Expensive Pens Vs. Cheap Pens

[Dino Silone]

Splicer, we speak different languages. (I'm not going to wrestle with the html this time.) If I want a pen with a panda on it (though I couldn't envision myself wanting such a thing), I'd want it with an image of a panda that pleased me. I couldn't care less if it looked exactly like a panda. But I also couldn't care less how it got there. If you'd pay more for it, that's cool.

 

Similarly, on the R&D thing: whether you say one company spends X and the other spends X+Delta, or you subtract Delta from both and express it the way you did makes no difference. The only point is that one spends more than the other to give the exact same thing to a consumer. My subsequent post to the one you responded to talks about what effect that has in the real world.

 

To follow the reductionism even further, let's say that company B spent infinite money on R&D, but all they ever produced were flawed designs that didn't work. Let's further say that they manufactured their products using the highest-paid workers who enjoyed the protections of cradle-to-grave job security, a 30 minute work week, 51 weeks per year paid vacation with full medical coverage. But they did crappy work. And then say that they used the most expensive possible materials to make their products - materials that actually interfered with the function, but that were known to be rare and valuable to people who valued things simply because they were rare. By that list, this product would be worth a lot more than a well-designed, mass-produced product that worked like a dream.

 

If that's a good way to decide what's better than something else, go with it.

 

And I think I could add to your list of objective criteria, at least for a pen user:

 

It should write smoothly, without skipping, and keep writing that way until it runs out of ink.

It should hold a fair amount of ink (or alternatively, be efficient in its use of ink), so that you don't have to refill it all the time.

It should write when you take the cap off, and not need to be dipped in water or scribbled with or shaken in order to start.

It shouldn't need to make repeated, frequent trips to a pen technician to adjust it.

It should be relatively not messy to fill.

It shouldn't leak or get ink all over your fingers.

 

Then there are the other things I'd like to know if I were considering buying a pen: Length, diameter, weight, texture, best writing angle. Not to assign a value, but to determine if the thing will fit my hand relatively well. I wouldn't expect the combination of these things that's best for me to be best for anyone else, but they'd be good to know for anyone who is thinking about buying the pen to use.

 

I can't imagine what characteristics would factor into the decision for someone who was buying the pen to collect, or to appreciate as a work of art. But I'd expect that the list of characteristics those folks would all agree on would be pretty short.

[Deb T]

Some of you folks are being so rational. I agree on the basics that my favorite pens have the positive attributes mentioned in this thread.

But, I have to say sometimes I buy a pen out of curiosity (those tend to be the under $50 or under $20 pens). Sometimes I buy a pen because I love the way it looks and have read that it's a pretty good pen (Kaigelu, Monteverde Invincia, TWSBI). I bought a Pilot Namiki Vanishing Point because I wanted a pen with a retractable point (That's the most I've ever paid for a pen $145).

 

I guess I qualify as a collector for the above reasons, but I love writing with them. I have at least 20 pens and keep 7-10 pens inked and try to use them all in the course of 2 or 3 days.

A cheap good FP gives me a thrill, but so do the beauties of the more expensive pens. If I had more disposable income, I'd try some of the pricier pens, but even then would never pay over $300 to $500.

[Dino Silone]

Some of you folks are being so rational. I agree on the basics that my favorite pens have the positive attributes mentioned in this thread.

But, I have to say sometimes I buy a pen out of curiosity (those tend to be the under $50 or under $20 pens). Sometimes I buy a pen because I love the way it looks and have read that it's a pretty good pen (Kaigelu, Monteverde Invincia, TWSBI). I bought a Pilot Namiki Vanishing Point because I wanted a pen with a retractable point (That's the most I've ever paid for a pen $145).

 

I guess I qualify as a collector for the above reasons, but I love writing with them. I have at least 20 pens and keep 7-10 pens inked and try to use them all in the course of 2 or 3 days.

A cheap good FP gives me a thrill, but so do the beauties of the more expensive pens. If I had more disposable income, I'd try some of the pricier pens, but even then would never pay over $300 to $500.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, though my most expensive pen so far was a Parker Vector for $16. But someone made the point that the vintage pens that I fix up would be much more expensive if I had bought them already reconditioned, so maybe they don't count as "cheap".

[Deb T]

I haven't gotten into vintage pens yet. I don't trust myself to fix one that needs restoration and the reconditiones ones usually get priced out of my price line. I think if I could try one in person and liked it, I'd be willing to pay more. Maybe as I learn more about pens, I'll gain the confidence to get a vintage pen.

I admire your ability to restore older pens.

Some of you folks are being so rational. I agree on the basics that my favorite pens have the positive attributes mentioned in this thread.

But, I have to say sometimes I buy a pen out of curiosity (those tend to be the under $50 or under $20 pens). Sometimes I buy a pen because I love the way it looks and have read that it's a pretty good pen (Kaigelu, Monteverde Invincia, TWSBI). I bought a Pilot Namiki Vanishing Point because I wanted a pen with a retractable point (That's the most I've ever paid for a pen $145).

 

I guess I qualify as a collector for the above reasons, but I love writing with them. I have at least 20 pens and keep 7-10 pens inked and try to use them all in the course of 2 or 3 days.

A cheap good FP gives me a thrill, but so do the beauties of the more expensive pens. If I had more disposable income, I'd try some of the pricier pens, but even then would never pay over $300 to $500.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, though my most expensive pen so far was a Parker Vector for $16. But someone made the point that the vintage pens that I fix up would be much more expensive if I had bought them already reconditioned, so maybe they don't count as "cheap".

[ethernautrix]

Beyond the objective criteria is the aesthetic.

 

Cheap Pen writes as well as Expensive Pen. If you don't care about aesthetics, then spending a lot of money for an Expensive pen will seem crazy.

 

I'm probably crazy for buying the pens I've bought and happily use. I'm comfortable with that.

 

 

[Sailor Kenshin]

'Esthetics' can be tricky, too.

 

Is a Sailor 1911 purdyer and a better writer than a Hero 616.

 

Yes. Even I will admit that.

 

Is one of my mid-range Chinese pens purdyer and a better writer than some of the higher-end pens I've used and bought?

 

That's close. Really, really close. Like a horse race with a photo finish.

[oldjock]

I am a novice to fountain pens, but have enjoyed this subject in particular.

I have about 10 pens at the moment, the most expensive was £30 the cheapest was £1:95p.

I just really love my fountain pens and have been seriously considering spending about £150 on my next pen

although I have yet to decide leaning toward a Pelikan from what I've read so far.

Why because I believe quality comes at a price and I want one good quality pen.

Problem is I expect a lot for my £150, that being said my most reliable pen to date is the one that cost the least

so kind of confuses my own belief that price always gets you better.

My reliable cheapo will continue to be used daily in my work for notes and filling in the daily work schedules.

When I do spend what to me is a fair amount on my quality pen it would be used for pure pleasure.

[ImolaS3]

The difference?

 

Try one from a shop or fellow fpn member, then you'll know

[Splicer]

Splicer, we speak different languages.

 

Yeah, I'm seeing semantic differences cutting through the fog of actual disagreement. First, if I wasn't clear enough, I cede that I was including subjective characteristics and so a lot of my arguments should maybe be in a different thread or nowhere at all. Sorry about that.

 

If I want a pen with a panda on it (though I couldn't envision myself wanting such a thing), I'd want it with an image of a panda that pleased me. I couldn't care less if it looked exactly like a panda. But I also couldn't care less how it got there. If you'd pay more for it, that's cool.

 

One of my "someday" pens:

 

http://www.namiki.com/limitedEditions/panda.php

 

From the point of view of realism and objective criteria, that panda is inaccurate. Subjectively, it's beautiful.

 

To follow the reductionism even further, let's say that company B spent infinite money on R&D, but all they ever produced were flawed designs that didn't work. Let's further say that they manufactured their products using the highest-paid workers who enjoyed the protections of cradle-to-grave job security, a 30 minute work week, 51 weeks per year paid vacation with full medical coverage. But they did crappy work. And then say that they used the most expensive possible materials to make their products - materials that actually interfered with the function, but that were known to be rare and valuable to people who valued things simply because they were rare. By that list, this product would be worth a lot more than a well-designed, mass-produced product that worked like a dream.

 

OK, I think that we can agree that the exercises in reductionism are pretty close to meaningless. Rather than "paying for R&D" perhaps "paying for innovation?" I get that it's an intangible, but it does go to the value of a pen in some if not many cases. The history of the company and its track record with innovation engenders brand loyalty which translates to willingness to spend more for that brand regardless of the pen in question today being the direct result of said innovation. If the Parker Pen Co of the 1930s-1960s existed today, I might buy my pens exclusively from them

 

I'll concede that your list has some attributes are universal, but...

 

It should write smoothly, without skipping, and keep writing that way until it runs out of ink.

 

Subjective. Many people want their nibs to have a bit of tooth or feedback to them. A little searching on FPN you should be able to find a few people complaining that a pen is too smooth. Although, smoothly and without skipping are really two attributes. "Without skipping" is pretty universal.

 

It should hold a fair amount of ink (or alternatively, be efficient in its use of ink), so that you don't have to refill it all the time.

 

Some folks still prefer dip pens, so I'm saying that one too is not universal, though it is certainly something many people are willing to pay more for.

 

I think I can sum up the rest of the attributes in your list with the words "reliability" and "durability" but those may be too vague and general for your purposes.

[redisburning]

Lets play a bit of a fountain pen rpg and work out the character types:

 

The not worth it group:

The budget constrained

The cost-benefit analyzer

The newbie

The troll

 

The worth it group:

The fountain pen nerd

The collector

The big cheese (aka. The status conscious)

The experimentalist

 

The budget Contrained

This character is equally likely to view a pricey pen as worth the money or not. However, a pen that exceeds their budget is strictly off limits so they do not own any. Often, pens are borderline on affordability, but starving yourself for a week is not precisely fun so they more often then not stick to low price pens. Is the character you begrudgingly add to your party but never use because you cant find any good armor for them. This character's birth pen (lol?) is the Lamy Safari.

 

The cost-benefit analyzer

This character likes ratios. Price per performance. Performance per material. These are the language of the CBA type. Decreasing marginal utility in price mean these users are generally owners of pens that have a reputation for performing "as good as more expensive pens". Expensive materials, limited runs and artistry do not add to performance, only to price, and as such are largely unnecessary to this character. Is the one tragically killed at the end of the story because they decided the main character was more important to the story. This character's pen is the Pelikan M200.

 

The newbie

This character feels that a good pen will be lost on them. Starts a (yet another among like 7 on the first 2 pages) topic about what the best entry level pen is. Still tentative about whether or not they will like fountain pens, they take advice seriously and are just in the beginning stages of madness. They tend to use too many potions (ink) and occasionally die to the monsters outside of the first town (bad paper). Their pen is the TWSBI 530.

 

The troll

Contrary for the sake of being contrary. No pen is EVER worth it (excepting if the troll belongs to a particularly common subspecies, the brand troll), with increasing vitriol as the price of the pen increases. Tend to live under bridges with particularly cranky imaginary mates. Have a surprising number of hit points but are deathly allergic to light (moderators). Their pen is "like I'd ever tell you".

 

The fountain pen nerd

This character cares only about one thing; what is the best pen. Is a pen 100 years old? Not a problem. Does the pen need to be epoxied together into an eye-dropper? Not a problem. Does the nib need to be ground by the magical elves of Blaqenathar? Not a ****ing problem. There are two subclasses for this character type; the purist and the romantic. The purist loves plain designs that fit what is considered to be the "proper" dimensions for measuring worth. Elaborate designs are acceptable if they demonstrate superior craftsmanship. The romantic likes pens that "speak" to them. Often, they use words charged with "emotion" to describe a pen; it's warmness, it's soul, it's zeitgeist. This character's pen is a vintage Montblanc 146.

 

The collector

The fountain pen nerd's best friend. Though they differ in usage, a common goal unites them; both are supremely concerned with the "best". Despite their reluctance to use a pen, a collector will never own a pen that writes like a dog unless it is exceedingly rare and valuable. Together with their best friend, the collector has made sure that only the best pens go for high prices in the local market. Though sometimes the source of consternation to his/her friends, he/she is always willing to share stories of dangerous adventures (in trading) and long lost treasures guarded by dragons (ebay). Their pen is the Parker 51 Signet. Like a whole box of them. Seriously, like a whole box.

 

The Big Cheese

Owns an expensive pen because it says they are important. Rarely uses it, but when he does he makes as big a show as possible about it. This villain shows up like 3 times and is either way too easy or way too hard, and is responsible for many an anticlimactic ending (pen does not start, asks to borrow ballpoint). His pen is the Montegrappa 20th Century Limited Edition in solid gold. Solid gold. Did you hear him? He said it was solid gold.

 

The experimentalist

The wise old man/woman of the party who somehow shows up precisely on time to teach the younger whippersnappers a life lesson about how you have to forgive your friends because you care about each other, you cant take it with you, life is short or dont give up on true love. Always knows where to go, gives many a main character their first sword (pen) and drops jaws when they reveal some ancient relic from their tattered garb (listing their 3 favorites where one costs 20 dollars, the next 575 and the last 1300).

 

 

 

 

well I guess this joke went on too long. Anyway, that's all it is, please try and not get offended if you like one of these fine pens and you dont like the clearly sarcastic generalization Ive made.

[Dino Silone]

Splicer, we speak different languages.

 

Yeah, I'm seeing semantic differences cutting through the fog of actual disagreement. First, if I wasn't clear enough, I cede that I was including subjective characteristics and so a lot of my arguments should maybe be in a different thread or nowhere at all. Sorry about that.

 

If I want a pen with a panda on it (though I couldn't envision myself wanting such a thing), I'd want it with an image of a panda that pleased me. I couldn't care less if it looked exactly like a panda. But I also couldn't care less how it got there. If you'd pay more for it, that's cool.

 

One of my "someday" pens:

 

http://www.namiki.com/limitedEditions/panda.php

 

From the point of view of realism and objective criteria, that panda is inaccurate. Subjectively, it's beautiful.

 

To follow the reductionism even further, let's say that company B spent infinite money on R&D, but all they ever produced were flawed designs that didn't work. Let's further say that they manufactured their products using the highest-paid workers who enjoyed the protections of cradle-to-grave job security, a 30 minute work week, 51 weeks per year paid vacation with full medical coverage. But they did crappy work. And then say that they used the most expensive possible materials to make their products - materials that actually interfered with the function, but that were known to be rare and valuable to people who valued things simply because they were rare. By that list, this product would be worth a lot more than a well-designed, mass-produced product that worked like a dream.

 

OK, I think that we can agree that the exercises in reductionism are pretty close to meaningless. Rather than "paying for R&D" perhaps "paying for innovation?" I get that it's an intangible, but it does go to the value of a pen in some if not many cases. The history of the company and its track record with innovation engenders brand loyalty which translates to willingness to spend more for that brand regardless of the pen in question today being the direct result of said innovation. If the Parker Pen Co of the 1930s-1960s existed today, I might buy my pens exclusively from them

 

I'll concede that your list has some attributes are universal, but...

 

It should write smoothly, without skipping, and keep writing that way until it runs out of ink.

 

Subjective. Many people want their nibs to have a bit of tooth or feedback to them. A little searching on FPN you should be able to find a few people complaining that a pen is too smooth. Although, smoothly and without skipping are really two attributes. "Without skipping" is pretty universal.

 

It should hold a fair amount of ink (or alternatively, be efficient in its use of ink), so that you don't have to refill it all the time.

 

Some folks still prefer dip pens, so I'm saying that one too is not universal, though it is certainly something many people are willing to pay more for.

 

I think I can sum up the rest of the attributes in your list with the words "reliability" and "durability" but those may be too vague and general for your purposes.

I still won't pay for innovation, unless it's innovation that helps me now, in some way that I want to be helped. The market will take care of rewarding innovation, without my deliberate action.

 

But I do understand brand loyalty - I wouldn't include that in a list of criteria for evaluating a pen, since my loyalties and yours might be to different companies. (I'd have to include the old Sheaffer with Parker, for example...). But after coming up with the "score" for a pen, I still might throw brand loyalty into the mix in my purchasing decision. (As I would for aesthetics and other personal criteria...)

 

The dipped pen example is a little forced - I think we'd agree that our criteria for deciding whether or not we like a dipped pen wouldn't necessarily be the same as those we'd apply to choosing a fountain pen - they're two different animals. (For example, I still like to write with quills sometimes, but I don't confuse them with my 51.) I do believe, all other things being equal, it's pretty universal to want a fountain pen that writes longer between fills.

 

I concede that smooth may be a subjective criterion - I love the smoothness of my 51, but I also like a pen with a little bite sometimes. I think we can agree that nobody wants scratchy and nobody wants a pen that you have to press hard on to get the ink to flow. I don't know what to call that - maybe "reliable ink flow".

 

I'm not really looking for a list. I just didn't agree that the one posted earlier was something that could be used by more than one person.

[AltecGreen]

Let's roll for initiative.

[mdbrown]

I'm apparently Chaotic Neutral because I'm all over the place in your list... ;-)

[watch_art]

Lets play a bit of a fountain pen rpg and work out the character types:

 

The not worth it group:

The budget constrained

The cost-benefit analyzer

The newbie

The troll

 

The worth it group:

The fountain pen nerd

The collector

The big cheese (aka. The status conscious)

The experimentalist

 

etc...

 

 

 

:roflmho: :roflmho: :roflmho: :ltcapd: :ltcapd: :ltcapd:

 

THAT'S THE FUNNIEST THING I'VE READ ALL DAY!!!!!!!

[ethernautrix]

Bravo, redisburning! That was fun.

[AltecGreen]

I'm apparently Chaotic Neutral because I'm all over the place in your list... ;-)

 

 

That's not alignment. You are just multi-classed. :roflmho:

[Blade Runner]

Lets play a bit of a fountain pen rpg and work out the character types:

 

The not worth it group:

The budget constrained

The cost-benefit analyzer

The newbie

The troll

 

The worth it group:

The fountain pen nerd

The collector

The big cheese (aka. The status conscious)

The experimentalist

 

etc...

 

 

 

:roflmho: :roflmho: :roflmho: :ltcapd: :ltcapd: :ltcapd:

 

THAT'S THE FUNNIEST THING I'VE READ ALL DAY!!!!!!!

+1

 

You hit some nails squarely on their heads.

[toomanypelikans]

My cheap pens just don't give me the same level of enjoyment, for the most part - it's material, design, quality of workmanship, and feel of nib (mostly in regard to the amount of spring and resultant line variation). The nib is the most important thing, but I'm really drawn to pens that are visually interesting and pleasant to hold and that incorporate interesting materials like celluloid.

 

I'm also really into textures, so I like pens like the Lamy 2000 and the Pelikan M640 Sahara that are texturally interesting. One of these days I really need to get a bakul-finish Varuna.

 

I agree in regards to the nib - I had an old Waterman Preface Fine nib pen in the draw for years - the fine point was just a bit boring and detracted from an otherwise (for me) nicely weighted pen. Recently I bought a superbly smooth factory stub for it on ebay and now it is my favourite pan - amazing what difference a nib makes...

[stuartk]

So I guess that's the question buried in here. What would make a pen worth 50x as much as a pen like those?

 

The person buying the pen is what makes it special. Or to say it another way, the pen is special to a particular person.

Edited March 1, 2011 by stuartk