Which big fountain pen companies have the best and worst quality control?

[3nding]

I have been an avid Lamy fan for the past few years. However, ordering Safari nibs, I have found the smoothness of brand new nibs very hit and miss (mostly miss in fact). From what I have read here this isn't just a problem with their less expensive pens either. So that got me wondering about which of the big companies have the best and worst QC (I'm excluding boutique and/or handcrafted pens as I am more interested in the high volume companies).

Which companies do you know will deliver you a super smooth nib and a well made pen on the first try and which ones imply trying your luck to hopefully get a good one on the first (or second or third) try when buying?

 

[txomsy]

Any company that makes it to the top should sport a top-notch QC system. Otherwise they would soon drop down like, er, a satellite shot down by a missile?

 

That doesn't mean one cannot get something that passed through their QC system, and therefore, a top-notch after-sales customer service is, IMHO, as important or more.

[3nding]

19 minutes ago, txomsy said:

Any company that makes it to the top should sport a top-notch QC system. Otherwise they would soon drop down like, er, a satellite shot down by a missile?

 

That doesn't mean one cannot get something that passed through their QC system, and therefore, a top-notch after-sales customer service is, IMHO, as important or more.

 

While I agree with the idea on paper I think a lot many of us will agree that some companies definitely feel more hit or miss than others for some reason. Though I think you bring up an important point.

[eciton]

I'll bite. As a reviewer (ukfountainpens.com) I've had a fair few pens pass through my hands.

 

At the good end of the spectrum:

Montblanc. More than a dozen pens, almost all perfect, from EF to BB.

Lamy. Again, around a dozen, almost all perfect, from 2000 EF to AL Star B.

Otto Hutt. Half a dozen, all great.

Onoto. Half a dozen from F to B, steel and gold, all spot on.

Benu. Half a dozen from F to B, all steel, all usable and all but one perfect.

JoWo-generic. Generally predictable sizing and good performance.

Schmidt (made by JoWo?). In #5 (Ystudio) or #6 (Benu), good.

Pilot, Platinum, Sailor. I've had a couple of dry Pilot #5, and one scratchy 14k Sailor, but other than that I've had Capless, Pro Gear, King of Pen, half a dozen 3776s... from UEF to B, all fantastic, predictable and consistent.

 

At the bad end of the spectrum:

Visconti. I've owned maybe ten, and all of the 18k ones I've received have been very dodgy on the tipping front.

Kaweco. I've owned maybe ten again, and it's only in the last couple of years that I've had any confidence in getting a usable nib.

Bock-branded. Generally rough, misaligned, and when it comes to the Ti nibs in #6 or #8, unpredictable in flow and width with distinctly uneven tipping.

Pelikan. No idea what width you'll get or whether it'll match what's stamped on the nib.

Aurora. My latest F nib is great, but I've had rough and troublesome nibs in the past.

 

That's just to start. I'll put my flameproof suit on now.

[nibtip]

Concerning Nib tuning and overall QC: 

 

Graf von Faber Castell (to my surprise). Now I own 5, sorry 6 one more to come.

Otto Hutt #4 

Pilot and the other 3 big (I include Nakaya).

 

Montblanc (nibs could be better)

Lamy (they are cheap, aren't they) cp1 and 2000

Faber Castell (they are cheap, aren't they). About Lamy quality

Aurora (internazionale) is very good.

 

Kaweco (student or dia2). Cheap and flawless. Nib can be hit or miss. A hint a caress of micro mesh can improve.

 

The bad: Pelikan 800 nibs all flawed before nibmeistering.

Even the 2021 3000$ M1000 white ray raden needed a nib tuning. It simply would not write.

For me Pelikan's flaws are only limited to their nib tuning on some model (M800/805). 

 

[A Smug Dill]

3 hours ago, 3nding said:

So that got me wondering about which of the big companies have the best and worst QC (I'm excluding boutique and/or handcrafted pens as I am more interested in the high volume companies).

 

Then no discussion of such would be remotely complete if it did not include companies such as Jinhao and Hero. I don't know how many pens the likes of Majohn (né Moonman) and HongDian produce annually, but I think it's a safe bet that Majohn produces and sells more pens than Diplomat and Visconti.

 

Yet therein also lies the problem in your formulation of the question.

 

3 hours ago, 3nding said:

Which companies do you know will deliver you a super smooth nib and a well made pen on the first try

 

QC is primarily a matter of consistency from unit to unit of production output, and with implied fitness for purpose as designed. Delivering a super smooth nib may not be what the manufacturer is aiming for; that may be your personal preference as a user, but it cannot be assumed to be the definition of ‘good’ or what appeals to the mainstream in the manufacturer's target market. You probably won't like Platinum's excellent 14K gold EF, F and M nibs with the #3776 imprint, but that you won't chance upon a unit that is smooth enough for your taste could well be testament to good quality control on the part of Platinum's production processes; they are (almost) all alike, hard as nails, and give characteristic feedback when written with.

[3nding]

27 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

Then no discussion of such would be remotely complete if it did not include companies such as Jinhao and Hero. I don't know how many pens the likes of Majohn (né Moonman) and HongDian produce annually, but I think it's a safe bet that Majohn produces and sells more pens than Diplomat and Visconti.

 

Yet therein also lies the problem in your formulation of the question.

 

 

QC is primarily a matter of consistency from unit to unit of production output, and with implied fitness for purpose as designed. Delivering a super smooth nib may not be what the manufacturer is aiming for; that may be your personal preference as a user, but it cannot be assumed to be the definition of ‘good’ or what appeals to the mainstream in the manufacturer's target market. You probably won't like Platinum's excellent 14K gold EF, F and M nibs with the #3776 imprint, but that you won't chance upon a unit that is smooth enough for your taste could well be testament to good quality control on the part of Platinum's production processes; they are (almost) all alike, hard as nails, and give characteristic feedback when written with.

 

Good point, let me reformulate: nibs that are not misaligned or scratchy when they shouldn't be.

[A Smug Dill]

20 minutes ago, 3nding said:

Good point, let me reformulate: nibs that are not misaligned or scratchy when they shouldn't be.

 

Lamy Z50 nibs tend to be scratchy out-of-the-box, in my experience with easily a dozen of them; but I have not found that to be the case with Z52, Z53, Z55, Z56 and Z57 nibs, of which I have another dozen collectively.

 

Pelikan nibs fail in terms of consistency between a nib's actual tipping width and the imprinted width grade. That said, out of a dozen M20x nibs, I've only encountered one that was slightly scratchy, but the dried ink in two different colours in the feed tells me the nib was not in factory condition, even though the pen is supposed to be brand new as supplied.

 

Faber-Castell nibs are consistently smooth out-of-the-box on the Ambition and Essentio models, and as I understand it, the Ondoro and e-Motion models also use the same interchangeable nib units.

 

Moonman (now known as Majohn) 35mm nibs (of unstated nib width) have all been OK out of the box, but I just don't like how broad they write for supposedly Fine nibs by default. I can't speak to the consistency in Moonman 26mm nibs.

 

HongDian and Wing Sung 35mm F nibs are like that as well. I like HongDian 26mm nibs, and find them consistently precise and suitably smooth; but on my preferred width grade of EF, they would not be “super smooth”.

 

Pilot steel nibs are consistently smooth out-of-the-box, in my experience. Its gold nibs, too.

[inkstainedruth]

I had one Pelikan nib that skipped no matter what ink went into the pen (it was one of the M200 Café Crème¸ model from a few years ago).  $20 to a penmeister fixed it.  But then I lost the pen (and another pen and the case they were in ).  I was able to get a replacement on eBay (a used pen with an IM nib, which was a firehose even by Pelikan standards) and then swapped in a nicely tuned B nib I bought at a pen show.  The IM nib is now on an M200 a friend gave me as a joke (it had the Bayer logo on it) that she got on Freecycle, not realizing that the pen was worth about $100 US and which had clearly been some sort of swag or retirement gift which the recipient just shoved in a desk drawer and I don't think ever got used till my friend gave it to me.  Of course then I seem to have had the second Café Crème go walkabout.... 

But the other Pelikans I've bought (well I haven't yet tried the two P22s I bought over the weekend at the Ohio Pen Show) all have had good nibs on them  And that ranges from the M405 Stresemann to a 1980s era Pelikano to a vintage 400 from the 1950s.  They just run wet.  If you're used to say, a Japanese EF, you won't like the line a Pelikan EF nib puts down -- but that's a separate issue from the nib acually being BAD (I love the EF nib on the M405 Blue Black).

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[txomsy]

7 hours ago, 3nding said:

Good point, let me reformulate: nibs that are not misaligned or scratchy when they shouldn't be.

Again, an unfortunate "clarification". And the problem is in the "when they shouldn't be".

 

@A Smug Dill made a spot-on comment when he mentioned the goals of the maker and their target customers. The problem is that "scratchy", for instance, is subjective: some like their nibs "buttery smooth", while others prefer them to "give feedback" (which to the former means "scratchy").

 

QC is not about being soft, scratchy, flexy (or "with character"), hard as a nail, wet, dry, whatever, but about consistency. What a "Westerner"*** would consider an F might be a B for an "Easterner"***. And the EF of a Japanese pen would be so thin that many "occidental" users might call it unusable or scratchy. Some makers may stress the body aesthetics or functionality over the nib, or vice versa, etc.

 

QC is also about goals, and relative to them. To take the Jinhao case: their nibs look consistently smooth. But you normally get them only in occidental M size. That means that many small deviations that would spring as a "defect" to some users in an F or EF nib will likely pass unnoticed in their M nibs. In that sense, they made the right decision in limiting their offer to what they can guarantee will satisfactorily pass their QC process. And they offer mostly cheap pens, so they also did right in limiting investment in their QC process to guarantee they could offer their users bang for the buck.

 

Other producers also provide sizes from XXF to BBB, stubs in various sizes, italics, etc... so they must maintain either  a more stringent QC system or adopt specific QC systems for each product, adapt to the market demand (as Kaweco seems to have done in response to complains about nib inconsistency) or provide a good after-sales support system to replace less-satisfactory nibs for customers who are not happy (as, again, Kaweco has been mentioned to do formerly when they had more inconsistency, or as Montblanc and Pelikan -among so many others- do with their free nib-replacement services for new customers).

 

To tackle the Pelikan thingy. I have a 200 with a very nice M, "character" (flexy) nib that I ordered an EF for (I preferred to have both). The EF feels at times a bit "scratchy", but, hey, it is a real EF, if I want it to write as thin as I want, I have to live with that. It is not a QC problem. It is a user problem. And it is the same with people who complain italic nibs "eat" or "cut" into the paper: if you want a crisp italic, it has to be razor sharp, otherwise you should get a stub. Or if you complain a Jinhao writes too thick or too thin, you bought the wrong nib size, or whatsitsname (Delike, Moonman, Mahjon, whatever) does no line variation like stubs or italics (they don't produce them), or that an urushi pen is not available in your nib choice (when it is the urushi you buy it for)...

 

All of this has a side implication: QC is not well defined or understood by most. QC should include after-sales service, and also responsiveness to user feedback (as in adapting your production/supply processes to user demand or to fix real or perceived user-reported "defects" --from your target customers, nobody can satisfy everyone).

 

My point is three fold: first that QC is a relative concept, where you can adapt your QC to your production, your production to your QC, or have a defective one; second that QC (being normally based on an statistical sampling) can hardly identify all failures, so it should include good after-sales service and responsiveness to user complains, and thus, the net result can significantly improve; and third, that user expectations play a major role in perception but are non-determinant to actual QC: if you buy the wrong tool, you cannot blame the producer's QC for its failure to meet your needs, and if you buy the right tool you should know and accept the side effects that come with it.

 

With all that, I tend to stand by my earlier assertion: most major companies do have appropriate QC processes.

 

Not to imply there are no exceptions, both in the low and high end, but arguably, in a free market+++, those who consistently deceive their customers will have it harder to succeed and become a "major" company.

 

*** for whatever "East" and "West" means in an spheroid World. But I believe we all understand the "convention".

 

+++ for non-free markets, captive, monopolistic or state-controlled, that needs not be the case, but that takes us into muddy waters.

[txomsy]

Note: where I say nib in the last message you should substitute "product": the same reasoning applies to materials, aesthetics, flow, and any other property of the final product.

[DvdRiet]

2 hours ago, txomsy said:

Again, an unfortunate "clarification". And the problem is in the "when they shouldn't be".

 

@A Smug Dill made a spot-on comment when he mentioned the goals of the maker and their target customers. The problem is that "scratchy", for instance, is subjective: some like their nibs "buttery smooth", while others prefer them to "give feedback" (which to the former means "scratchy").

 

QC is not about being soft, scratchy, flexy (or "with character"), hard as a nail, wet, dry, whatever, but about consistency. What a "Westerner"*** would consider an F might be a B for an "Easterner"***. And the EF of a Japanese pen would be so thin that many "occidental" users might call it unusable or scratchy. Some makers may stress the body aesthetics or functionality over the nib, or vice versa, etc.

 

QC is also about goals, and relative to them. To take the Jinhao case: their nibs look consistently smooth. But you normally get them only in occidental M size. That means that many small deviations that would spring as a "defect" to some users in an F or EF nib will likely pass unnoticed in their M nibs. In that sense, they made the right decision in limiting their offer to what they can guarantee will satisfactorily pass their QC process. And they offer mostly cheap pens, so they also did right in limiting investment in their QC process to guarantee they could offer their users bang for the buck.

 

Other producers also provide sizes from XXF to BBB, stubs in various sizes, italics, etc... so they must maintain either  a more stringent QC system or adopt specific QC systems for each product, adapt to the market demand (as Kaweco seems to have done in response to complains about nib inconsistency) or provide a good after-sales support system to replace less-satisfactory nibs for customers who are not happy (as, again, Kaweco has been mentioned to do formerly when they had more inconsistency, or as Montblanc and Pelikan -among so many others- do with their free nib-replacement services for new customers).

 

To tackle the Pelikan thingy. I have a 200 with a very nice M, "character" (flexy) nib that I ordered an EF for (I preferred to have both). The EF feels at times a bit "scratchy", but, hey, it is a real EF, if I want it to write as thin as I want, I have to live with that. It is not a QC problem. It is a user problem. And it is the same with people who complain italic nibs "eat" or "cut" into the paper: if you want a crisp italic, it has to be razor sharp, otherwise you should get a stub. Or if you complain a Jinhao writes too thick or too thin, you bought the wrong nib size, or whatsitsname (Delike, Moonman, Mahjon, whatever) does no line variation like stubs or italics (they don't produce them), or that an urushi pen is not available in your nib choice (when it is the urushi you buy it for)...

 

All of this has a side implication: QC is not well defined or understood by most. QC should include after-sales service, and also responsiveness to user feedback (as in adapting your production/supply processes to user demand or to fix real or perceived user-reported "defects" --from your target customers, nobody can satisfy everyone).

 

My point is three fold: first that QC is a relative concept, where you can adapt your QC to your production, your production to your QC, or have a defective one; second that QC (being normally based on an statistical sampling) can hardly identify all failures, so it should include good after-sales service and responsiveness to user complains, and thus, the net result can significantly improve; and third, that user expectations play a major role in perception but are non-determinant to actual QC: if you buy the wrong tool, you cannot blame the producer's QC for its failure to meet your needs, and if you buy the right tool you should know and accept the side effects that come with it.

 

With all that, I tend to stand by my earlier assertion: most major companies do have appropriate QC processes.

 

Not to imply there are no exceptions, both in the low and high end, but arguably, in a free market+++, those who consistently deceive their customers will have it harder to succeed and become a "major" company.

 

*** for whatever "East" and "West" means in an spheroid World. But I believe we all understand the "convention".

 

+++ for non-free markets, captive, monopolistic or state-controlled, that needs not be the case, but that takes us into muddy waters.

 

Thank you for going to the trouble of giving such a detailed and well-considered response! 

[senzen]

We should probably separate budget, mass produced (Safari) from higher end pens, even Studios seem to have better QC with the same exact nibs. Then we should differentiate expectations and user experience, many newbies would expect a high end pen to be untouched and yet write from the start, without taking into account the capillary effect or the benefits of cleaning with a drop of dishwashing liquid.

 

I've been guilty of messing with clingy Pelikan nibs which only required a little patience depending on the ink, so not a problem with the pen but my inexperience and lack of patience at the time...

[3nding]

12 hours ago, txomsy said:

Again, an unfortunate "clarification". And the problem is in the "when they shouldn't be".

 

@A Smug Dill made a spot-on comment when he mentioned the goals of the maker and their target customers. The problem is that "scratchy", for instance, is subjective: some like their nibs "buttery smooth", while others prefer them to "give feedback" (which to the former means "scratchy").

 

QC is not about being soft, scratchy, flexy (or "with character"), hard as a nail, wet, dry, whatever, but about consistency. What a "Westerner"*** would consider an F might be a B for an "Easterner"***. And the EF of a Japanese pen would be so thin that many "occidental" users might call it unusable or scratchy. Some makers may stress the body aesthetics or functionality over the nib, or vice versa, etc.

 

QC is also about goals, and relative to them. To take the Jinhao case: their nibs look consistently smooth. But you normally get them only in occidental M size. That means that many small deviations that would spring as a "defect" to some users in an F or EF nib will likely pass unnoticed in their M nibs. In that sense, they made the right decision in limiting their offer to what they can guarantee will satisfactorily pass their QC process. And they offer mostly cheap pens, so they also did right in limiting investment in their QC process to guarantee they could offer their users bang for the buck.

 

Other producers also provide sizes from XXF to BBB, stubs in various sizes, italics, etc... so they must maintain either  a more stringent QC system or adopt specific QC systems for each product, adapt to the market demand (as Kaweco seems to have done in response to complains about nib inconsistency) or provide a good after-sales support system to replace less-satisfactory nibs for customers who are not happy (as, again, Kaweco has been mentioned to do formerly when they had more inconsistency, or as Montblanc and Pelikan -among so many others- do with their free nib-replacement services for new customers).

 

To tackle the Pelikan thingy. I have a 200 with a very nice M, "character" (flexy) nib that I ordered an EF for (I preferred to have both). The EF feels at times a bit "scratchy", but, hey, it is a real EF, if I want it to write as thin as I want, I have to live with that. It is not a QC problem. It is a user problem. And it is the same with people who complain italic nibs "eat" or "cut" into the paper: if you want a crisp italic, it has to be razor sharp, otherwise you should get a stub. Or if you complain a Jinhao writes too thick or too thin, you bought the wrong nib size, or whatsitsname (Delike, Moonman, Mahjon, whatever) does no line variation like stubs or italics (they don't produce them), or that an urushi pen is not available in your nib choice (when it is the urushi you buy it for)...

 

All of this has a side implication: QC is not well defined or understood by most. QC should include after-sales service, and also responsiveness to user feedback (as in adapting your production/supply processes to user demand or to fix real or perceived user-reported "defects" --from your target customers, nobody can satisfy everyone).

 

My point is three fold: first that QC is a relative concept, where you can adapt your QC to your production, your production to your QC, or have a defective one; second that QC (being normally based on an statistical sampling) can hardly identify all failures, so it should include good after-sales service and responsiveness to user complains, and thus, the net result can significantly improve; and third, that user expectations play a major role in perception but are non-determinant to actual QC: if you buy the wrong tool, you cannot blame the producer's QC for its failure to meet your needs, and if you buy the right tool you should know and accept the side effects that come with it.

 

With all that, I tend to stand by my earlier assertion: most major companies do have appropriate QC processes.

 

Not to imply there are no exceptions, both in the low and high end, but arguably, in a free market+++, those who consistently deceive their customers will have it harder to succeed and become a "major" company.

 

*** for whatever "East" and "West" means in an spheroid World. But I believe we all understand the "convention".

 

+++ for non-free markets, captive, monopolistic or state-controlled, that needs not be the case, but that takes us into muddy waters.

 

Alright, this is all valid but it still kind of sidesteps the question to me and is basically a non-answer. First, I think you very well understand the question I am asking but I am going to rephrase it anyway: "Given what a manufacturer aims to produce when everything in the fabrication process goes right, which companies have the largest amount of products that slip by screening that they would consider sub-optimal and which has the least amount?" Is that better?

 

Because honestly, working as an engineer as well as having worked in factories and warehouses of big companies and having been a customer of very large companies as well, it is very much wishful thinking coming from a world of rainbows and unicorns to think that a company with good QC wouldn't become big (maybe they had good QC at first and lost their grip later, doesn't matter). As an employee I can't even tell you how many times we tested random products that had passed screening just to find out that they were sub-optimal or defective and already had shipped boxes full of them. And how many times mistakes were made when screening products. As a customer I have bought 3000$ laptops that were lemons, a few of them in a row, from a big company with reputedly pretty terrible customer service. I have had expensive luxury products fall apart straight out of the box by just looking at them wrong or simply not work from the get go. I have bought luxury watches that were fast or slow 40 seconds out of the box from companies that had a reputation for more spotty QC with others from other luxury companies or even more everyday companies like Seiko with better QC reputations being fast or slow 2 seconds a day.

 

Now, I don't think it's that complicated to say "given what customers of company X expect given what company X produces, it's more of a crapshoot for them to get exactly what they expect then customers of company Y expect compared to what customers of company Y expect." To put it in plain english: if I buy Lamy Safari in broad of course I don't expect the same as if I bought a Lamy 2000 in medium or a Pilot VP in EF, that's a given, I don't think anyone would argue with that unless they know nothing about fountain pens. This really isn't the point. The point is, from one Pilot VP in EF to another, do they perform similarly well, or, out of a batch of 50 do you get 25 that tear paper apart and 25 that write like butter or, if you want, that have the characteristic behavior of a Pilot VP in EF (obviously an exaggeration but hopefully you get the point). Now of course, you also don't expect the same level of consistency from something as mass produced as a Safari or a JinHao as with something like a Montblanc 149. Yes of course but you can still give an answer weighting it for the level of expectation. Also, 40$ is still 40$ and so I expect a pen bought for that price to work out of the box.

 

So, TL;DR the question is: taking into account the expectations for a given company and product, which companies pretty much give you the experience most would expect from said company and product straight out of the box versus which ones do you expect that you will maybe have to send one or two back before getting one that aligns with the quality that is normally expected from that company and product.

[txomsy]

Right, which is exactly what I was answering: I do believe that most large, successful companies, with some exception possibly, do provide to their target customers what the majority of them want, and do so consistently. So, their QC (specially if one factors after-sales service) is adapted to their needs.

 

Thus,for instance, I can't complain about the consistency of Jinhao pens or nibs, though they seem more interested in putting out different body designs than nibs, but they stick to their limited nib choice and ensure it works as expected.

 

I haven't a Calligraphy MB, but I understand it is hand tuned and some may work better than others, and they are as consistent as a handcrafted product can be, yet MB will gladly substitute the nib if a customer isn't happy. They will even do swap nibs of any newly bought pens if the customer demands it during a try period, even for one of a different point. They seem keen on selling "luxury" and I would say their QC is up to what most of their users demand. Yeah, there is always the odd one who buys a Calligraphy and complains it is not what they expected. But for the hugely most part, yes.

 

I'd say the same holds for Pelikan, even that dreaded (I don't own one either) m800, you can swap nibs until you are satisfied.

 

I haven't had issues nor do know of people complaining about the consistency of Pilot or Lamy pens, not even the cheapest ones.

 

And Kaweco... people complained once of inconsistency of their nibs, which were outsourced, but people also said when they complained Kaweco would send them new units, then Kaweco switched providers and nibs seem to be consistent now. They products seem pretty consistent to me, except for the hand-tuned fireblue line which, as expected, does completely change from one to other. I own several and can only say I've never had a complain. But then, when I start one and it "drags" or is dry or whatever, I keep on using it until a couple of pages later it works OK, so I assume it is due to remaining machining oils.

 

TWSBI had time ago complains about their pens, but they also seem to have responded and now they are consistent with what one would expect. So their QC also seems adapted to what their users demand, responsive and systematic enough.

 

It's been a long time since I last bought a contemporary Parker or Waterman, but it is my understanding, by the silence about problems with them, that most user do also feel pretty satisfied, and if anything they demand more models, which I suppose wouldn't be so if their QC were bad.

 

Visconti (which I don't own either) is sometimes named for inconsistent nibs, but I do also understand they rather sell the image of luxury, beauty and design over the nib (somewhat like Jinhao though at a different purchase level), and their followers are always on the lookout for new models, so they must be happy.

 

Sailor, Namiki, and other Japanese brands seem to me to be the same. Yeah, real urushi pens do have little consistency, but, hey, they are unique pieces of art, if they were "consistent" they wouldn't be so attractive, and, like the page of Wancher says, you should expect small defects as part of the artistic process (and indeed in line with -my perception of- Zen philosophy). So their QC must be up to the task. As long as no artisan allows a defective product to leave the shop, which first, is unlikely with good, experiences, reputed artisans, and doesn't seem to be the case. Mass-production pens seem to be pretty consistent too, tuned to the liking of oriental buyers, but it is rare one hears complains.

 

Sheaffer, Cross, Edison... same thing: doesn't look like there is much discontent between their users.

 

Generally speaking, I am not aware of a worse or best QC company among the big ones. And whenever one starts going south, users quickly complain and they -up to date- seem to respond fast, which is one of the paramount parts of the quality process.

 

Now, I cannot claim to know all of them, I do not have contemporary pieces of all of them, and even if I did, I wouldn't have enough to do a fair statistic, and even so, I don't write enough to test that many pens.

 

So, and I guess most people is like me, I can only judge by the buzz in the Net, which is never a reliable indicator, or by sustained sales which may or may not be.

[3nding]

58 minutes ago, txomsy said:

Right, which is exactly what I was answering: I do believe that most large, successful companies, with some exception possibly, do provide to their target customers what the majority of them want, and do so consistently. So, their QC (specially if one factors after-sales service) is adapted to their needs.

 

Thus,for instance, I can't complain about the consistency of Jinhao pens or nibs, though they seem more interested in putting out different body designs than nibs, but they stick to their limited nib choice and ensure it works as expected.

 

I haven't a Calligraphy MB, but I understand it is hand tuned and some may work better than others, and they are as consistent as a handcrafted product can be, yet MB will gladly substitute the nib if a customer isn't happy. They will even do swap nibs of any newly bought pens if the customer demands it during a try period, even for one of a different point. They seem keen on selling "luxury" and I would say their QC is up to what most of their users demand. Yeah, there is always the odd one who buys a Calligraphy and complains it is not what they expected. But for the hugely most part, yes.

 

I'd say the same holds for Pelikan, even that dreaded (I don't own one either) m800, you can swap nibs until you are satisfied.

 

I haven't had issues nor do know of people complaining about the consistency of Pilot or Lamy pens, not even the cheapest ones.

 

And Kaweco... people complained once of inconsistency of their nibs, which were outsourced, but people also said when they complained Kaweco would send them new units, then Kaweco switched providers and nibs seem to be consistent now. They products seem pretty consistent to me, except for the hand-tuned fireblue line which, as expected, does completely change from one to other. I own several and can only say I've never had a complain. But then, when I start one and it "drags" or is dry or whatever, I keep on using it until a couple of pages later it works OK, so I assume it is due to remaining machining oils.

 

TWSBI had time ago complains about their pens, but they also seem to have responded and now they are consistent with what one would expect. So their QC also seems adapted to what their users demand, responsive and systematic enough.

 

It's been a long time since I last bought a contemporary Parker or Waterman, but it is my understanding, by the silence about problems with them, that most user do also feel pretty satisfied, and if anything they demand more models, which I suppose wouldn't be so if their QC were bad.

 

Visconti (which I don't own either) is sometimes named for inconsistent nibs, but I do also understand they rather sell the image of luxury, beauty and design over the nib (somewhat like Jinhao though at a different purchase level), and their followers are always on the lookout for new models, so they must be happy.

 

Sailor, Namiki, and other Japanese brands seem to me to be the same. Yeah, real urushi pens do have little consistency, but, hey, they are unique pieces of art, if they were "consistent" they wouldn't be so attractive, and, like the page of Wancher says, you should expect small defects as part of the artistic process (and indeed in line with -my perception of- Zen philosophy). So their QC must be up to the task. As long as no artisan allows a defective product to leave the shop, which first, is unlikely with good, experiences, reputed artisans, and doesn't seem to be the case. Mass-production pens seem to be pretty consistent too, tuned to the liking of oriental buyers, but it is rare one hears complains.

 

Sheaffer, Cross, Edison... same thing: doesn't look like there is much discontent between their users.

 

Generally speaking, I am not aware of a worse or best QC company among the big ones. And whenever one starts going south, users quickly complain and they -up to date- seem to respond fast, which is one of the paramount parts of the quality process.

 

Now, I cannot claim to know all of them, I do not have contemporary pieces of all of them, and even if I did, I wouldn't have enough to do a fair statistic, and even so, I don't write enough to test that many pens.

 

So, and I guess most people is like me, I can only judge by the buzz in the Net, which is never a reliable indicator, or by sustained sales which may or may not be.

 

 

Thank you so much for the answer, this is what I was looking for and is very insightful. However, I have to say that it seems some companies really don't adapt their quality control quite as fast as others. For instance (and I love Lamy) I purchased a dozen Z50 nibs in broad and tested them all back to back. Out of the lot only one was very smooth and the eleven others were all pretty scratchy (you could call it feedback to be kind) which really surprised me considering they are German broad nibs which have usually been super smooth in my experience. Now is that because the Z50 is a cheap nib and this is to be expected? Did I get unlucky and catch a bad batch? Is this how the Z50 is supposed to behave? Is the buttery smooth one the anomaly? Is Lamy QC on cheaper nibs bad? I can't say. But I know that when I next order some Z50s, I won't expect to get a buttery smooth one if I order just one. I'll probably order a bunch. If my experience is abnormal in terms of the expected broad Z50 experience and if it was to be repeated by multiple people, I would say the QC is not up to snuff. In the same vein, all the Pilot Metropolitains I have had were perfect out of the box, even in F in EF (given what you can expect a Japanese F or EF to feel like). Same for the Jinhaos I have ordered. Always great wet medium and very steady from one to the next. All anecdotal evidence of course, hence my curiosity to know what people think of the various companies other. Also, perhaps it's my definition of QC that is wrong but I wouldn't include customer service and replacement inside QC. In my experience, that would other the customer satisfaction department. Even if you nicely offer to replace my product when I don't get a good one if I have to send back every one out of two I received (exaggeration but you know what I mean) then I might be very satisfied as a customer but your quality control still failed to screen the lemons. Plus it's still trouble for the consumer to have to bring back or send back a product.

[A Smug Dill]

14 minutes ago, 3nding said:

Even if you nicely offer to replace my product when I don't get a good one if I have to send back every one out of two I received (exaggeration but you know what I mean) then I might be very satisfied as a customer but your quality control still failed to screen the lemons. Plus it's still trouble for the consumer to have to bring back or send back a product.

 

I agree with all that.

 

On the matter of Lamy nibs, yes, it seems it's only the Z50 nibs that come scratchy more often than not. So, if next time you still want to buy a bunch of Z50 nibs, instead of Z52 and Z53 nibs that will physically fit on the same pens/feeds just as well, then you can expect to encounter a few more scratchy ones for the money you spend.

[3nding]

1 hour ago, A Smug Dill said:

 So, if next time you still want to buy a bunch of Z50 nibs, instead of Z52 and Z53 nibs that will physically fit on the same pens/feeds just as well, then you can expect to encounter a few more scratchy ones for the money you spend.

 

That is a very good point. This is what I will do next time now that I know that the Z50 are more spotty. Thank you so much for the advice!

[pp763]

Delta Dolcevita Medium Wouldnt write

Delta Dolcevita Oversize would only write half a page

Omas new Paragon wouldnt write

Stipula Etruria would skip and hard start.

 

The good

 

Sailor, Platinum, Pilot, GVFC, Montblanc, Lamy, Waterman, Parker, Cross

[Uncial]

The good for me are Montblanc and Pelikan. Listing Pelikan in the good might be  controversial one for some, but I can honestly say I've never had a problem...with their gold nibs. The steel ones are a whole different ball game, but they do seem to have improved on what they were.

 

Worst offender is Visconti. At prices which are usually a good bit above Montblanc, their junk nibs are a farce. It's completely turned me off a brand that otherwise make beautiful pens and amazing nibs when they do write. I just fail to see how you can charge that amount of money and regularly pump out nibs that have all the visual appearance of having been wrung through a clothes mangle, and that's even before you try and write with it. My last attempt at buying one was about 4 or 5 yrs ago and the pen was returned for four nib exchanges before I grew impatient and gave up and got a full refund. The second 'nib' they sent had the right tine pressed back on itself. You'd have to be blind not to notice it was wrecked.....actually that may explain it.