Super magnet testing of nibs

[JWG J]

There is controversy on the value of a magnet to test for a solid gold nib or not gold nib. Reason for me to do a survey.

Using a small, very light (< 1.5 g) slick super magnet placed on a smooth surface, I performed magnetic tests on nibs. These Tonzon super magnets are used to attach insulation film behind radiators.

Scoring is semi quantitative: ─ not magnetic; + slight movement of the magnet; ++ sticking to the magnet; +++ jumping over a short distance to the magnet.

All gold nibs of various FP-types scored ─ , except for the nibs of my Parker 45 deLuxe GT and my Parker 45 Classic, of which I had presumed they might have gold nibs (Parker Pens Penography says these nibs are made of steel, but on eBay they are sold as having gold nibs). These two Parkers scored +. My Parker 45 Coronet however scored ─.

Does anyone know for sure if these 3 types of Parker 45 have gold nibs or not? Would like to know for sure. If Parker 45 deLuxe GT and Parker 45 Classic indeed / as now is to be expected do not have gold nibs, my first conclusion would be that all gold nibs score  ─, i.e., in my testing of >150 pens, which is a logic, expected result...

Testing not gold nibs yielded the following results:

Cross Solo                                                 +

Duke Ruby                                                 +++

(Duke) Uranus                                           +

Geha 707                                                    ─

Hongdian N23                                            +++

Hongdian 8037                                          +++

Italix Captain’s Commission                      +

Jinhao 65                                                    +++

Jinhao 911                                                   +++

Kaigelu 316A                                               +++

Lamy Alu                                                    ++

Lamy Safari (2 pens)                                +, +++

Moonman M600s                                     +++

Montblanc Slimline                                  +

Montblanc Caressa                                  ─

Otto Hutt Design 02                                 +

Parker 15 (2 pens)                                    +, ++

Parker 17                                                     ─

Parker 21                                                     ─

Parker 25 (2 pens)                                    ─ (green one), ++ (orange one) !!

Parker 88 (2 pens)                                    +, +

Parker 95                                                   ─

Parker Arrow                                             ─

Parker Classic (2 pens)                           +, +

Parker Falcon                                           +

Parker Rialto                                            ++

Parker Sonnet (3 pens)                          ─  all

Parker Urban                                             ++

Parker Vector (2 pens)                           +, ++

Pelikan M200 (2 pens)                            +

Platignum Varsity                                    +++

Redring Freeway                                     +

Waldman Tango                                       +

Waterman Expert (4 pens)                   ++ all

Waterman Forum (2 pens)                   +, ++

Waterman Harmonie                              ++

Waterman hémispère (2 pens)          +++ both

Waterman Lauréat I (4 pens)              + to ++

Waterman Lauréat II (7 pens)             ++ all

Waterman Maestro (3 pens)               + to ++

Waterman vintage others                    + to ++

Sheaffer 440                                         ─

Sheaffer 555                                          ─

Sheaffer 790                                          ─

Sheaffer Agio 453-0                             +

Sheaffer Fashion II (7 pens)                  ─ all

Sheaffer Imperial II Touchdown           ─

Sheaffer’s Prelude                                 ++

Sheaffer Sentinel (3 pens)                   +

Sheaffer Targa 1001                                ─

Sheaffer Targa slim 1002                       ─

Sheaffer TRZ (4 pens)                           ─ all

Sheaffer Triumph  2556                        +

 

Conclusions: most not gold nibs are positive in my super magnet test, but certainly not all, especially several vintage Parker and Sheaffer FP’s . This will be correlated probably with the high quality of these nib materials. So, a negative test result does not mean the nib is solid gold. Chinese pens show the most positive tests. This will be correlated probably with the lower quality of these nib materials. Unexpected results for Parker 25.

 

Hope this survey is helpful.

[Mechanical]

@JWG J, this is a nice idea and thanks for doing it. 

 

Just to make sure I understand, did you remove the nibs from the pens, place both nib and magnet on a flat surface, and then gradually move the magnet toward the nib?  Or something else?

[Dillo]

Some austenitic stainless steels are non-magnetic or have very poor magnetic attraction. 316 for example generally has very poor or often undetectable magnetic attraction

[JWG J]

7 hours ago, Mechanical said:

@JWG J, this is a nice idea and thanks for doing it. 

 

Just to make sure I understand, did you remove the nibs from the pens, place both nib and magnet on a flat surface, and then gradually move the magnet toward the nib?  Or something else?

No, I didn't remove the nibs of the around 150 pens tested!...Would not even consider that.

Testing +++ and ++ is easy as the magnet can (just a bit for ++) be lifted y the nib; scoring - and + is challenging. Several repeated tests per nib should be performed. First make contact between the edge of the slick super magnet lying on a very smooth surface, such as a mirror (so that the very light magnet slides moves very ! easily) and the nib and very slowly! move the nib away: does the magnet follow the nib somewhat? Then test other edges of the super magnet. Then the most difficult: hover the nib slightly above the super magnet at different angles and then there might be a slight rotation of the super magnet. The challenge here is not to touch the super magnet with the protruding tip of the nib, resulting in a false positive test; a result should be replicated several times to be sure of a positive result. If you slightly touch the super magnet slowly approaching in a strict vertical way and the magnet rotates slightly, and this can be replicated, then the test is +. Again, this should be tested at different angles between the nib and the super magnet. If none of these tests is positive, the scoring is -.

Hope this helps.

 

[JWG J]

4 hours ago, Dillo said:

Some austenitic stainless steels are non-magnetic or have very poor magnetic attraction. 316 for example generally has very poor or often undetectable magnetic attraction

Yes, as can be concluded from my test results.

Furthermore, a non gold nib doesn't have to consist of 100% steel: e.g., Parker Super 21 is reported to have an “Octanium” nib (whatever that may be).

[Mechanical]

15 hours ago, JWG J said:

No, I didn't remove the nibs of the around 150 pens tested!...

Perfectly reasonable!!!

 

15 hours ago, JWG J said:

First make contact between the edge of the slick super magnet lying on a very smooth surface,

Yes, I see.  I did wonder if friction might play some role in the testing.  Perhaps one would say, with the "-" results that, "there is so little iron contained in the nib, the magnetic force was insufficient to overcome the static friction of the magnet resting on the mirror."

 

I was looking around the house for some kind of suitable magnet... and I was considering suspending the magnet on a string.  No such magnet found so far. :-)

 

15 hours ago, JWG J said:

Parker Super 21 is reported to have an “Octanium” nib (whatever that may be).

According to Richard Binder's website, "the (Octanium) alloy contains eight elements (40% cobalt, 20% chromium, 15% nickel, 15% iron, 7% molybdenum, 2% manganese, 0.04% beryllium, 0.15% carbon)."

 

Thus the "-" result for the Parker 21 octanium nib suggests that 15% iron isn't enough to move the magnet.  The "+" results likely indicate more that 15% iron... Maybe!

[JWG J]

 

7 hours ago, Mechanical said:

Perfectly reasonable!!!

 

Yes, I see.  I did wonder if friction might play some role in the testing.  Perhaps one would say, with the "-" results that, "there is so little iron contained in the nib, the magnetic force was insufficient to overcome the static friction of the magnet resting on the mirror."

 

I was looking around the house for some kind of suitable magnet... and I was considering suspending the magnet on a string.  No such magnet found so far. 🙂

 

According to Richard Binder's website, "the (Octanium) alloy contains eight elements (40% cobalt, 20% chromium, 15% nickel, 15% iron, 7% molybdenum, 2% manganese, 0.04% beryllium, 0.15% carbon)."

 

Thus the "-" result for the Parker 21 octanium nib suggests that 15% iron isn't enough to move the magnet.  The "+" results likely indicate more that 15% iron... Maybe!

 

[JWG J]

Of course, every test has sensitivity and specificity issues.  However, I would think suspending the super magnet on a string has lower sensitivity to detect iron on level +, because 1) I envision the suspended magnet will slightly swing a bit, compromising reproducibility and interpretation of the test, 2) the test of slight rotation of the super magnet is not possible, which sometimes was the only positive test result (must be replicated several times to be sure). The super magnet I used has a very smooth surface, is very light and has rounded edges. As for the Octanium issue (thanks for your provided details!): in Parker 21 the sensitivity to detect iron will also have been negatively influenced by the fact the nib is hooded, so less nib material can be tested. For instance, the “slight rotation test” is virtually impossible with hooded nibs. If someone can confirm with certainty that the Parker 45 nibs are not solid gold (see the question in my first post), which I think will be the case, then the value of my sensitive super magnet test is to exclude a solid gold nib. However, a negative test result for iron in a nib with a gold color will not indicate a gold nib, but it might suggest a higher quality of metal than that of a nib with a positive test for iron. Likewise, a + test might indicate a higher quality of nib than of a nib with a ++ or +++ test. Circumstantial evidence: I have seen several times erosion of nib material of Waterman not gold nibs, generally scoring ++, and I have yet to see erosions of nib material of steel Sheaffer Targa nibs, that scored -.

 

[Mechanical]

7 hours ago, JWG J said:

Of course, every test has sensitivity and specificity issues.  However, I would think suspending the super magnet on a string has lower sensitivity to detect iron on level +, because 1) I envision the suspended magnet will slightly swing a bit, compromising reproducibility and interpretation of the test, 2) the test of slight rotation of the super magnet is not possible, which sometimes was the only positive test result (must be replicated several times to be sure). The super magnet I used has a very smooth surface, is very light and has rounded edges. As for the Octanium issue (thanks for your provided details!): in Parker 21 the sensitivity to detect iron will also have been negatively influenced by the fact the nib is hooded, so less nib material can be tested. For instance, the “slight rotation test” is virtually impossible with hooded nibs. If someone can confirm with certainty that the Parker 45 nibs are not solid gold (see the question in my first post), which I think will be the case, then the value of my sensitive super magnet test is to exclude a solid gold nib. However, a negative test result for iron in a nib with a gold color will not indicate a gold nib, but it might suggest a higher quality of metal than that of a nib with a positive test for iron. Likewise, a + test might indicate a higher quality of nib than of a nib with a ++ or +++ test. Circumstantial evidence: I have seen several times erosion of nib material of Waterman not gold nibs, generally scoring ++, and I have yet to see erosions of nib material of steel Sheaffer Targa nibs, that scored -.

 

 

Thanks for all of this added information, @JWG J.   There are so many niceties to be considered when experimenting.  Yes, maybe a string would be troublesome.  :-)

 

On the Parker 45, I have seen models with both 14k nibs and steel nibs.  I think the steel nibs are Octanium, but I'm not really sure. I've also seen units in 10k gold online. If you wish, these Parker 45 nibs are exceptionally easy to remove.  The hooded nib unit unscrews and the nib and feed slip out from the hood so that the nib itself can be liberated.  If the nib is gold, I bet it will be so marked.  None of my P45 steel nibs are marked except to say "Made in USA" and either "Parker" or marked with the the halo insignia.

 

 

[JWG J]

Thanks for your info, Mechanical!

 

Removed the nibs of my 3 Parker 45 FP's according to your directions. The nibs of my Parker 45 deLuxe GT and my Parker 45 Classic, of which I had presumed they might  consist of solid gold have no gold mark (the super magnet +  test in these pens thus is true positive for iron content, robbing me from the illusions of gold nibs 🙁) These nibs are gold plated, as indicated by the super magnet.

 

My Parker 45 Coronet nib that scored ─ has a 14 K mark on the nib, so the super magnet test is true negative for iron.

 

Before I started the testing, my hypothesis was the test results would be of no real value, but I was wrong as the results above (also) show. My conclusions in my earlier post stand...

[Mechanical]

It's gratifying to be able check the magnet results and that they go just the way you think.

 

For what it's worth, octanium holds up very well.  I don't think I've seen even a hint of corrosion.

[Black16]

15 hours ago, JWG J said:

Before I started the testing, my hypothesis was the test results would be of no real value, but I was wrong as the results above (also) show. My conclusions in my earlier post stand...

Actually your test might be of a great value for a lot of people. For example, I recently decided to revive my metalsmithing hobby and try making my own nibs outta fun and curiosity and I went through a lot of research already - about stainless steels used for nibs in old times and nowadays, to choose at least a few of them for the start. As @Dillo mentioned already austenitic stainless steels are often slightly or non-magnetic. This helps in a way of figuring out what type of alloys a person like me might need to make nibs with the similar properties to the nibs they enjoy have.

[JWG J]

Interesting and challenging hobby! I bet many members would be interested in your experiences!

[Black16]

2 minutes ago, JWG J said:

Interesting and challenging hobby! I bet many members would be interested in your experiences!

If I'll ever make something that won't break and will write - I'll post it here of course, but this is a completely different field from what I did before so requires a lot of research first and then a lot of trials and errors but yeah right now I'm inspecting vintage stainless steel nibs as I don't like how nowadays steel flex nibs are just an imitation of those, thus I thought up this challenge for myself.

[Dillo]

A lot of vintage stainless steel nibs with flexibility are not really that corrosion resistant. I've seen a lot of pitted and damaged nibs. Nowadays, 316 is one of the more common alloys for nibs. It has much higher corrosion resistance but can still be pitted by modern iron gall inks

[JWG J]

In my view, there are 3 variables determining the risk of nib corrosion: 1) nib material, 2) corrosiveness of the ink (probably in the past inks were in general more corrosive; this also depends on the type of ink, e.g., iron gall inks (see remark of Dillo), that used to be rather corrosive, 3) the duration of the exposure. A vintage fountain pen with not gold nib with stains of old iron gall ink on the nib during many years, while lying in a drawer, stands little chance of not getting corroded...