Posted 17 November 2018 - 21:12
Shading is less of a function of the (physically measurable) nib width, or the angle at which the tip is cut, or whether the corners of the nib are sharp or rounded, than it is that of the 'wetness' of a nib.
As far as I'm concerned, as a reviewer and a fountain pen user, it is far more meaningful to show a range of different nibs that lay down similar line widths, and whether the colour and shading appear differently for them. It shows the potential of the ink – nay, more than that; it demonstrates what has been actually achieved by at least one user (i.e. the reviewer), not just the theoretical potential, and not just under the manufacturer's particular set of controlled conditions in its laboratory.
There is no point for me to close/narrow the gap between which equipment and materials I use for an ink review, and with/on what a (or every) faceless prospective reader of the review may have in mind to use the ink. It's up to the reader to extrapolate based on the data and information presented, without any assurance that the guesswork will be correct or accurate. It has been suggested to me that the review methodology ought to be clearly spelt out for the reader, and I think that is useful, so that a reader could attempt to replicate the results using the same methodology – including type of equipment, material, and technique used – if he/she desires to obtain the same results out of the ink as has been demonstrated in the review. Whether the individual reader wants to use the same type of nib, or paper, or handwriting style as the reviewer for his/her own use cases is irrelevant to the purpose and production of an ink review.
As always: 1. Implicit in everything and every instance I write on FPN is the invitation for you to judge me as a peer in the community. I think it's only due respect to take each other's written word in online discussion seriously and apply critical judgment. 2. I do not presume to judge for you what is right, correct or valid. If I make a claim, or refute a statement in a thread, and link to references and other information in support, I beseech you to review and consider those, and judge for yourself. I may be wrong. My position or say-so carries no more weight than anyone else's here, and external parties can speak for themselves with what they have published. 3. I endeavour to be frank and truthful in what I write, show or otherwise present when I relate my first-hand experiences that are not independently verifiable. If it is something you can test for yourself and see the results, I entreat you to do so.