Pilot Custom 74 - FM nib

[Omega Man]

Hello all,

 

I received a Custom 74 with a regular (not soft) Fine-Medium nib and have been writing with it for about a week ago. While I’m not unhappy with it, I’m not wild about it either.

 

Prior to this I have been using the Lamy Safari in Medium and in Fine, and the Pilot Metropolitan in Medium. I like the line width in the Lamy Safari Fine and the Metropolitan Medium. I found the Lamy Safari Medium to be too broad for my tastes.

 

So, with this in mind, I got myself the Fine-Medium nib. I’ve been using Rhodia paper and inks from the Pilot Iroshizuku line. The things I am not too happy about are:

• It’s probably too fine for me; I wouldn’t mind line width being a hair thicker
• While not scratchy, I don’t find it always smooth (there appears to be a sweet-spot). I don’t mind the feedback, but would prefer it was a tad lesser.  I find that my Pilot Metropolitan Medium writes smoother than the FM on my Custom 74.

 

Otherwise, I love everything about the Custom 74 - the build, the styling, the way it feels in the hand, the ink flow etc. Basically, everything but the nib.

 

I will most likely hang on to the Fine-Medium and see what I think about it over time. Meanwhile, I wanted to add another pen to the collection. One that resolves my complaints with the Custom 74 FM. Here are some of what I’ve been considering and would love to hear your thoughts on these:

 

1. Custom 74 in Medium - Will this be very similar to the FM? Is it much smoother? Is the line width comparable to a Lamy Safari Medium?
2. Custom 823 in Medium - I find the C74 ink capacity & mechanism to be fine, so don’t really need the 823. But am curious about it, and wanted to know if for any reason it’s an option I should consider. (Also, don’t really like the styling of the Custom 91 or 92 lines. So with Pilot it’s between the 74 and 823)
3. Sailor 21K Medium - either the Pro-gear or 1911 line. I have heard Sailor Nibs are designed to have more feedback (and hence less smooth). Any comments on the smoothness between the Pilot and Sailor Medium nibs?
4. Should I consider the Lamy 2000 (probably with a fine nib)?
5. I don’t really need a gold nib. I wanted to get one mainly to experience the “springiness”. I’m still not sure how I feel about it, but I already have one in the FM Custom 74. Are there any particular pens with Steel nibs that I should consider? I would prioritise smoothness and a Western Fine / Japanese Medium line width.

 

Thanks for reading. Looking forward to your responses!

[A Smug Dill]

Welcome to FPN.

 

35 minutes ago, Omega Man said:

I would prioritise smoothness and a Western Fine / Japanese Medium line width.

 

Try a Faber-Castell (e-motion, Ondoro, Ambition, Loom, and Essentio models all use identical German nibs for a given width grade, even though not all of them have bodies made in Germany).

 

39 minutes ago, Omega Man said:

Sailor 21K Medium - either the Pro-gear or 1911 line.

 

Interesting that you don't like the styling of the Pilot Custom Heritage (91 and 92), but are considering the Sailor Professional Gear.

 

41 minutes ago, Omega Man said:

I have heard Sailor Nibs are designed to have more feedback (and hence less smooth). Any comments on the smoothness between the Pilot and Sailor Medium nibs?

 

I don't have one, but I'll gladly wager money on the Pilot nib being smoother. By how much, then, is irrelevant in terms of making such a bet.

 

Since you're looking at primarily Medium nibs, I can't help you there, even though (against my better judgment?) I have one Sailor and one Platinum pen each with gold Medium nibs. The vast majority of the dozens of Japanese ‘Big Three’ brand fountain pens we have here are fitted with EF or F nibs.

 

And I shall refrain from recommending what I think is one of the most underrated Pilot pen models (judging, perhaps misguidedly, its popularity by sheer number of comments and mentions online).

[Omega Man]

Thanks for your response and suggestions A Smug Dill

 

1 hour ago, A Smug Dill said:

Interesting that you don't like the styling of the Pilot Custom Heritage (91 and 92), but are considering the Sailor Professional Gear.

Good point. Perhaps I should've been clearer. Actually, I have nothing against the shape per se - but I dislike that shape in a transparent body, which rules out the CH92. I don't mind the CH91, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be available near where I live.

 

1 hour ago, A Smug Dill said:

And I shall refrain from recommending what I think is one of the most underrated Pilot pen models (judging, perhaps misguidedly, its popularity by sheer number of comments and mentions online).

Please do recommend

[A Smug Dill]

32 minutes ago, Omega Man said:

Please do recommend

 

The Pilot Justus 95, with the adjustable nib softness mechanism. It is by no means a flex nib (but then, neither is the Custom FA nib or the Elabo/Falcon's Soft-whichever nib), but it is essentially a Custom size #10 Soft nib of the same width grade. In my experience, the Pilot Custom's Soft nib writes slightly broader than the regular nib of the same width grade in the same size, e.g. a Custom size #5 14K gold SF nib writes slightly broader than a Custom size #5 14K gold F nib (whereas a Platinum #3776 14K gold SF nib writes finer than a #3776 14K gold F nib), when little-to-no downward pressure is applied. Furthermore, the dial on the Justus 95 also effectively changes the ink flow; the pen writes ‘wetter’ when dialled to S(oft). So, a Justus 95 with 14K gold FM nib can be expected to behave as two-pens-in-one (and everything in between) — a drier-writing Custom size #10 FM nib, and a wetter-writing Custom size #10 SFM nib. I don't mind the Custom Heritage 91, but I'll readily agree that the Custom Heritage 912 is more comfortable to hold, and that seems to be a common sentiment; and some others (but not me) seem to favour physically larger nibs. The Justus 95 essentially has the same barrel as the Custom Heritage 912, but the overall length longer because of the additional nib softness dial, which makes it more comfortable (for some) to use without the cap being posted on the end of the barrel, although you can still post the cap on the Justus 95 without making it too back-weighted. I also find the guilloche pattern on the Justus 95 adds texture and makes one's pen hold feel more secure.

 

The only noticeable ‘downside’ (for some) is that the Justus 95 is priced above the CH912, on account of the extra bells and whistles, and being two (or several) pens in one.

 

See this thread (and not just my post therein):

 

 

The Pilot Custom Kaede is another very good pen, if you favour cigar-shaped pens (e.g. the Custom 742 and 743) over pens with flat ends. It uses the same type of Custom size #10 14K gold nib as in the Custom 742, and is effectively a C742 with a better, ‘wooden’ barrel (which adds to texture and warmth to one's touch). It is the only pen with a wooden body that has impeccable cap seal effectiveness, beating even the Platinum #3776 Century briar and yakusugi (cedar) models hands-down. I think the Custom's size #5 nib tends to be slightly softer than the size #10 nib, so you'd probably want to go for an M nib in that.

 

I have both a Custom Kaede and a Custom 742. I love the Kaede, don't mind the C742 too much, but I actively dislike the more straight-up-and-down shape of the slightly smaller Custom 74 (and so sold both of the ones I had).

 

[A Smug Dill]

Oh, and, on the issue of kinaesthetic feedback from the nib … let's just say there are different ‘types’ of feedback.

 

Feedback from Pilot gold nibs feels more like drag.

Feedback from Sailor gold nibs is often described (I think aptly) as ‘pencil-like’.

Feedback from Platinum gold nibs … well, the regular (as opposed to Soft) Platinum #3776 nibs are the hardest but (if the tines are not misaligned, and we aren't talking about the UEF nib) write smoothly, so they either kinda push straight back at your hand if you put any downward pressure on them, or, (only) if the tines are ever-so-slightly misaligned or we're talking about UEF nibs, scratchy due the immense concentration of force and thus friction at the narrow contact point, with no give in the metal nib body itself.

[Omega Man]

37 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

The Pilot Justus 95

Thanks for the extensive write-up

 

23 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

Feedback from Pilot gold nibs feels more like drag.

Feedback from Sailor gold nibs is often described (I think aptly) as ‘pencil-like’.

This is brilliant! I didn't know this, and I thought feedback was always "pencil-like". But this makes so much sense, as I've been experience something that's more like a drag than like writing with a pencil.

[recluse]

7 hours ago, Omega Man said:

Custom 823 in Medium - I find the C74 ink capacity & mechanism to be fine, so don’t really need the 823. But am curious about it, and wanted to know if for any reason it’s an option I should consider.

It's always an option to consider. It is quite different from C74, for instance, C823 is heavier and has a different geometry. Overall, C823 is noticeably more comfortable to me than C74. I attribute this to the grip section. On Pilot Custom pens, it has this characteristic profile, which is more pronounced on smaller pens.

 

 

On the other hand, C823's filling system is not an insubstantial factor. It may be something that you specifically like about the pen or something that averts you from the pen.

 

I happen to have C74 with the FM nib and the overall non-smoothness of the nib is too much for me, and that's after I put some effort into tweaking the nib. I also have C823 with the M nib. While I'm rather just okay about the C823's filling system, I value it way higher than (my) C74 because of how much better writer it is.

8 hours ago, Omega Man said:

I don’t really need a gold nib. I wanted to get one mainly to experience the “springiness”. I’m still not sure how I feel about it, but I already have one in the FM Custom 74. Are there any particular pens with Steel nibs that I should consider? I would prioritise smoothness and a Western Fine / Japanese Medium line width.

This is a tough one. If the "springiness" is not a must, there are way more options among steel nibs. Moreover, I dare to say that if the smoothness is the main factor, one can safely forgo gold nibs altogether. On the other hand, if slight tweaking and tuning is not an option, there's not that many sure things. At least, when it comes to pens, say, under 150 USD. For instance, as was recommended, Faber Castell mid-tier steel nibs are well-tuned out of the box. On the other hand, I cannot confidently recommend any of their mid-tier pens because they all have some quirks, which eventually made me dislike them. At the same time, their low-tier pens (Grip, School+, and what have you) feature, in my experience, worse nibs and, to be frank, those pens are not particularly inspiring.

 

If, however, tuning (say, fixing insignificant tines misalignment or boosting the wetness) is not out of the question, there's a multitude of pens to choose from.

[Paul-in-SF]

6 hours ago, Omega Man said:

I've been experience something that's more like a drag than like writing with a pencil.

 

I think I know what you mean. Either tuning the nib (e.g. smoothing, and/or very slightly widening the tine distance) or using a more lubricated ("wet") ink (or both) can help with drag, if that is your only difficulty with your Pilot C74. That was my first fountain pen and it led me to dive head first into the hobby. 

[XYZZY]

6 hours ago, Omega Man said:

Thanks for the extensive write-up

 

This is brilliant! I didn't know this, and I thought feedback was always "pencil-like". But this makes so much sense, as I've been experience something that's more like a drag than like writing with a pencil.

 

The sensation will also vary with the ink and the paper.  Some inks we describe as lubricated:  to my mind that means they're reducing the ink/paper drag.

 

One paper I like is the "CD Note" paper from Apica: it's quite smooth but there's also a lot of drag on the nib.  Yes that seems counterintuitive.  I am at a loss for what might be going on there physically, or the adjectives to properly describe the sensation.

 

But there is great variety in paper, and even more in ink.  It's almost certain that there's an ink and paper combination that makes you think your is wonderful.  Finding that combination is another thing entirely. 🙂

 

Personally I prefer some feedback in my nibs.  I have some that are glassy smooth, and those can be fun, but I find that I tend to use them more on rougher paper which can supply its own feedback.  

 

Something I haven't seen mentioned on this thread yet is that Japanese nibs are generally one size smaller than western nibs.  In other words, an M from Japan is likely closer to a western F.  That's a handwavy rule of thumb that breaks down, for example I've read posts from people saying that their "B" nib from I don't remember which Japanese company is a similar width to western B's that they have.  And if you're going to pull out your measuring stick you'll find differences between Pilot, Sailor, and Platinum widths.  But still, "Japanese nibs are one size smaller that western" is a good handwavy rule of thumb.  And that's all a long-winded way of saying that I would expect an MF from Pilot to be smaller than a western F.

 

When I bought my first fountain pen I thought it crazy that I would ever buy anything other then a Japanese EF, as that's what I prefer in gel pens.  Much to my chagrin I have found that this is not the case.  

[Omega Man]

Thanks for your responses recluse, Paul-in-SF, and XYZZY

 

20 hours ago, recluse said:

I happen to have C74 with the FM nib and the overall non-smoothness of the nib is too much for me, and that's after I put some effort into tweaking the nib. I also have C823 with the M nib. While I'm rather just okay about the C823's filling system, I value it way higher than (my) C74 because of how much better writer it is.

 

I prefer and tend to write unposted. However, just now I noticed that if I write posted, there is a huge leap in smoothness. I suspect the weight due to posting is changing the angle between the nib and the paper every so slightly, and that's making a huge difference in the experience. 

 

19 hours ago, XYZZY said:

Something I haven't seen mentioned on this thread yet is that Japanese nibs are generally one size smaller than western nibs.  In other words, an M from Japan is likely closer to a western F.  That's a handwavy rule of thumb that breaks down, for example I've read posts from people saying that their "B" nib from I don't remember which Japanese company is a similar width to western B's that they have.  And if you're going to pull out your measuring stick you'll find differences between Pilot, Sailor, and Platinum widths.  But still, "Japanese nibs are one size smaller that western" is a good handwavy rule of thumb.  And that's all a long-winded way of saying that I would expect an MF from Pilot to be smaller than a western F.

 

This was something I used as a guide, however I also read reports that this rule sort of breaks down for Pilot Gold nibs. For Pilot gold nibs I read that this holds for Fine and Extra Fine, but for Medium and thicker, Western and Japanese nib sizes are comparable. But your conclusion is exactly right in my experience - the FM writes smaller than a Western F.

 

All in all, justification for me to buy more pens

[recluse]

11 hours ago, Omega Man said:

This was something I used as a guide, however I also read reports that this rule sort of breaks down for Pilot Gold nibs. For Pilot gold nibs I read that this holds for Fine and Extra Fine, but for Medium and thicker, Western and Japanese nib sizes are comparable. But your conclusion is exactly right in my experience - the FM writes smaller than a Western F.

This often mentioned disparity between Japanese and Western nibs should be taken rather lightly as it rather reflects what kind of pens are accidentally considered common. Linewidths are all over the place, and it's pretty much impossible to make any definitive statement that would hold for all Japanese or all Western nibs stamped F, M, or B. It does seem true that Japanese F nibs will be quite narrow but outside of that all bets are off. Each pen model (or rather the nibs line) should be treated individually to avoid unpleasant surprises. This whole tradition with non-quantitative markings ought to be long abandoned.

[A Smug Dill]

3 hours ago, recluse said:

Each pen model (or rather the nibs line) should be treated individually to avoid unpleasant surprises.

 

I agree, but I'd go further than that, considering the degree of inconsistency (observed first-hand) in Pelikan M200 nibs and (only from hearsay online) Visconti nibs from one unit to the next. To avoid unpleasant surprises, inspect and test each writing instrument in isolation to determine how it actually performs, and whether it is fit for one's purpose.

 

3 hours ago, recluse said:

This whole tradition with non-quantitative markings ought to be long abandoned.

 

I completely disagree with that.

 

It can be reasonably expected that, for a given model/line of nibs, that the line widths produced by the various nib width grades would abide by:

Extra Fine < Fine < Medium < Broad

for all units produced; and, as long as its manufacturer or brand owner delivers to that expectation, and will acknowledge that at least one of the nibs is defective if a particular Fine nib puts down broader lines than a particular Medium nib from the same model/line (all else being equal, i.e. drawn in the same ink fed in the same manner on the same sheet of paper using the same amount of pressure in the same nib orientation), it's perfectly OK to use width grades.

 

What is not incumbent on a manufacturer or brand owner to provide is some way (to which they are legally or honour- bound) for prospective purchasers and users to set expectations against some third-party (e.g. another brand's) benchmark or (‘objective’) evaluation framework. It would be nice to have, and some pen buyers may (as is their prerogative) consider it essential information; but there is no way the responsibility to making that information available can be justifiably pinned on individual manufacturers. In any case, observed line widths on the page are affected by so many factors, that giving a quantitative description — e.g. 0.7, meaning that the tipping measures 0.7(±0.05)mm across the axis that is orthogonal to the nib slit — would still be ‘useless’, and possibly misleading, when it comes to setting expectations of line width that a nib will produce.

[recluse]

38 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

I completely disagree with that.

 

It can be reasonably expected that, for a given model/line of nibs, that the line widths produced by the various nib width grades would abide by:

Extra Fine < Fine < Medium < Broad

for all units produced; and, as long as its manufacturer or brand owner delivers to that expectation, and will acknowledge that at least one of the nibs is defective if a particular Fine nib puts down broader lines than a particular Medium nib from the same model/line (all else being equal, i.e. drawn in the same ink fed in the same manner on the same sheet of paper using the same amount of pressure in the same nib orientation), it's perfectly OK to use width grades.

 

What is not incumbent on a manufacturer or brand owner to provide is some way (to which they are legally or honour- bound) for prospective purchasers and users to set expectations against some third-party (e.g. another brand's) benchmark or (‘objective’) evaluation framework. It would be nice to have, and some pen buyers may (as is their prerogative) consider it essential information; but there is no way the responsibility to making that information available can be justifiably pinned on individual manufacturers. In any case, observed line widths on the page are affected by so many factors, that giving a quantitative description — e.g. 0.7, meaning that the tipping measures 0.7(±0.05)mm across the axis that is orthogonal to the nib slit — would still be ‘useless’, and possibly misleading, when it comes to setting expectations of line width that a nib will produce.

Of course, marking nibs in non-committing qualitative terms is convenient to manufactures as they don't need to follow any kind of standard. If they could drop even the relative gradation (which, as I understand, doesn't have too long of a history itself), they would do it in a heartbeat. As long as customers are willing to put up with it, the manufacturers have little incentive to do any changes. Since the fountain pens are quite a niche market (tainted by various considerations external to the functionality), this state of affairs will persist. Once we look at a much bigger market, say, rollerballs, the manufacturers, apparently, are ready to provide a quantitative description despite not being bound by whatever or despite the tremendous variation of the actual linewidth with the paper. 

[A Smug Dill]

4 minutes ago, recluse said:

Once we look at a much bigger market, say, rollerballs, the manufacturers, apparently, are ready to provide a quantitative description despite not being bound by whatever or despite the tremendous variation of the actual linewidth with the paper. 

 

Width grades of M63 and M66 refills for Lamy rollerball pens are specified as M and B.

Pelikan rollerball pen refills: F, M, and B.

Aurora rollerball pen refills: Fine, and Medium.

Montblanc rollerball pen refills: Fine, and Medium.

Parker rollerball pen refills: Fine, and Medium.

Sheaffer: Medium only.

Monteverde, which makes rollerball refills to fit a variety of pen brands: Fine, Medium, and Broad.

 

[recluse]

5 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

Width grades of M63 and M66 refills for Lamy rollerball pens are specified as M and B.

Pelikan rollerball pen refills: F, M, and B.

Aurora rollerball pen refills: Fine, and Medium.

Montblanc rollerball pen refills: Fine, and Medium.

Parker rollerball pen refills: Fine, and Medium.

Sheaffer: Medium only.

Monteverde, which makes rollerball refills to fit a variety of pen brands: Fine, Medium, and Broad.

 

And? I did say that as long as customers are willing to put up with it, manufacturers are happy to oblige. This holds for whatever product. 

 

Once customers become picky:

Uni-ball Eye Rolling Ball Pen, Extra Fine Point 0.5mm

Sharpie Rollerball Pen, Needle Point (0.5mm)

 

And it's not unheard of in the fountain pens world:

Platinum Fountain Pen Preppy 0.2mm

Deli 0.3mm Fountain Pen

[A Smug Dill]

32 minutes ago, recluse said:

And it's not unheard of in the fountain pens world:

Platinum Fountain Pen Preppy 0.2mm

 

A Platinum Preppy with an 02 nib is neither actually specified for 0.2mm, nor does it write that finely, in my experience.

 

32 minutes ago, recluse said:

I did say that as long as customers are willing to put up with it, manufacturers are happy to oblige. This holds for whatever product. 

 

You're the one who suggested manufacturers are ready to provide a quantitative description for rollerballs. I merely obliged and looked, at some major brands of “fine writing” instruments that sell both fountain pens and rollerball pens. I have little doubt Montblanc and Parker sell more units of rollerball pens than they do fountain pens, and Monteverde sells more rollerball refills (for whichever brand of pen) than it does fountain pen ink cartridges.

 

Furthermore, if customers are willing to “put up with it”, then there is no reason why…

6 hours ago, recluse said:

This whole tradition with non-quantitative markings ought to be long abandoned.

 

If you can't even convince me as a reasonably well informed and educated fountain pen aficionado, good luck convincing the industry that there is something to be gained for everyone to institute ‘quantitative’ markings. As scalar quantities, 02 is strictly less than 03, yes; but would Platinum's 02 designation of width mean the same thing as Sailor's or Montblanc's, or that one could then valid argue to a third-party arbiter that a Sailor 03 must put down broader lines than a Montblanc 02?

[recluse]

3 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

You're the one who suggested manufacturers are ready to provide a quantitative description for rollerballs.

And I gave the proof that they do this. Since I said "manufacturers" (plural), giving two examples was sufficient. If Pilot counts as an example of a major brand of "fine writing" instruments, I could throw that one in as well. On the other hand, I could provide an example of producers of fountain pens, which do not make any kind of permanent indications on (some of) their writing instruments vis-a-vis nib sizes. This would go as an illustration of "considerations external to the functionality".

 

Your argument about why quantitative marking is not done was based on the lack of bounds and the variation of the actual linewidth. Such an argument is not exclusive to fountain pens and could be applied to, say, rollerballs, where it apparently does not check. Coincidentally, rollerballs users find this quantitative information useful.

 

As to convincing anyone, there was no campaign to convince producers of nibs for broad edge calligraphy or imitating thereof that they have to start marking their nibs (just in case, I'm not saying that every single one of them does that). Yet, it doesn't surprise a lot of people that they see 1.1 or 0.6 stamped on their stub nibs. And people do form expectations with regard to 1.1 stubs whether they come with a Lamy or a TWSBI pen. In turn, vendors (again, not saying that every one of them does that) find it worthwhile to specify that the SU nib in Vanishing point is 1.0 mm stub. I guess, someone did convincement despite third-party arbiters and all that.

[A Smug Dill]

25 minutes ago, recluse said:

Your argument about why quantitative marking is not done was based on the lack of bounds and the variation of the actual linewidth.

 

No, my argument is that there is neither need nor impetus to do so, no obligation on the manufacturer to do so, little-to-no foreseeable benefit for it to do so, and it'd be pretty meaningless anyway — both in terms of what it means to the outcome, and also that quantitative does not mean every manufacturer agreeing to use the same numbers or mean the same thing. There is no compelling reason for manufacturers to abandon the “tradition” of just marking nibs with width grades instead of numbers (i.e. scalar quantities).

[MuddyWaters]

I would find it useful information to know the width of tipping in millimeters, knowing full well the line width of ink could vary depending on applied pressure and ink utilized. I respect platinum for indicating the nib grades in mm on their preppies. 

 

Imagine a newbie like the author of this thread wondering what nib grade from sailor would correspond to his current pilot one, by comparing measurements of the tipping. Instead the trial and error causes customers to lose their money. 

 

Anyway, back to the OP: I would suggest that you continue writing with your c74, since you like the comfort of the pen itself. Try different inks, different writing styles, holds of the pens. Buying a new pen is an easy way out of trying to accomodate yourself to your pen. The truth is that your replacement pen will also be too easily replaced if you don't spend more time with it. Worst case, you spend more time with your c74, learn the ins and outs of it, learn about yourself as a writer, appreciate different line widths and apply that knowledge in the future. I say this because the c74 is a very good pen (good build, good ink capacity, nice nibs) and because the FM nib grade is often recommended for those crossing over into the Japanese gold nib territory. 

 

I make this suggestion as someone who has wasted way too much money looking for THE pen, including on a ch823 (for me, too back heavy, boring medium nib) and a ch912 (ordered it with a funky nib choice), among the pens of many other brands. 

 

But if you think there may be something defective with the nib, then of course do return it if you can. 

[A Smug Dill]

5 hours ago, MuddyWaters said:

I respect platinum for indicating the nib grades in mm on their preppies.

 

I cannot find any page or article from an authoritative source that states that the nib width markings of 02, 03, and 05 means 0.2mm, 0.3mm, and 0.5mm respectively. Keep in mind that Sakura Pigma Micron pens (and perhaps other brands on the market, too) use such ‘quantitative’ markings to indicate nib width, but 02 does not mean 0.2mm (but is instead 0.3mm), and so on:

• Available line width: 003 = 0.15mm, 005 = 0.20mm, 01 = 0.25mm, 02 = 0.30mm,
  03 = 0.35mm, 04 = 0.40mm, 05 = 0.45mm, 08 = 0.50mm, 10 = 0.6mm, 12 = 0.7mm & Brush pen

That said, Platinum had indeed published a chart of its fountain pen nib width grades and the ranges of line width to which they correspond; see https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/348894-platinum-nib-sizes/.

 

5 hours ago, MuddyWaters said:

Imagine a newbie like the author of this thread wondering what nib grade from sailor would correspond to his current pilot one, by comparing measurements of the tipping. Instead the trial and error causes customers to lose their money. 

 

I've been there, and perhaps we all have. Nobody is saying it wouldn't be useful (but possibly misleading) information to some, but my “argument” is that it simply is nobody's responsibility to provide it, and there is no justification for @recluse's call to abandon “non-quantitative markings” of nib width by descriptive grades. Prospective customers in fountain pen manufacturers' target markets at large neither require nor demand it, so it's not as if there is a commercial need to offer empirical measurements in order to make pen sales happen; and I, for one, staunchly do not believe that responsibility for something others want somehow lies by default with those who has the capability to do or provide that something.

 

If the whole “argument” is about saving someone money (or saving them from losing money), then that initiative should be funded by consumers and/or consumer advocates — perhaps for lobbying, perhaps for independent lab testing, and perhaps to pay pen manufacturers to use their existing capability and knowledge of their products — instead of make it the industry's responsibility.

 

I believe in reducing the individual purchaser's and/or end-user's frustration, if they recognise that it's ultimately incumbent on them to wear the cost of whatever measures and changes to reduce the likelihood of their frustrations, disappointments and regrets arising from discretionary spending and material acquisition; it should be their trade-off to make, and not making them happier with the outcomes, or allow them to take less risk, without also costing them more to get there. The reason why I bothered with contributing this:

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/343508-q-i-use-western-fine-nibs-what-is-the-japanese-equivalent/?do=findComment&comment=4173821

was because @shawnee, for whom I was primarily doing it, had shown she was in the market for new pens and prepared to buy a variety of them, and not just wanting or expecting to hit the jackpot with a “best” purchase decision for a single pen. Nothing wrong with wanting to get it right the first time, for what one may see as a non-trivial investment; but that's why companies pay staff and consultants to do all that due diligence so that they stand a better chance, and the additional cost is just part of the equation.

 

5 hours ago, MuddyWaters said:

I make this suggestion as someone who has wasted way too much money looking for THE pen,

 

Due diligence is going to — and, in my opinion, should — cost the discerning and cautious consumer, in terms of time, effort, costs to travel to where certain products can be inspected, and perhaps opportunity costs in what one missed out on while not being completely ready and comfortable with committing to that single purchase. All just part of the cost of ”doing business”, one way or another.

 

The way I see it, those who try to offload the cost (including time and effort, and not just funds) of their own due diligence to some other party, and effectively try to make themselves “smarter” consumers than their peers at someone else's expense, and be able to spend less to get more (satisfaction), do not deserve to have a support framework that is removed from friends and acquaintances doing favours for each other.