Re-Tipping For A Wider Point?

[jmnav]

I own a very nice nib that came on a vintage pen (from the forties) as XF, which I find too "niddle-point" for my tastes.

 

Back on that time, grinding was finished by hand and impacted both the nib-point and the tines so they both matched together.

 

I'm thinking on retipping it for an F to M, but I'm concern that the tines and the point will be "aligned" (in that they seem to be a single piece) any more.

 

Has anyone gone this same route? Does the bigger point impact the nib's performance?

 

Regards.

[FarmBoy]

You can retip most nine to have a larger point.

[Vintagepens]

Retipping is usually significantly more expensive than buying a replacement nib. Particularly if you are primarily concerned with function rather than historical correctness: using a nib that is unbranded or of another brand should open up plenty of low-cost options.

[jmnav]

Thank you very much for your answer, David:

 

Retipping is usually significantly more expensive than buying a replacement nib. Particularly if you are primarily concerned with function rather than historical correctness: using a nib that is unbranded or of another brand should open up plenty of low-cost options.

 

It is not only a matter of getting the "right point" but the nib itself: it's a Waterman #18 (from a Hundred Year Pen), big and quite flexible, but being so thin and long -and they way I hold the pen, I can't comfortably get it into a position I can get the most of it.

 

Ideally I'd had it grinded into a right-foot M. I've also been looking on the market and nibs like this doesn't come easily (my other option was looking for a similar one that already came with a wider tip). In the end I probably let it be as-is because, as you say, historical correctness, but I wanted to try the waters, as I've never done something like that.

[Vintagepens]

Those 18 nibs aren't that scarce, though the only-slightly-smaller 17 nibs are much more common and can usually be substituted without looking at all out of place. In fact, they are among the most available of larger Waterman nibs, since the pens themselves proved to be much more fragile than the nibs.

[jmnav]

Those 18 nibs aren't that scarce, though the only-slightly-smaller 17 nibs are much more common and can usually be substituted without looking at all out of place. In fact, they are among the most available of larger Waterman nibs, since the pens themselves proved to be much more fragile than the nibs.

 

Yeah, the problem with #18 is not that they are on themselves too scarce, but #18, flexible, F or wider, eventually with enough iridium for an easy right foot regrinding... that's a different story.

 

I'm also considering #17, either Hundred Year or Emblem (I'm not aware of other models that used those big nibs -probably not that they don't exist, only I'm barely knowledgeable) and it's even possible that I'd find the #17 a better fit than the #18, but then it should come with feed and section, and still no luck.

 

On the other hand, I have to disagree with your last sentence: mine is an early Hundred Year (1940-41), and that means Lucite: just as strong as, say, a Parker 51.

 

PS: Oh, I re-read and then I understood what you meant. Yes, all those cellulloid Hundred's and Emblems have had to surrender their golden nibs somewhere, right?

Edited June 19, 2017 by jmnav

[Honeybadgers]

If you really want a retip - talk to greg minuskin.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Look at 140-400 Pelikans of the '50-65 era for Obliques...they are stubs also.

 

Give your self some time to really get use to the nib.....and XF/EF is too narrow for me....so I never chased them. I do have the basic in that width....nail, maxi-semi-flex, 'true' regular flex and Superflex.

 

But my Hand is still a tad heavy...I have to sweat to make my '52 write XXF, think to make it write EF and often find myself writing to @ F with that superflex nib.