A question stemming from curiosity, rather than any present need.
I like a juicy flow. If my pinky finger is getting stained by damp lettering as I drag my southpaw across the page, then the flow is too wet. But just short of that -- perfect. On a scale of 1 (the Sahara) to 10 (a river), I'll go for an eight or a nine.
Quite understandably, most pens don't write this wet out of the box. So, I have a long history of nib tuning -- both by professionals (Mottishaw, Oxonian, others) and by my own hand. I'm well into flossing and gentle spreading. I'm good with all that.
But here's my ignorant question: When questions come up on FPN about increasing the wetness of a given pen, the advice almost always -- 9 times out of 10, perhaps? -- goes to tweaking the nib, and/or to flushing and cleaning.
Only very, very rarely do responses address the feed as the potential culprit of dryness and a potential site of constructive intervention. Why is that?
Why, in other words, do we presume the nib is constraining flow, and not the feed? Isn't it just as likely that the feed could be starving the nib of sufficient ink to provide greater flow onto the page?
I know folks may be intimidated by the prospect of even removing the feed, much less hacking it, but the question remains as to why the presumptive diagnosis, when presented with paltry ink flow, is a too-tight nib rather than a miserly feed that's holding back the waters.
I would have thought that thorough advice to the flow-hungry would have to include either a combined -- or at least sequential -- approach to considering the nib *and* the feed. No?
Looking forward to enlightenment, by my betters, with great anticipation.
...for which, thank you, in advance.
In prospective gratitude,