A Question About Comparative Nib Output

[aardvarkbark]

What the world needs now is not love, love, love. What the world really needs is comprehensive data accurately documenting the line thickness of every fountain pen on the planet. Does one, or even one that lists most pens, exist?

 

I'd argue that what the world needs now is competent nibmeisters.

 

'Line thickness' is dependent on too many variables -- nib tip width, flow, ink, paper, pressure.

[Houston]

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Fountain pen nibs aren't typically simple broad-edged nibs, but instead have somewhat round globs of iridium tipping on the business end. The tipping has a three-dimensional shape that need not be perfectly hemispherical below the plane of the top of the tines, and in fact may have facets by design. Measuring the widest distance on the tipping is largely meaningless, since the width of its contact surface that lays and spreads ink on the page (perpendicular to the direction of the pen stroke) will be lesser; how much lesser depends on the geometry of the tipping, as well as various angles such as that between the plane of the tines and the plane of the paper surface, and that between the plane of the slit and the motion of the pen stroke. If the definition of the Medium nib width grade was that the widest distance between opposite points on the tipping is [0.5,0.6) millimetres, and that of the Broad nib width grade was [0.6,0.7) millimetres, it still would not mean (much less guarantee) there is more volume of tipping material on the latter -- due to, say, a much flatter geometry -- or that the latter would produce thicker lines than the former if all else (outside of the nib's physical measurements and geometry) were equal.

 

But what exactly would you know then from the nib width grade, if such simplistic definitions (reducing everything to a single scalar measurement) were agreed upon? The volume of tipping material and its geometry? The thickness of the nib material (e.g. 14K gold) surrounded by the iridum tipping? The plethora of coefficients that inform the nib's response to a given amount of pressure -- how much the tines will bend elastically 'upwards' perpendicular to the plane of the tines in resting position, and how much the gap between the tines will spread, etc.?

 

Well, I think it is that simple if the informational needs are simple. Here's what I want to know: the width of the nib at the point where it is intended to meet a surface.

 

I agree that all the complexity you address exists. I just don't need that much information. To put it another way, I'd like more information than I currently have. I don't need complete information -- were such a thing even theoretically possible. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Exhaustive is the enemy of partial. Etc. I just want more consistent information than is made available across pen manufacturers. I may have a lower bar than you.

 

Another reason I'm of the view that "it's that simple" is that several companies keep to their own individual standard, within a range of tolerances. And this has long been true. Bo Bo has regularly quoted Sheaffer's old range of standards against which they would measure every nib they produced. So, the possibility of codifying such a standard is proven in practice, by them. It is another matter, entirely, that no standard is common *across* manufacturers.

 

What I would know, to answer your question, were there a common standard, is at least one significant dimension of how one B compares to another B, an F to an F, etc.

 

This standard could be made as exhaustive as you like, taking in all the variables you list and more. But the level of precision reaches diminishing returns for the consumer pretty quickly -- becoming practically meaningless after a (I think very early) point.

 

Consistent, practical information is of value to consumers. Exhaustive precision isn't required, nor did I hear that being the original poster's premise.

 

In theory there are just too many variables to take into account. In practice, a few could be standardised and provide a bit more meaningful information to consumers.

 

"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is."

[Houston]

I might have missed it in someone else's response, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating anyone here, but my two cents:

 

-Standardization across brands isn't going to happen. There is no good business driven reason for that if you are a pen manufacturer. Why should Lamy change their manufacturing processes to match Pilot's, or vice versa, etc?

 

-A higher degree of precision and quality control with nib production within respective brands would be more useful for the consumer. If a Pelikan B, for example, were literally always a consistent .8 mm line with a given standard Pelikan ink on a given paper, then there develops a sort of pattern that one can expect when buying a B Pelikan nib. Your line width might be different because you use a different ink or paper, but if literally every Pelikan B nib wrote exactly like the next, you'd know what to expect. Now imagine if every size of nib from every manufacturer had the same precision. We'd all know what to expect from a given brand's nib (after a bit of experience, collectively or individually).

 

-However, there is no good business reason that I can see to apply that level of quality control to the production of nibs and their tipping. The pen makers would have to charge far more than they already do if each nib grade were so precisely made that there were no discernable variances in how the nibs write.

 

ETA: In my example above, it doesn't even matter what ink or paper is used (it would only be necessary to standardize those things if Pelikan stated a given line width).

 

I think you pretty much nail it. The only places I'd nuance what you say are:

 

1. One needs to be careful about conflating standards and precision. Having a common standard doesn't imply a particularly high level of precision. Indeed, standards can define acceptable ranges of imprecision and, hence, variability.

 

2. It's therefore unclear what the costs of adopting a hypothetical standard would be, because some of those costs would depend on the level of precision demanded by the standard.

 

But I still completely agree with you that there aren't currently the market incentives for businesses to change their behaviour, even if the cost of doing so were essentially zero. In an earlier post, I suggested that: the demand side of the market is small, collectively tolerant of idiosyncratic variability, and individually lacking in market power.

 

Moreover, based on this thread, even many aficionados hold that such a standard would be either (a) impossible or (b} meaningless, which leads me to the conclusion that demand for such a standard wouldn't materialise, anyway, even if the market structure and dynamics were different.

 

I hold that such a standard would be both possible and meaningful, but that it ain't gonna happen essentially for the reasons you state.

 

So, we're stuck with saying that a Japanese F and a vintage Western F and a modern Western F etc etc are all different, and tough luck if the prospective buyer can't sort it out.

 

I find this annoying and avoidable, but life is rich with other delights.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Houston

[BaronWulfraed]

 

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Fountain pen nibs aren't typically simple broad-edged nibs, but instead have somewhat round globs of iridium tipping on the business end. The tipping has a three-dimensional shape that need not be perfectly

 

I think I currently have a pair that suffice as examples. Both "western" broads. Freshly drawn on Levenger 3x5 card stock, using Edmund 6X optical comparator (old stock, I think the newer stuff uses recycled paper, has a greyer tint when I compare them).

 

Circa 1971 Sheaffer Imperial/Stylist variant 14K Triumph nib -- tipping is practically spherical (just a hair of flattening looking at the tangent of the contact patch; might be wear -- held against comparator circle gauge it is a 0.050 inch ball). Produces 0.6/0.6mm (horizontal/vertical) lines. (Diamine blue shimmer)

 

Circa 2003 Pelikan M250 14K nib -- very flat tipping. Produces 0.8/0.4mm lines... So this "B" behaves like a moderate/thick /stub/. (Diamine green shimmer)

[Houston]

 

I think I currently have a pair that suffice as examples. Both "western" broads. Freshly drawn on Levenger 3x5 card stock, using Edmund 6X optical comparator (old stock, I think the newer stuff uses recycled paper, has a greyer tint when I compare them).

 

Circa 1971 Sheaffer Imperial/Stylist variant 14K Triumph nib -- tipping is practically spherical (just a hair of flattening looking at the tangent of the contact patch; might be wear -- held against comparator circle gauge it is a 0.050 inch ball). Produces 0.6/0.6mm (horizontal/vertical) lines. (Diamine blue shimmer)

 

Circa 2003 Pelikan M250 14K nib -- very flat tipping. Produces 0.8/0.4mm lines... So this "B" behaves like a moderate/thick /stub/. (Diamine green shimmer)

 

Different tips have different shapes, for sure.

 

Baron, are you able to determine the width of each nib where it makes contact with the surface?

[Ted A]

Of course another answer is that you go into a physical store that lets you check the nib before you buy. But that would cost you about 20% more

[BaronWulfraed]

 

Different tips have different shapes, for sure.

 

Baron, are you able to determine the width of each nib where it makes contact with the surface?

My eyesight is not that good -- even with the 6X comparator (and don't want to get too much wet ink on the reticle). And when one takes into account the ink/paper cohesion/surface tension, the width is likely wider than the part of the tipping that physically touches.

 

The Sheaffer, as mentioned, is mostly a ball -- it sticks out above and below, and even to both sides (compared to the narrowing of the "wings"). Looking down from above, the front is rounded. From the side, a slight egg-shaped oval is seen. Only when viewed from the end tangent to the contact patch is any flattening seen.

 

In contrast, the Pelikan is flat on top, a slight thickness below. Looking down from above the end is squared off, and that squaring continues along the bottom side all the way back toward the feed. If this were an Esterbrook 2xxx nib, the side profile would match a folded steel tip. There is a continuous tapering from the wings to the very tip.

[tooloose-letrek]

 

P.S. Edison is always wiling to answer questions, they know what their nibs can do quite well after so many years of working with them....

 

Getting an Edison FP is on my bucket list. I'm deciding between three...

[tooloose-letrek]

The real problem for me is, as I noted in another post, my handwriting varies drastically depending on which pen I use. Pens costing what they do, and me never winning the lotto, buying sight-unseen is risky and expensive. One solution would be to not buy pens during the year, save up the money and only buy pens are FP shows. However...waiting a year is tough.

[tooloose-letrek]

Of course another answer is that you go into a physical store that lets you check the nib before you buy. But that would cost you about 20% more

Something I think about a lot, being an independent business person, is how important it is to support the brick and mortars that are still with us. I guess when we all move into Smart Cities don't own anything of substance (CDs, DVDs, books, etc.) someone will develop a digital fountain pen and of course we will have complete control of the writing characteristics!

[A Smug Dill]

The real problem for me is, as I noted in another post, my handwriting varies drastically depending on which pen I use.

But how much of the variance is due to the tipping on the nib being too wide, too narrow, or irregularly shaped to disappoint your expectations of a Fine nib, and how much of it is due to differences in the girth, length, weight, and/or balance of the pens and how you hold each one in your hand to adapt?

 

Pens costing what they do, and me never winning the lotto, buying sight-unseen is risky and expensive.

I don't recall ever buying a fountain pen only after I have test-written with the actual nib fitted on it. Most of my pens (including those that cost me north of $150 or even over $500 each) were bought sight unseen, often ordered from overseas retailers over the Internet. The relatively few that I bought locally from bricks-and-mortar retail stores, I didn't test; and the pens with which I test-wrote¹ in the shops I never bought.

 

Luckily, my handwriting is fairly consistent with a variety of narrow, round-tipped nibs.

 

One solution would be to not buy pens during the year, save up the money and only buy pens are FP shows.

Why? Are there no fountain pen retailers within driving distance that will let you dip any of the pens on display in ink and test-write?

 

I guess when we all move into Smart Cities don't own anything of substance (CDs, DVDs, books, etc.) someone will develop a digital fountain pen and of course we will have complete control of the writing characteristics!

Will you be able to get the perfect kitchen knife that way too? Miyabi, Kasumi, Shun, Wüsthof and Zwilling knives of a given type are never all going to handle identically, even with the same product specifications on paper numerically.

 

¹ Mainly Lamy and Monteverde, with cheaper models in manufacturer-supplied display stands for anyone to try unattended, and the occasional Cross and Sheaffer that was already inked up lying on a pen tray beneath the glass counter.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Even the purely robot steel Lamy nibs are complained about for lack of size consistency. I understand for a video Gulet made of the Lamy factory, they have a newer nib making machine than I was there some 6 years ago on a newspaper won tour. It has a laser heating the nib to close the slit instead of a heat chamber.

 

A company can not make a B a B....it can make a skinny B = to a M, it can make a fat B - to a BB, or anything in between and that on two pens following each other off the assembly line.

 

Ron Zorn tolerance..............Ron had gone to the US Sheaffer factory when it closed down.

""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"""

As you see Fat and Skinny of any two adjacent widths are the same.

Richard Binder has a print out nib width scale, you can test your nib.....ha, ha...you also have to add what paper you printed that scale out and what ink...........in ink and paper can add or subtract up to a full width of nib...............then comes how hard one presses on the nib factor.

 

There is very, very skinny....do the Euros make that no. There is very skinny, Aurora makes that width. The rest are Japanese. Spiderweb and baby spiderweb nibs..........no good for shading inks nor laid or linen papers.

Skinny nibs, yes made by the Euros....called a EF or a Japanese F.

Middle skinny nibs.....some make a fatter nib than others, or this era is fatter than vintage. Hole lots of M-F nibs...........

Medium nibs....M or Japanese B which is a fat M. Do look at Richards nib width chart. Be some fat Medium's too the M-B nib.

Wide nibs B..........not made by the Japanese. Nor are real wide nibs BB made by the Japanese, much less BBB nibs.

 

Numbers ...but there will be slop/tolerance.

A so called 1.0 nib could well be with in tolerance if 1.1 or 0.09 if that tight. A fat or skinny B.

 

Your choice is to have your nibmeister and you can't change nibmeisters in the next guy is fat or skinny compared to the other.................as he might well be in 5 years..........make your nibs on all your pens exactly to your very own standard.

You are not allowed to use any other ink nor paper that your nib was not tuned for ..... nor are you allowed to develop a lighter Hand...................if Ham Fisted you must remain Ham Fisted, or your nib will write skinny!!!

 

I use to have in my signature thank god for half sizes or it would be boring.

 

You can make your nib write fatter or thinner, when you change ink and paper.

 

I also am against having all my pens tweeked to write exactly the same wetness, say a 8 or 10 on the scale.....................one is again condemned to write only with the same ink on the same paper.

Why would I have a wet ink....if I didn't have a dry nib...........why a dry ink (outside they often shade better) , if not for a wet nib.

With permission of Penboard.de

I would not even attempt to widen such a nib. I went out and bought what was back in the day a wet ink Waterman South Sea blue. The pen was no longer dry................later replaced with DA Royal Blue.

 

 

Gel/hybrid pens are also not as tight on tolerance as marked.....a fine Japanese poster did a measurement on that................so that myth is busted.

One has to get over the OCD of exact nib width.........one has a choice of horseshoe close or hand grenade close of a nibmeister of your choice.

 

Don't know how narrow the modern Parker and Sheaffer nibs are/were....someone was supposed to do some work on that.

 

As explained a long time ago, in the days of the Fabled Corner Pen Shoppe due to market surveys did in such shops for the big boys, Parker customers were trained to want a wider nib, Sheaffer customers a narrower nib. Once upon a time...... sales folks knew what they were doing way back then...one stayed on the job long enough to learn something.....as strange as that sounds. So good advice was at hand....Parker folks were steered to wider Parker pens, Sheaffer folks to skinny Sheaffer nibs.............those wanting some flex, to Waterman for a long time or to Whal Eversharp.................before it was bought up and ruined to miss use it's name by Parker.

 

IMO....chasing the narrowest nibs at all costs costs the enjoyment of inks and papers. Inks that shade, well liked rougher laid or line paper. In super skinny nibs need vivid well saturated boring wet or supersatruated inks to be seen.

It appears to me, many refuse to step up to wider nibs in they might have to learn to widen their script....which they think is beyond them.

It's not. Take 2 pages, fold in half. Write as wide and tall as possible on the first quarter, a bit smaller one each following quarter until you reach that super tiny script you are so proud of.

Print some wider than collage lines from a free line making template.....M writes easy in a wider line. Make even wider lines for B.

No lines can do that too. .................might help to have a dark wider line under sheet at first.

 

Will admit to using such an underlined 'gadget' that came with some papers of mine...............humm. should look around and find that. I tend to slant.

[tooloose-letrek]

Not as comprehensive as what you seek, but perhaps of interest:

 

That's perfect. It includes most of my favorite brands, but no Lamy. Lamy, Pilot, Sailor, and the pen that got me really enthused decades ago, Pelikan. I use the Pelikan when I want to see more ink. THANKS.

[tooloose-letrek]

What concerns me is that even within the same company, the line variance occurs with different models. For example, I have a Pilot E95S F and when I ordered a Pilot Custom 74, I expected it would be about the same. It's not. The Custom F is VERY thin. And at over $150, it's an expensive gamble.