The Meisterstück 149 Calligraphy Appreciation Thread

[fpupulin]

Dearest @invisuu, I really enjoyed your post, not only for the splendid Engrossed calligraphy you created with your 149 Calligraphy, but also for the underlying question.

 

Can a nib improve significantly with time and use, become more refined in its response, become more elastic and flexible, or is its improved performance merely the product of greater familiarity with the pen, a more suitable ink, or improved calligraphic "ability"? For a long time, @invisuu, I've been asking myself the same question, because I, too, had the feeling that my 149 Calligraphy nib was improving with use.

 

Today, however, I remembered that perhaps I had the tools in my hands to at least partially answer—certainly not scientifically, but not entirely based on mere impression—this interesting question.

 

I've used my 149 Calligraphy every day for almost six years. My hand has, in a certain sense, developed an osmosis with the pen. It knows its strengths and weaknesses and, above all, its potential. I've used it with a wide variety of different inks, some with excellent results, others less so, but all acceptable for writing and, I'd say, for writing well. In short, the fact that the 149 Calligraphy behaves "as it should" in my hand doesn't surprise me, but it's certainly possible that it's not just the familiarity between the two that makes the 149 Calligraphy—for me—an exceptional pen. It's possible that it has become so with use.

 

But, and here we come to the central point of my answer, I own another 149 Calligraphy, practically new, which I used only once four or five years ago just to test that the nib.

 

So today, I used both pens—one used for six years, the other now for the second time in its life—on the same sheet of paper (Fabriano Ingres 90 gsm), with the same ink, not particularly renowned for its fluidity, Diamine Golden Brown. I see, in the result, that the ink already in the barrel of the first 149 is more saturated, or more slightly oxidized, than the one recently loaded into the second 149. But, ink color aside, it seems to me that—essentially—the two pens respond to my hand identically, regardless of their "writing age."

 

I'll leave it to you, @invisuu, and the other forum readers, to judge the result, but based on what I see and feel when writing, what makes the difference is not a noticeable improvement in the pen, but a better education of the hand.

 

 

[Scribs]

Interesting @fpupulin thank you for sharing the results of your experiment! The question of whether pens improve greatly with use and age reminds me a lot of what is widely considered to be fact among classical string players, namely that the older the instrument gets, and the more it is played, the better it becomes as time passes. New violins definitely sound much different to matured instruments. 

 

However, based on your experience, it would seem the same can't be applied to pens. Which I have to confess I find a bit of a shame. I think I will continue to use mine and hope there could be subtle changes taking place. I know that some staunchly disagree (Richard Binder amongst others I believe, if memory serves correct).

[invisuu]

@fpupulin very happy to hear your thoughts and intriguing findings. Thank you. We're not scientific, but it's this contrast to my profession that makes it appealing as a hobby.

 

@Scribs the fact the pen doesn't change with time, which is fpupulin's observation, is probably not a bad thing. This means viscoplastic work on the metal (nib) is stable and not progressing. In fracture mechanics, writing with a nib is basically loading a crack, if according to Paris' law we would be adding viscoplastic work, the crack propagation would start. In simple terms, the nib would get softer with use, but also would break after "some time". 

From this point of view, it's good news that it's the user that is getting better with the nib, rather than nib becoming softer.

[fpupulin]

Oh no, @Scribs, I don't think a nib is a completely inert and insensitive object either.
 

If you look carefully at the writing produced by the two pens, you'll notice that the thin strokes of Calligraphy 1 are slightly broader than those of Calligraphy 2. I assume this is the result of six years of work and the wear and tear of the iridium coating the tip.
 

You'll also notice that the upper curves of the letters are rounder in Calligraphy 1 than in the Calligraphy 2 example. Since I tend to rotate the pen to the right, the nib "naturally" tends to form a sharp edge at the end of the ascending curves, but I believe that, even in this case, the iridium tip has "deformed" just enough, over so many years of constant use, to allow the nib to adapt to the movement of my hand.

So yes, ultimately, a nib is an almost living object in our hands!

[DimitriDiak]

Wonderful discussion here once again, and a joy as always to follow along!

 

I also believe that a well designed and manufactured nib should not mechanically change over time give that it is used in a healthy and respectful manner.

 

In contrast, I’ve also seen some nibs that appear worn from years of heavy, burdensome use, almost as if the life has been drawn out of them, responding in a dull, limp manner.

 

Under the right conditions however the gold nib itself stays stable, but the tipping does wear, paper slowly dulls the edge, increasing the contact area and softening the feedback, which is why I find that a light “re-sharpening” is required and can bring it back where it suits my taste.  For me this tactile experience is very important.  If the nib were actually getting softer, you’d be entering (as correctly stated above) fatigue territory “Paris’ law”, which would eventually lead to failure.  

 

So what improves over time is mostly the match between your hand and the pen, with a bit of surface-level tuning at the tip.  It’s the gradual elimination of mismatch between tool, surface, and intent.