Is the Lamy 2000 an objectively good pen?

[sansenri]

as most things it's subjective...

however when something is subjectively regarded as very good and highly recommended (not necessarily for the same reasons) by a relevant number of people

it does lean on the verge of objectively good...

 

 

 

[alexwi]

2 hours ago, Karmachanic said:

Oxford English Dictionary 😀

Thanks!

 

Alex

[alexwi]

58 minutes ago, sansenri said:

however when something is subjectively regarded as very good and highly recommended (not necessarily for the same reasons) by a relevant number of people

it does lean on the verge of objectively good...

Objectively, you can say that a lot of people like it 😉

 

[A Smug Dill]

19 hours ago, arcfide said:

Hey all, I've been wondering, is the Lamy 2000 an objectively good pen, or is it a good pen that is highly appreciated primarily for its combination of objective and relative merits, such as its relatively inexpensive pricing for a gold nib pen, it's unique styling, &c.?

 

I'm struggling with the implication that objective and relative are somehow orthogonal. If there is some objectively measurable attribute — on a scale where one end is considered to be of higher merit — without some minimum absolute criterion for ‘good’ or ‘fit for purpose’, then something can be objectively in the top 10% (higher being better) of all different pen models available today, and therefore objectively good because of its relative merit.

 

Irrespective of price, I think the Lamy 2000 Makrolon is a well-designed and well-constructed fountain pen in its own right, whether you want to consider it on its own, or stand it next to an Aurora Oceano, Santini Italia Nonagon, Pelikan Souverän, Pilot Custom Heritage 92, PenBBS 309, and/or Wing Sung 3008 (i.e. some selection of piston-filled) fountain pens. So I'd say it's a good pen, but that doesn't mean I like it or prefer it; I'd rather write with an Aurora Optima or Pelikan M205, especially because I don't like the Lamy 2000's EF nib, which is nowhere near crisp, precise and feedback-y enough for my tastes. (I'd even prefer a humble Lamy steel Z52 or Z53 EF nib any day.)

[maclink]

The L2K was one of my earliest fountain pen purchases and had not grown to really appreciate it until recently.  I think it a very good pen.  I now have 4 and with varying nib sizes (EF, 2xF, M and OB). 

- All are constructed well with piston fillers that operate well upon receipt.

- The nibs have all performed well with good ink flow.  Zero hard starts and immediately good ink flow despite long periods without use and regardless of the paper I've used with them.

- Operation of the pen, especially the slip cap, seems durable over time.

- You can easily disassemble this pen for a thorough cleaning of the nib/feed, allowing for more 'adventurous'/'risky' use without too much concern.

- It has an ink window that's discrete and yet allowing for ink level checking as needed.

- the filler hole is very close to the tip of the nib allowing easy filling of the pen from bottles that are nearly empty of ink.

- it posts deeply and is also, long enough uncapped, allowing for good balance whether or not you choose to post it. Only a P51 does as well in that respect, for me.

 

I've found it to perform excellently as an EDC - reliable operation, great durability, discreet appearance, reliable writing performance and great balance when posted (I prefer being able to comfortably post my EDCs if I wish to).  So many of my pens fall short as EDC's when compared.

 

I think the points above are findings that would be reproducible enough.  Of course, I do love the balance and the weight.  It is very comfortable for me to hold in my own hand.... even the steel version.  I have grown to love the discreet appearance.  

 

Objectively, it may well be my favourite on the basis of sheer performance as a FP, but then, I lean towards the MB146 because I prefer how the 146 looks and I also prefer the wider barrel.  OTOH, I find the L2k is more comfortable posted.  

 

Of course, there are other great pens that I do have that aren't far behind in being similarly impressive.  However, I am now at close to 100 pens and find that I've come full circle with the L2K and MB146's being my overall favourite FP's and largely, on technical merit as perceived through my own experiences and tolerances etc..  I had my favourite as the Conid Minimalistic AVDA Phi, but this is no longer the case, although I do still like that pen a LOT. 

[ele]

20 hours ago, arcfide said:

 

Interesting. Do you think that the Lamy 2000 represents the "pinnacle" of hooded nib pens at this point? 

The Parker "51" will always be the pinnacle, indisputably. As much as I love the material and stone-like feel of the 2000, it really pales in comparison.

[Checklist]

For what it's worth, I like my fine-nib LAMY 2000 for how it writes, how much ink it holds, and how it feels.  I haven't tested the durability, etc., only having had it a few months.  It is smooth, has just the right amount of feedback, and writes a wet, Western fine line.  I look for excuses to use it when it's inked up.

 

However, what makes a good pen is always subjective; for instance, people like different levels of feedback and shading.  It's a judgment call whether a pen is "good" that varies from person to person.  The fact that the 2000 has been popular for decades and is probably one of the favorites on this site means that it is as close as you will get to an objectively good pen.

[david-p]

So... Does it follow that, if enough people subjectively rate a pen as “good”, the collective opinion can be described as “objective”? If so, how many constitutes “enough”?
 

...

 

David

[A Smug Dill]

3 hours ago, Checklist said:

The fact that the 2000 has been popular for decades and is probably one of the favorites on this site means that it is as close as you will get to an objectively good pen.

 

I disagree. Given some objective criteria of what constitutes good, one can go about producing an objectively good pen that nobody else knows about, and thus will never be popular with any group of individuals (on this site or otherwise) for any length of time. Or, one can produce an objectively good pen and then price it such that nobody can afford it, and/or everyone resents the pricing and by extension the pen itself, causing it to never be popular but possibly the object of ridicule.

 

Simply going by popularity without testing against objective and measurable criteria of good is no reflection of whether something is objectively good or not, let alone whether it is closer to objectively good than something designed to be so in accordance with set criteria.

[arcfide]

4 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

I disagree. Given some objective criteria of what constitutes good, one can go about producing an objectively good pen that nobody else knows about, and thus will never be popular with any group of individuals (on this site or otherwise) for any length of time. Or, one can produce an objectively good pen and then price it such that nobody can afford it, and/or everyone resents the pricing and by extension the pen itself, causing it to never be popular but possibly the object of ridicule.

 

Simply going by popularity without testing against objective and measurable criteria of good is no reflection of whether something is objectively good or not, let alone whether it is closer to objectively good than something designed to be so in accordance with set criteria.

 

While popularity is not equivalent to whether something is good or not, the combination of popularity and a widely prolific market of available options at similar and lesser or greater price points as well as longevity does contribute evidence for the relative objective merits of a pen. "Good" itself is something of a relative merit, and what is considered good now might not have been the same in times past, and vice versa. However, the fact that the Lamy 2000 has managed to retain popularity for a long enough time over a wide enough range of tastes and a host of highly competitive offerings does indicate to me that it at least has a strong enough inherent objective merit to not immediately disqualify it. In other words, "good enough" is still good in many cases. Of course, popularity is only an indirect signal, but in this case, I think popularity at least warrants a voice. 

[austollie]

The Lamy 2000 Makrolon is one of my favourite pens.  To me, it ticks just about every box.  I love the understated style.  It feels good in my hand and it's great to write with.  Much about pen ownership for me is about nostalgia.  I love pens that have a long history and that were around when I was in school.  The Lamy 2000 ticks that box as well.  

 

However, to be objectively good, it'd have to write better than other pens.  It doesn't.  It writes just as well (no better, no worse) than many other quality pens in my collection.  Even how well a pen writes is hard to define objectively.  Some prefer a wet pen, others a dry writer.  To me, the Lamy 2000 is spot on in this department (as are many of my much cheaper Safaris, albeit the nib quality on Safaris is more hit and miss).

 

But at the end of the day, who cares if something is objectively good?  If you think it's good and it meets your needs to perfection (as determined by you), isn't that enough?

 

[arcfide]

1 hour ago, austollie said:

But at the end of the day, who cares if something is objectively good?  If you think it's good and it meets your needs to perfection (as determined by you), isn't that enough?

 

Everyone has their own things that they enjoy about this hobby. For me, the thing that is most enjoyable is the comparison, quantification, and stratification of the various pens into their classes, categories, qualities, relative merit, ratings, and competitiveness. I can make just about any pen work for practical purposes, and I can appreciate enjoy each pen's unique qualities subjectively as well. But for me, the most fun is when I compare and contrast various pens, put them up against each other, and construct frameworks, narratives, and systems of analysis around their features, some of which are subjective, and some of which are more objective. 

 

It's absolutely no fun for me to have a Lamy 2000 and a Sailor KOP and say, "they're both good pens, just for different things." I need to put them against each other and see which one comes out on top, and when, and why, and in what context, and for what story. I need to put them inside of a system of usage and evaluate them not only on their individual merit, but in the degree of congruence that exists within the system of which the pen is a part. 

 

That's where the fun is for me.  

[austollie]

58 minutes ago, arcfide said:

It's absolutely no fun for me to have a Lamy 2000 and a Sailor KOP and say, "they're both good pens, just for different things." I need to put them against each other and see which one comes out on top, and when, and why, and in what context, and for what story. I need to put them inside of a system of usage and evaluate them not only on their individual merit, but in the degree of congruence that exists within the system of which the pen is a part. 

 

That's where the fun is for me.  

 

I agree with you.  I actually feel the same way.  But, at the end of the day, when we rate pens like that, we come to our own subjective assessment.

 

Take filling systems.  Is a piston filler system objectively better than a cartridge filling system.  No, that's a matter of preference for a given application.  I actually prefer cartridge fillers, but I still absolutely love my Lamy 2000 for something different.  Is the simple design language of the Lamy 2000 better than an ornate pen?  In my opinion it is.  In the opinion of others, it's not (or pens, that I consider to look overblown and wouldn't want to be seen dead with wouldn't sell for thousands of dollars).

 

In my opinion what makes the Lamy 2000 such a good pen is that it works well, but has an understated and timeless look.  No wonder this pen has been made, with few changes, since 1966 and is still selling strong.

 

[arcfide]

33 minutes ago, austollie said:

 

I agree with you.  I actually feel the same way.  But, at the end of the day, when we rate pens like that, we come to our own subjective assessment.

 

Take filling systems.  Is a piston filler system objectively better than a cartridge filling system.  No, that's a matter of preference for a given application.  I actually prefer cartridge fillers, but I still absolutely love my Lamy 2000 for something different.  Is the simple design language of the Lamy 2000 better than an ornate pen?  In my opinion it is.  In the opinion of others, it's not (or pens, that I consider to look overblown and wouldn't want to be seen dead with wouldn't sell for thousands of dollars).

 

In my opinion what makes the Lamy 2000 such a good pen is that it works well, but has an understated and timeless look.  No wonder this pen has been made, with few changes, since 1966 and is still selling strong.

 

 

I like to get into subjective measures as well as objective, but there *are* objective things that you can measure. For instance, you can gather data on how often you can find reports of poor performance of a pen with writing, incidents of baby's bottom, &c. That data isn't nearly sound enough for anything serious, but it's certainly enough and objective enough for some hobbyist fun. Things like the consistency of the nib grind can be hinted at. 

 

While difficult in the hobbyist context, it is possible to play with statistical uncertainty and ranges. There's a difference between objective and "absolute." You can objectively measure writing performance such as sensitivity to writing angle, average ink flow, nib polish level, average tine spacing/alignment, and so forth. And for a pen to make it into the "good" category (that doesn't mean best), I'd say it at least has to be able to achieve a certain baseline of that writing performance. Of course we can *also* disagree on what that baseline is to match "good", but those are at least objective measurements and qualities of a pen that can be discussed. 

 

There's plenty of uncertainty in objectivity, the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is our ability to quantify and measure that uncertainty and variation. For example, ergonomics can be objectively discussed in terms of ranges, clusters, groupings, patterns, variances, tolerance, and so forth, even though whether a given pen is "ergonomic" for one user or another will be quite different. If a sufficient number of people complain about a given feature, that doesn't mean that a given pen won't be ergonomic for someone, but it does mean that it is objectively less ergonomic than another pen that has fewer total issues in that regard. It's the difference between statistical and range-based objectivity and absolute objectivity. Ergonomic is objective, but not universal. It's statistical, not absolute. 

[A Smug Dill]

17 minutes ago, arcfide said:

I like to get into subjective measures as well as objective, but there *are* objective things that you can measure. For instance, you can gather data on how often you can find reports of poor performance of a pen with writing, incidents of baby's bottom, &c. That data isn't nearly sound enough for anything serious, but it's certainly enough and objective enough for some hobbyist fun.

 

I don't know if there are objective/measurable criteria for what constitutes “baby's bottom”, or “dry”, or “scratchy” when it comes to the nib's finish or performance. Furthermore, coming across anecdotes of 5, or even 99, instances of nibs on a particular pen model exhibiting “baby's bottom” as supplied tells you little about what proportion of units has that problem, or what the likelihood is for a purchaser of a new unit to encounter it out-of-the-box. Or how that compares to some other pen brand and/or model; there is no like-for-like comparison between (commonness of nib problems found in) Lamy 2000, Leonardo Furore, Pilot MR and Platinum Preppy pens, when their production and sales volumes differ so greatly, that the absolute number of defective units mean little in the absence of context.

[TgeekB]

I simply want the fountain I pick up to feel like an extension of my hand and bring pleasure while writing. The Lamy 2000 does this along with my MB 146. The rest are all just there to give those two time off. 🤣

[Misfit]

This might not mean much, but Atlas Stationers of Chicago had a pen tournament in March 2021. The Final Two were the Lamy 2000 and the Visconti Homo Sapiens. The Visconti won. I have both, and prefer the Homo Sapiens. If I had a stub nib on my Lamy 2000, I’d like it more. 

[Freedom]

What's a pen tournament exactly? 

[tmurfet]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

What's a pen tournament exactly? 

This may help:

https://www.atlasstationers.com/pages/fountain-pen-tournament-challenge-2021

I don't know what the criteria are for inclusion in the Tournament Bracket - enquiring minds need to know.

[Misfit]

They had 4 brackets, like the NCAA Basketball tournament. It was pre-filled with 64 pens. I saw no way to fill it out online, so I printed it. 
 

Then you write in which pen in a pairing you want to advance.  The 64 get halved to 32 then 16, then 8, 4, and at last 2. 
 

I took a photo of the form, and emailed it. I did have the Visconti Homo Sapiens winning.  But for those who have ever followed March Madness, my brackets got busted early. 
 

There were some very nice prizes, so look for it again in March 2022. 
 

This is all off the topic, but I’ve shopped at the Atlas Stationers store in Chicago, and on their website. I really like that store. If you create an online account, there is a rewards program. Great customer service too.