

I almost bought Coke back in the '80's at $30 and a P&E of 14.....fourteen years for the stock to have paid for it's self. Back when dividend was still a meaningful word, instead of a babble word that 'stock analysis's' babble on the two 1/2 minute TV stock news.

 

 

Only dividend that pays off today is, the medical rip off industry.

 

What was and is the problem...Funds that all have to invest every payday, has driven an inflation that went from the Dow being high at $1,000 in the '70s-80 to now being at $20,000 in only 35-40 years. Dividends have become a worthless word like 'gold standard'....something Merlin dabbled in.

[Honeybadgers]

Honestly- even though many makers all seem to use the "same" company for their nibs, it actually makes a lot of sense, as they all have their own custom tooling, scrollwork, and the end result is a unique writing nib to the manufacturer with the quality control of the big brands.

 

It also opens up a lot of opportunities for the smaller companies to get started - it peeves me off more when a company doesn't sell replacement nibs, like visconti or faber-castell, I much prefer a more basic nib that I can swap in and out at will, a jinhao with a goulet nib, a noodlers ahab with a nemosine 0.6 stub, or a noodlers konrad with a ranga feed and comic G nib.

 

Though I do wish there was more variety in experimental types of nibs like visconti's palladium or aurora's 88 flex. But even still, Bock is still willing to try crazy stuff like titanium, so I can hardly complain!

 

Man this thread got unpleasant in its subject fast. A whole lot of misinformation on the sociological upsides/downsides to outsourcing on both sides, including things like globalization, the race to the bottom, the bottom billion, etc. None of that really has much to do with this niche industry, and a whole heck of a lot more to do with heavy industry, medical, chemical, and textile.

 

I see a lot of reasons other than cost for pen makers to switch to more unified sources of nibs - it's a small piece of metal with very precise quality control requirements and specialized machinery. I also like the trend that seems to be increasing in more interchangable nibs, #5 and #6. China likes stuff that's interchangable, look no further than jinhao nibs being punched "18kgp" whether or not they are gold plated. The upside is that their pens are more akin to the vintage pens of olde, where everything was made to work in anything.

 

Most nibs nowadays are made in germany, india, japan, and china, correct? With the majority of the mid-higher end stuff made in germany/france/italy/japan?

Edited April 24, 2017 by Honeybadgers

[Freddy]

A fascinating read.

 

Thanks.

 

Fred

[TassoBarbasso]

Oh my.... I've created a monster Anyway, anybody who feels like providing feedback about one of the opening questions: is Parker still doing nibs in-house? Or do they now outsource?

[max dog]

Parker and Waterman nibs are inhouse in the same plsnt in France.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Bock and Jo-Wo make good nibs..........period.

Bock makes steel, monotone and two tone gold nibs....could even be coated in Rhodium if desired......there are a number of Italian pen makers using Bock and many, many others.

 

Bock does make nibs for very many companies to their standards, or has enough in house standards to have a choice of levels. It is high tec.............I've seen a thread here from long ago....5-6 years where two men who had names in the Community were allowed to visit, and were impressed with the vast hall of modern machinery***. Which has costs. One still needs a tool maker for the dies, highly paid skilled workers making nibs.....even if it that seems simple enough, union wages must be paid. It does take skill to grind and smooth a nib, some one has to check each one at least in gold.

 

*** I drive by the Bock nib factory occasionally. Not for a while, in I was surprised at the industrial park that has developed around it, that I saw in Google World.

 

Pelikan moved back in house from Bock and have the same complaints and level of complaints as when Bock made the nibs. From what I understand no one here noticed a difference enough for some to offer much less money for a used Pelikan with a Pelikan Bock nib, vs a Pelikan in house nib made pen from before or after.

 

I've seen a video of an Indian nib making factory....real up to date for 1920s.

 

I have seen the steel nib making factory part at Lamy..........of course they are one of the world leaders in the amount of fountain pens made..........defiantly are the leader for Germany. The machine was at least 10 meters long.....and three wide. They cut the slits with a thin rubber disk, with a diamond dust end coating.

They have to be up to the second, they pay German Union wages, and the worker gets 2 three week vacations a year and it is very, very hard to fire one for becoming ill.

Lamy don't want to move to China, so has to be up to date.

Counting ball points Lamy makes 600,000 a year. Sorry I didn't get the break down in fountain pens.

 

The video's of Aurora, MB or Pelikan making nibs....are rather old fashioned compared to up to date Lamy. (Of course up stairs in the older part of the factory they still do gold nibs with old style machines, but I think they must have a nib stamper somewhere down stairs for the gold nibs. I didn't notice one as the tour slid through the gold nib section. Of course one don't notice as much as one wants with a two minute walk through of the gold section and only part of that. There was 1/4th of the bottom factory that we didn't go to either. The ink corner factory was viewed at a distance. We did see them making cartridges in an modern machine.

 

Their warehouse is "small" 30 by 20 meters, only two levels of pallet storage floor and one level up, and very much on time delivery and shipping. I've worked in warehouses before. It costs 100E/$ a day per cubic meter to store something. They were not wasting money there either.

 

I am impressed with the new Lamy Imporium nib. MB's modern nibs are OK......only, compared to their '50-60's nibs. Both are 'Springy' nibs, good tine bend, only 2 X tine spread. IMO in I like three X tine spread, almost worth buying.

 

I find the semi-flex nib of the 1000 just fine considering it's 18 K....which is not for folks with out a nice light Hand, in 14 K is more robust. The 1000 is too huge and clunky for me to even think of buying.....even if it is one of the best nibs now made. The 1000 nib was the last nib taken out of Bock and returned to Pelikan.

So if a company wished a semi-flex nib they could have it made. But in this Ham Fisted Era, not worth the repair costs........which is why most nibs are nail and semi-nail and so characterless. Why so many have them ground by a nibmeister into stubs and CI.

 

If you have to get your nib made stub or CI....why care who made it???????????

 

The nibs I like have 3 X tine spread, the '50 and up to the mid '90's. Bock, Degussa, and Rupp made good nibs in that era. So I have no problem with modern Bock nibs....I just don't buy any because they are made to nail and semi-nail specs ..............don't have any problem with modern Pelikan nibs either, I only buy the 200's nibs.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Bo Bo Olson

[Wolverine1]

I am surprised to see that a stupid question posed by the OP has garnered such a large number of responses, including this, which is my stupid response to OP's question.

[jar]

I am surprised to see that a stupid question posed by the OP has garnered such a large number of responses, including this, which is my stupid response to OP's question.

Wish I'd written that ^^^^!

[pajaro]

Hi All,

 

I've always bestowed special respect to pen makers who manufacture their own nibs. While I can understand that a small, one-man-show company that makes handmade pens (Hakase, Edison, ...) might not have the resources to manufacture nibs in house, or could do so only at ridiculously high prices (like Romillo), I don't see any reason why larger pen manufacturers shouldn't make their nibs in-house.

 

If they don't, they're not in the pen business, as far as I'm concerned: they're just "plastic nib holders" manufacturers.

 

That's why most of my pen purchases in recent years have been either from Aurora, Pilot, Sailor, and others who make their own nibs, or from companies like Visconti or OMAS that customize the nibs they receive quite heavily before using them. I've also always respected Parker and Waterman for still manufacturing their nibs in-house, even though I don't buy from them since their pens are either too expensive, or don't captivate my aesthetic preferences.

 

However, I've recently stumbled across a couple of pictures of the latest offering in the Duofold range, and I've noticed that the current nibs look a lot different from the one on the Duofold mosaic I got as a present a few years ago. They're more slender, and look suspiciously like JoWo nibs!

 

The purpose of this post is therefore double:

• Discuss what I believe is the shameful habit of pen companies to manufacture glorified nib holders, while at the same time not bothering to produce the "engine" of the pen: the nib.

• Figure out if Parker also jumped on the bandwagon of nib outsourcing and is now getting its nibs from JoWo or Bock. Anyone who has info on this is more than welcome to share it.

cheers!

Fabio

 

 

There is more to a pen than a nib. There is the cap, section and barrel, and there is the filling system. Outsourcing of component manufacture is a fact of modern business. The fit and finish of a pen, how it fits together, how the filling system works are important as well as the nib. If one component is outsourced to an entity that makes an excellent component, where is the harm? It is no longer a craftsman shop? Possibly the total output doesn't justify a company making every component, especially if it can be done well and economically by a specialist. Perhaps the OP prefers medieval craftsmanship practices.

Edited May 4, 2017 by pajaro

[AL01]

TBH I think it's interesting to have a nib made by a different company. As long as it's done well and doesn't look out of place, I guess it's fine. Look at the Sheaffer Legacy Heritage. Bock nib, but writes like a Sheaffer. Customization would be key....

 

But it would be cool to see a modern American pen manufacturer use in - house nibs. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.