Lamy 2000 Line Width - Objective Measure

[mitchjg]

I recently purchased a Lamy 2000 M. Actually, I bought both and F and an M and returned the M. The M has been tuned by Mike Masuyama.

 

As I use it, I still vacillate whether or not an F would be better for me. As part of this little debate, I decided to find out if my M nib is running wide, especially because I have read so many notes here at FPN that "Lamy 2000's run wide"

 

I used the 2 pdf benchmarking tools here: https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...showtopic=16203

(Be careful when you print to ensure the print driver is not scaling. Mr. Binder's table has a ruler to check against)

 

Using each tool, I have found that the closest measure of mine is 0.50 mm, possibly a little touch more (say .53 at the very most). According to Mr. Binder's table, this is a solid M if not a bit on the thin side.

 

I also checked carefully, "letter for letter", with an Esterbrook M. Virtually identical, the Lamy may be .53 vs. .50 and that is me making up a diference.

 

I used Mohawk Via Smooth which seems to be a paper that minimizes distortion of the line width, in a similar way to the HP 32# paper.

 

So, whether or not I ultimately decide if my Lamy M is too wide for me, it will not be because it is a wide running M.

 

This seems different than the conventional wisdom here. I wonder if it is because the actual width is highly variant pen to pen or ?

 

Your experience? thoughts?

[Shelley]

I use an EF - it works for me, i do not worry about it.

[ZeissIkon]

So, whether or not I ultimately decide if my Lamy M is too wide for me, it will not be because it is a wide running M.

 

This seems different than the conventional wisdom here. I wonder if it is because the actual width is highly variant pen to pen or ?

 

Your experience? thoughts?

 

I suspect there's enough pen to pen variation to make generalities moot -- identical M nibs from the same manufacturer can run from a barely above fine to "almost broad", even discounting those Asian nibs that are about a grade finer than the same marking in a western pen. Add in the variation in wetness and paper response, and the marking on the nib is only a guideline.

[Ernst Bitterman]

I've found that the EF seems wider that, say, an F Vacumatic or Snorkel, but it's also very wet, and has a surprising amount of flex for a modern pen. so if one has a slightly heavy hand, the tines will be open most of the time while writing. But that's all subjective and speculative-- no measuring as such.

 

For the comfort and convenience of others:https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...showtopic=16203

Edited June 22, 2009 by Ernst Bitterman

[cubcisquare]

The last I check, my Lamy 2000 Fine is exactly as it should be (based on Mr Binder's chart). Initially I thought it was too wide. My Lamy Safari EF is also exactly as it should be.... I used normal photocopier paper to do the comparison. So no complaints from me.

[I am not a number]

As Ernst Bitterman points out above, there is the factor of how much pressure is put on the nib when writing. That ramps up the nib width by a factor of about one grade for me as I use a lot of pressure.

[jmkeuning]

The lamy 2000 is notorious for inconsistent width.

[RevAaron]

I've only gone through a few Lamy 2000s, but the widths have been consistent for me. The Fines wrote like true fines, the EF wrote like a true EF. The Fine wrote a finer line than my Fine nibbed Pelikans (vintage and modern), and finer than modern Parkers.

 

Not that most 2000 EFs write like EFs, though.