Pelikan Steel Vs Gold Nib

[jmnav]

 

Fully agree Derek. It is a popular misconception that ballpoints have dictated the development of modern nibs, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Not to say you are wrong but... too much of a casuality that basically all nibs' production went to nails at the same time that ballpens grew in use, don't you think so?

 

Anyway, if it were not ballpoints, why do you think it happened that way?

[Matlock]

 

Not to say you are wrong but... too much of a casuality that basically all nibs' production went to nails at the same time that ballpens grew in use, don't you think so?

 

Anyway, if it were not ballpoints, why do you think it happened that way?

 

We tend to look at things from a Pelikan view (of course), but Parker were using this type of nib tipping long before ballpoints came into every day use. I still have my Parker Victory, given to me by my parents in around 1955, which has that sort of nib and ball points were completely banned from school use then. The parker 51s of 1941 have that type of nib and were, most defiantly, nails. However, the tipping style and 'nails' don't necessarily go hand in hand.

[mana]

Stiffer, kugel type nibs and ballpoints are separate but in some way related development tracks. The context and modes of use changed starting from the beginning of 20th century.

With the advent of typewriters and increasingly electronic communications the need for business hand declined rapidly. Handwriting moved on from being a business must and social differentiator to something that everybody was taught. It also became more commonplace with the emphasis on speed and legibility.

Also, post WWI, namely 30 and onwards, people become more mobile. Trains and air travel set up an entirely new context of use where a flexible nib, which is more suited to use on a desk, was in fact inferior to a stiffer nib (more accommodating of the movements of the vehicle you are traveling in). This predates the advent of ballpoints and is best exemplified in the Parker 51.

Ballpoints (Biro) were the product of war and the need to be able to write in conditions which did not suit fountain pens at all. They were initially very costly but advances in both technology and manufacturing made cheaper mass production possible. The need for writing things down by hand in long form declined more and more after the war.

What people wanted (and needed) was something that just writes, right there and then. They did not have a need for a fountain pen, all of the hassle of needing to maintain one and refill it etc. A ballpoint was a viable carefree alternative, something that you could take with you and use occasionally. Also, the ones who still wrote long form used either a fountain pen or a pencil.

Anyway, those are some of the reasons why stiffer K nibs became more commonplace. Peoples needs changed. They were more forgiving of both environmental factors, need for writing speed and lack of skill. All of those things combined left little room or market for flexible nibs (which at that time still existed in abundance in pens that were produced before or were in production a decade or so after WWII).

[Matlock]

I have to say that mana sums up just about everything about the relationship between nib types and everyday use. I used a Parker 51 for many years at work, when out and about, but used a Pelikan M600 (old type) in my office. I don't like ballpoints but they have their uses, for instance government forms and signing the back of credit/debit cards. I always feel uncomfortable when people extol, in a very forceful way, their own preference for nib types. Everyone is different and the nib they like is the best nib for them. Thank goodness we are all different.

[Bo Bo Olson]

I have a slew of semi&maxi-semi-flex pens from the '50-70....Pelikan's end in '66. I never chased any of the '66-82 other pens....many having spade nibs.......because no one at all ever said, how nice his spade nib semi-flex was............... I was such a semi-flex snob back then.

 

Not so now, I've learned to like the regular flex nibs which are a bit better for shading....semi-flex better for line variation.

I have a good hand full of regular flex nibbed pens, some from the '82-97 era in Pelikan and a couple modern ones in steel, 215 and the Amethyst and Marble brown...which is gold plated..

 

I had a fat and blobby 605, with the double kugal/ball nib. It like a modern 400 is a semi-nail, instead of the springier and at least 1/2 narrower width of the regular flex nibs of the previous era. IMO that semi-nail, fat and blobby nib is made for those coming over from ball points and roller balls, who being Ham Fisted Ball Point Barbarians, kept making pretzels out of regular flex.................and refused to learn to hold a fountain pen like a fountain pen, but held it like a ball point.

 

The original Kugal nib, was slightly thicker at the tip and had the ball on top of the nib....the bottom was flat and stubbish like normal Geramn semi-flex pens of that era, so one can get the semi-flex flair if one holds it like a fountain pen. I have a Geha 790 and an Osmia 773 like that.

I had a Lamy 27? American Bump Under and a nail......

 

(Having grown up with the American Bump Under as 'normal', originally thought some one stubbed my first semi-flex pen that I didn't even know was semi-flex........even though I say my 140 was my first, it was my second, but my first that I 'knew' was semi-flex. The first wrote with that 'fat' wide wet line that so many 'noobies' liked..........semi-flex if one has a heavy hand, does write in a wider wetter line.

 

Parker....well I only have a '39 Vac with a '36 Canadian factory BB stub.....nail.

I am under the impression....also with the P-51, that Parker had gone over to nails well into the '30's perhaps early '30's. I don't hang out at Parker's sub section, but never read of any semi-flex or superflex nibs.

Sheaffer made nails and regular flex....and in the early '50's some semi-flex nibs.

Eversharp had made the superflex of the '30's and semi-flex of the '40's of the American pens........I don't know what sort of nib the Eversharp ended up with when it was bought up and made a cheap sub-Parker brand.

 

The P-51 also used a brand new superfast drying ink, that ate all other pen's feeds but the P-51 including other Parkers....

But to have a P-51 was fashionably IN.....indicating you had actually 'flown' or would and could.

 

I flew first in 1964 from New Orleans to Charlston (DC-3....normally with other prop jobs for shorter flights still. Jets was transcontinental or for oceans. ) in we were flying to Germany (707 and the seats were 18 inches across....the only plane I've flown in the last couple of decades in the Sardine class that had that much was United.)

I'd never had a single thought about flying....that was for rich folks. Like thinking of flying business class today....poor folks drove across the land...

 

The P-51 was invented by and for the Parker owner, who flew his own twin motor Beach-craft. There is no problem going with a train with a fountain pen....the raise of attitude is more gentle than in a car.

I'd have to look at my MB&Pelikan '50's papers to see exactly what they recommend with driving in the mountains....'early '50's papers....but you did have to do something.

 

Air travel was for the rich and well to do only.............and I could see they having voice in none knew what we know about air travel now for fountain pens. P-51 was high status because it was safe in seldom used Airplanes.

 

Ball points.......well I bought a couple NOS sets...Austrian Rewse pens. That showed me again all the problems ball points use to have........clickers don't quite work, point don't quite retract.....then there was the old ring of ink at the tip as I remember.

No, I'm not going to shave the clicker with a knife, like I use to do in school as a kid. Hard to sell the pen set then.

 

However I have a very clear memory one early summer day in Texas of '54/55 of my father not taking his Snorkel to work but the free Skillcraft ball point, the very first time...... Even little kids are status bitten.....that cheap thing , instead of that for adults only family Snorkel. Snorkel was the King of Pens....something every 7 year old knew.....we did have advertisements TV, better magazines back in the day.

 

When I asked Why he explained it worked better when writing on greasy cards hanging on the motor of a Landing Craft barge. And if it got broken, so what......

Being in the service ball points were free...same for civil servants. So there is the blame of why fountain pens almost died.....free government pens.

 

As cheap as we think of a Papermate pen now, it was not cheap then....more than likely priced to just under a Wearever. Papermate actually advertised...!!!!

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Bo Bo Olson

[chravagni]

 

 

 

Which Kaweco? The vintage Sport?

 

 

 

The modern Kaweco Sport, made of metal. The plastic version is quite breakable, while the aluminium or aluminium/carbon are sturdy and almost unbreakable. And they don't leak. At least, not yet (after thre years of jeans pocket)

 

Chiara

[Bo Bo Olson]

Plastic version of the Kaweco sport is not 'quite' breakable. It is a very sturdy pen, designed in the '30's to carry in a front pocket of a pair of pants....and to do sports in...soccer, climb mountains what ever sport you want to do on the spare moment and might need to write something......

 

If you feel safer having a metal pen....fine. But they even made the vintage Sport in piston....of course converters didn't come in until the middle late '50s. It is a very, very sturdy plastic pen.....probably as safe as the metal version for three corner bank shots with your book bag, kicking the book bag around a subway...with out a pen case.

Doing that building bouncing that is so popular now............I'd bet the plastic will hold up as well as the metal, when you are scraped off the sidewalk.

[AL01]

Yeah...

 

Again, I am a student...

 

So by default ....

 

Student = Broke.

 

But thanks for the suggestion. (Vintage Sports are expensive her though.)

[Bo Bo Olson]

Modern Plastic Kaweco sport, $21.49 with free shipping from Amazon.

E18.50 on German online.....but you'd have to pay mailing.

 

Some of the Kaweco short cartridge inks are OK.....Palm Green, Smokey Gray and Sunrise orange.

Caramel brown was a disappointment, but was cheap enough inks here in Germany....no flinch factor....even if small international cartridges.

I don't have one of the pens, don't ever think I'll buy one....took me years to train my wife...all shirts including Polo have a neat thing, invented in @ 1895 just for fountain pens, back when you bought a slip on clip of your choice for your fountain pen................a shirt pocket.

 

 

Hummmm. $5.90 by amazon was much more than I paid....at my B&M E1.65...............

WoW!!!! $15.57 for a bottle.................I have in mind under E4.00 in Germany.

 

Well international cartridges fit it.....bound to be some cheaper than $5.90 for six small international cartridges.....

Edited December 13, 2017 by Bo Bo Olson

[AL01]

I have tested out a sport before, but the vintage ones seem interesting.

 

Thanks for the price check, though.

 

(Eyedropper or refill carts. Much cheaper that way.)

Edited December 14, 2017 by AL01

[senzen]

I have an "old style" m600 with an 18k nib, and just got a used m205 with a steel nib; both seem smooth, the m600 perhaps a tad more, it's barely noticeable, I'm afraid I can't give a fuller description of smoothness, perhaps only my Sailor Professional gear is smoother in so far as it seems to float on a tiny drop of ink, but there is still some feedback; the main differences (while I use the m205 more) are that (1) the m600 lays a thicker line and (2) the m600 demands to be used, if I don't it seems to be a little "clingy", but improves as I use it.

 

 

Besides their smoothness I really appreciate their reliability, they make their respective inks look great, the m205 in clear blue looks spectacular, now easily my most beautiful pen.

[Bo Bo Olson]

 

Finally, the biggest difference, by wide margin, is not the base material but the epoch: Before 1960, there was a lot of variance, from very flexy semi-flexes to nails; after 1960, basically nails or a bit of springyness (yes, you can find some exceptions along the sixties but, except serious collectors, who would care when there still are enough pre-1960 units as to fall the secure path?)

 

My '65-50 nibs....are semi-flex or maxi-semi-flex (pure luck to which you get).....outside the regular flex 120.

 

I do have an D nibbed 400, which is a nails nail, the other manifold type nib is an H, and is reputed to be less a nail than a D nib, but still a nail.

The D and H nibs are marked......so you do know about what you are getting.

The D nib looks stub to me.

[Tseg]

Pelikan Gold vs. Steel... I've just spent 1/2 hour hopping between my top 7 writers, 5 are gold nib, 2 are steel, 2 are Pelikan. These 7 all have excellent writing characteristics, outside my top 7 they are all steel and I'm less apt to reach for because the nibs feel is substandard (and are generally low cost - value pens). I have 1 Gold nib Pelikan (Medium M1000) and 1 Steel nib Pelikan (Fine M120). I enjoy writing with both, but one is like driving a Rolls Royce and the other is driving Lotus... a time and a place for each.

 

My M120 (steel - Fine) feels and sounds most like my Pilot Custom 823 (gold - Fine), with the Pilot slightly more springy. My Waterman Carene (F), ST Dupont Olympio (M) and Pelikan M1000 (M) are all super quiet and smooth with essentially no feedback, different than all my steel nibs but similar amongst themselves. I then have a Sailor KoP (B - gold) and TWSBI 580 AL (B - steel) that are both outliers. Both are super smooth with a hint a feedback... the Sailor feedback in the form of a single subtle scratch and the TWSBI feedback in the form of a subtle magic-marker-like resonance.

 

Between all these, it would seem the multi-decade durability is what will play out between the gold and steel nibs (corrosion). I'm wondering how the modern day Pelikan gold plating on the steel nib will hold up over time? Have there been advances in plating technology?

[jmnav]

Pelikan Gold vs. Steel... I've just spent 1/2 hour hopping between my top 7 writers, 5 are gold nib, 2 are steel, 2 are Pelikan. These 7 all have excellent writing characteristics, outside my top 7 they are all steel and I'm less apt to reach for because the nibs feel is substandard (and are generally low cost - value pens). I have 1 Gold nib Pelikan (Medium M1000) and 1 Steel nib Pelikan (Fine M120). I enjoy writing with both, but one is like driving a Rolls Royce and the other is driving Lotus... a time and a place for each.

 

My M120 (steel - Fine) feels and sounds most like my Pilot Custom 823 (gold - Fine), with the Pilot slightly more springy. My Waterman Carene (F), ST Dupont Olympio (M) and Pelikan M1000 (M) are all super quiet and smooth with essentially no feedback, different than all my steel nibs but similar amongst themselves. I then have a Sailor KoP (B - gold) and TWSBI 580 AL (B - steel) that are both outliers. Both are super smooth with a hint a feedback... the Sailor feedback in the form of a single subtle scratch and the TWSBI feedback in the form of a subtle magic-marker-like resonance.

I'd say that, all in all, for the final "feeling" of a nib, its alloy is one of the less significant elements: nib's point, size, shape, brand, epoch... all seem to add more to the equation than gold vs steel.

 

 

Between all these, it would seem the multi-decade durability is what will play out between the gold and steel nibs (corrosion). I'm wondering how the modern day Pelikan gold plating on the steel nib will hold up over time? Have there been advances in plating technology?

I've owned -and used basically exclusively, a Pelikan M200 for the best part of two decades. Not the slightest sign of corrosion (probably because "modern" inks are tad more gentle than their ferrogallic relatives of yore, maybe because better alloy too). But its nib's point has weared from M to almost B (on the exact way I use it, so it's the smoothest nib I own) and its gold plating you more hint than see it, but in a very regular way, so it doesn't look to me "wasted" but more "well worn" in the way of a good pair of quality shoes.

[Bo Bo Olson]

My '80's-97 gold and steel nibbed pens are @ the same width....the same width as a modern post 97 200. The 200 is not a double kugal/ball nib like the modern 400/600/800.....don't know enough about the 1000 to say on that. So the modern gold nibs are fatter, blobbier, stiffer....and don't have as nice a clean line of my vintage or semi-vintage pens or modern 200's.

 

Back when I was a gold nib snob, I transmailed 200's nibs to a pal in England, in there are Germans that refuse to mail outside of Germany. I tested them. I became quite impressed with the 200's nib.

They matched my steel and gold Celebry pens, 381, and my no gold ring at the piston cap 400.

So having a few 400's ....didn't need a 200, so got a 215.

Then a W.Germany 200, and an Amethyst..................and wanting a good EF for editing got the Brown Marbled in that.

 

I find the steel regular flex 200's match my regular flex semi-vintage pens; the 3-4 gold ones and the two steel ones....an early 200 and one of my two Celebry pens.

Those two Celebry pen were exactly = in nibs, one gold and one steel.

Yes, the W. Germany nibs are a slight tad more springy than the '90-97 Germany ones.

 

IMO, if you want oblique line variation, do go vintage. I had had some hopes due to the slightly springier nib of the W.Germany pens, that my W.Germany 200 OM would have some line variation...... It didn't unless pressed to the max, and no one writes so.

[dysmedia]

I'm getting mixed information here:  some say that the Pelikan gold nibs run a size broader than steel nibs; some say they're the same. Here's why I'd like to know:  I have an M200 with a fine nib (W. Germany, old style), and I have a line on purchasing an M250 with a fine nib (also W. Germany, old style). The only difference between these, technically, is that the one I have is steel, and the one I'm looking at is gold. I love my M200, and there's no point in buying the M250 if it simply duplicates what I have (since I'm writing, not collecting). If it's going to be a size wider, then it's useful to me. I can't test it before buying — it will be shipped to me.  My M200 is already a wet nib, on the wider side of fine.

 

So... what am I likely to discover, if I purchase this pen?

[Bo Bo Olson]

A 200 has not quite the feel of a 400. Both are IMO finely balanced pens posted. My '80's- pre-98 nibs are so close in springiness, nib width being with in tolerance....

I learned in the semi-vintage era and the 200's up to a few years ago, that I've never worried about if the nib is gold or steel.*** They were IMO =.

I have a steel and a gold nibbed Celebry, and to me both springy regular flex  nibs are =. That is about as close a comparison as I can get.

 

If you can get a good deal on the 250 go for it....but I've no idea what is wide to you....you could end up with a  a fat F, middle F or skinny F. Three pens coming off the line one after another could be so.

Not even Lamy robot nib making machines make perfect matches to nib width.

 

*** I was once a gold nib snob.....ignorant too.

Well, more ignorant than I think my self now.

Gold vs steel comes down to what era is one in.

I have Osmia gold and steel nibs in semi-flex and maxi-semi-flex that are =.

I had a steel Geha nib that was semi-flex like my gold ones on my other Geha's, but had no pen to put it in so swapped it for a Geha School pen; nice springy regular flex steel nib. I do prefer that one to my Pelikan 120 springy regular flex steel nib, both as pen and nib wise. Though close.

 

 

I was not as impressed by Pelikan's CN nib as others who got one that they said was semi-flex and even "flexi" (once everything was 'flexi' that wasn't a nail) to many)....mine was only regular flex...a nice and springy nib with some nib bend and tine spread, but not even semi-flex.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What pens do you have that allow you to say the W.Germany F is a wide F?

 

Being in Italy, the Aurora nibs were 'always' the thinnest nibs in Europe, near as thin as the 'fat' Sailor nibs.

 

(There is of course tolerance/slop....where a skinny M = Fat F is normal, also on the other end....a skinny F = EF.) If you want I can post Ron Zorn's tolerance list....it is very eye opening to what is what.

 

Richard Binder's site has a print out for testing how wide your nib is....

Having come back to fountain pens after a life time of being away, I went wide, so didn't get all OCD splitting hairs of how narrow my nibs were.

Too skinny, very skinny, skinny, medium, wide, very wide and way too wide. Horseshoe close if lucky...hand grenade close if not.

 

There were reasons back in the day of One Man, One Pen, why each company had their own standards. Fatter Parker trained it's customers to want the fatter nib width. If they made a skinny nib like Sheaffer, their customer could commit heresy and buy a skinny nibbed Sheaffer and not buy a Parker now or in the next decade, also.

 

How Ever somewhere I got a old chart showing pre-Japanese market entry, (I guess  early '90's) showing Conway Stewart as being real, real fat, Parker as being fat, Sheaffer was narrower than Parker.

What was a surprise to me was Pelikan was narrower than Sheaffer, and the 800 had it's very own and even thinner standard than the 200/600/400. Then came Waterman.

There had been many fame wars between

 

Pelikan change the nib vs Waterman is skinnier flame war fans....oddly the  Pelikan EF was narrower than Waterman's.

How times have changed.

(Aurora was not listed, it was thinner than Waterman.

 

I find my W.Germany, 600/200's and pre'98 Germany 400/200. 381, two Celebry's in Gold and Steel, to be @ 1/2 a width narrower than modern post '97 double ball fat and blobby nibs.....due in large to classic tear drop tipping vs the ball point user's  fat tipping for a vertical hold...which demanded a stiffer nib of the modern 400/600/800..

 

My W.Germany small 600 OBB is 1/2 a width narrower than my modern early 2000's 1005 OBB. Due to nib shape.

 

Sometime in the last 4-5 years  the 200 went over to the fat and blobby double ball tipping. (In I've gone over to liking M a lot, and not paying attention like folks who chase narrow nibs do; ) Being a man blind to everything with out movement is true with me.

 

Ah, ya, spent years raving on how good and true to size the 200's fine springy regular flex nibs .... were.

 

My 250 is NOS and the wife bought it for me as an investment....so I've not inked it....but I expect all the vintage stubbed semi-flex ('50-65) and semi-vintage tear dropped springy regular flex  '82-97 nibs to be half a size narrower than modern.

The '66-82 era, I've only one pen, a Silberex in they were nails and semi-nails and not my cup of tea. It seemed 'normal'.

 

From Pelikan Perch.....

"""

M250

The M250 was initially released in 1985, likely the black variant first followed by several colored models.  These pens are the same size as the M400 which was reintroduced that year as well.  They are distinguished from the M200 by their 14C-585 nibs.  There are two trim variants of M250, depending on the year of release.  Pelikan restyled their trim levels in 1997 resulting in pre-’97 and post-’97 trim variations.  

The pre-’97 pens are distinguished by a derby cap top, gold colored trim, absence of a trim ring on the barrel, and two cap bands.  The only exception to the pre-’97 absent trim ring on the barrel is the tortoiseshell brown which has a thicker than usual trim ring at the piston knob, similar to the old style M600’s.  The post-’97 pens have a crown cap top, gold colored trim, trim ring at the piston knob, and a single cap band.  This model line was discontinued in the early 2000’s (circa 2005).  1.20ml ink capacity."""

 

Below is Ron Zorn's tolerance with my addon's.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Ron Zorn tolerance

Ron Zorn and Richard Binder visited the Sheaffer factory as it closed down.

Every company has it's very own  standard; usually for a good reason.

Parker makes or made a fatter nib than Sheaffer, so those who so wished or were so trained by their company of choice back in the day of One Man, One Pen.....(Chevy vs Ford)....to prevent a catastrophe....some Parker user, buying a Sheaffer for his pen of the decade. & vice versa. If Parker made a skinny nib like Sheaffer, why shouldn't a Parker fan not buy a Sheaffer pen...if they were the same width of nib. Such foolishness was avoided.

First you have to look at the Eras....Once Pelikan was narrower than both Parker and Sheaffer....Then in '98 Pelikan went over to fat blobby nibs....wider than Parker or Sheaffer. That was done so ball point users could use a fountain pen with out going through all that hassle of learning how to hold a fountain pen. And stiffer nibs that ball point users had a harder time springing or turning nibs into pretzels.

MB is also fatter now than it was in semi-vintage and vintage days.

And Japanese nibs are even narrower, than western vintage and semi-vintage days.

A Japanese poster said Sailor was the fattest Japanese nib, perhaps just a bit thinner  than pre 2010 Aurora (once the thinnest European nib. I haven't tested a newer Aurora nib, but that was the @ end of the Aurora semi-flex era.)

Japanese nibs are one or more widths narrower than modern Western nibs. They have to be in they are designed for a tiny printed script; not flowing cursive of western nibs.

There is a big gap between sizes of western and Japanese nibs. Those who start with Japanese pens always think of Western nibs as fat.

Those of us who started with Western nibs, know Japanese nibs as skinnier than marked size.

Japanese nibs ould well be 1/2 a width narrower than 'narrow'  Pelikan vintage or semi-vintage nibs......................I don't know if they are even narrower than that.  I had enough $ problems chasing German pens.

Three companies, using their own standards plus tolerance means even with in the company it is only approximate and when compared to another company it's oranges vs tangerines, in each company has it's very own standard. Then drop in Japanese narrow nibs.

Someone's F could be another's EF or M or so close measurement don't really matter. Call the others a real Skinny F or a real Fat F.

.....and the new number standard of 1.2-1.0-0.8 are just as off as the letter BB, B or M nib sizes are.

Even robot cut steel nibs from Lamy are off in constant width. (I did see the older larger machine....Goulet's vid, shows the smaller new one.)

There will be variance.....it is completely normal for three pens of the same width coming off the factory's line to be each a bit different.....and still be with in tolerance...skinny F, fat F, & normal F.

Tolerance is normal, in the AI's haven't taken over and removed slop.

IMO many people are too OCD and expect every F nib to be exactly the same, even if made from a different company, much less of different eras.

Those boring times are coming in the AI days, until then, enjoy a thick, regular and thin F................and the next company's F that has a different standard so as your normal company....will over lap what you consider 'normal in F vs M.

Nib width is either horseshoe or hand grenade close; only.

 

Sheaffer used a dial indicator nib gauge for measuring nib sizes. The nib was inserted into the gauge, and the size read off of the dial. A given size being nibs that fell within a given range. What is listed below were the ranges given on a gauge that I saw in the Sheaffer service center prior to being closed in March 2008.

Measurements are in thousandths of an inch.

XXF = 0.010 - 0.013
XF = 0.013 - 0.018
F = 0.018 - 0.025
M = 0.025 - 0.031
Broad* = 0.031 - 0.050
Stub = 0.038 - 0.050

*there was some overlap on the gauge. May be 0.035 - 0.050

[dysmedia]

Thank you!  In short: it's a crapshoot.  It's a NOS M250, black barrel, for 70 euro. So I should probably just buy it, and see what arrives.