Paper expert's opinion sought

[Tommaso Santojanni]

Good morning,
 

My name is Tommaso, I am Italian and reside in Hampshire (England). Hello to all in this sub-section of the forum.

I have only quite recently come upon this fascinating world, upon discovering a collection of fountain pens preserved in my family (through my mother’s line) some of them dating to the last Century. Little by little, my interest has deepened, and I have come to appreciate the intricacies of the outward perceivable characteristics and hidden aspects of nibs and inks.
 

I have come to broadly distinguish between the outward characteristics, those observable and appreciable in actual use, and the inward characteristics, which pertain to the technical processes and proprietary formulations that give rise to such performance.

 

In the case of nibs, the outward characteristics include: line width, flexibility, feedback or smoothness, flow rate, wetness, springiness (or bounce), start-up reliability, propensity to railroad, and tendencies toward ink starvation or flooding. These are the traits discerned by the hand and eye of the writer. Similarly, inks display their outward characteristics through flow, lubrication, line width, shading, sheen, water resistance, and drying time.

 

Behind these apparent and measurable traits lie inward characteristics.

In nib crafting, these involve three broad categories, namely alloy composition (often gold, steel, or palladium with specific metallurgical properties), lamination process and cutting/shaping (tipping, brazing, cutting and slitting of tines, shaping of the tipping into fine, round, italic or other profiles, final polishing and tuning) each step critical to yield the desired writing experience.

With inks, the matter becomes even more complicated as formulations are closely guarded, involving a complex interplay of dye or pigment selection, surfactants, humectants, biocides, binders, pH balancing agents, and flow regulators. These inward elements are seldom disclosed and far too intricate to catalogue here, yet they remain the hidden soul of the writing experience.
 

In short, I have only scratched the surface and I already found myself down a very deep rabbit hole!

 

I now find myself turning my attention to the third aspect of the perfect writing experience, a trinity one might posit, the paper. Would a knowledgeable member kindly help me isolate which parameters most affect the outward character and performance of paper?

I will leave the inward composition for a later thread.

Thank you in advance for sharing your time and expertise.

Tommaso

[Claes]

Ciao, Tommaso!

 

This is not only a rabbit hole, it is also an abyss, a jungle, and a quagmire, all in one.

 

What do we mean with "paper"?

A collection of fibers? Yes.

However, in very many cases the paper fibers are nothing but a carrier, a bed for special coatings/treatments that give the sheet the properties we are after.

Example: think of a blotting paper versus an office copier paper. Or a glossy art magazine versus newsprint.

 

Think of the difference between Al Fresco, Al Secco -- and Al Putrido.

And yes, give a paper correct post-treatment and you can create any of those techniques on the sheet.

 

When you want go dive deeper, here is a good start:

https://www.paperonweb.com/paperpro.htm

 

Have fun!
Claes in Lund, Sweden

 

[Tommaso Santojanni]

Thank you for the interesting link. Would I be correct to consider those aspects as equivalent to ink chemistry composition and characteristics?

 

[Claes]

Equivalent?`No.

But they certainly interact.

[Tommaso Santojanni]

Thank you, Claes. 

What I am hoping to clarify is which of the many characteristics listed in that brief may be said to affect the writer directly in the experience of writing. For instance, dimensional stability, while undoubtedly significant in technical terms, is of absolutely no consequence to the writer, whereas friction or porosity are critical.
 

Within the ink community, there appears to be broad consensus that 7 principal characteristics are sufficient to describe how an ink performs in relation to a writer's experience: namely, flow, lubrication, line width, shading, sheen, water resistance, and drying time. These may be deemed as user perceived properties. Naturally, they are the product of numerous non perceived chemical properties and technical processes, which are far more numerous and generally inaccessible to the ordinary writer.
 

I am trying to understand which paper properties are those that directly influence the writer’s perception in the act of writing, as opposed to those relevant chiefly to technical specification or industrial manufacture. I would venture the following:

– Colour

– Friction

– Absorption

– Weight/thickness
 

[Claes]

Re your ink characteristics: many consider colour/nuance/hue of the ink as the most important factor. 

 

 

 

[TSherbs]

feel in the hands of the user

[LizEF]

6 hours ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

flow rate, wetness, ... and tendencies toward ink starvation or flooding

If these three things are different, I'm very interested in knowing the differences!   (Though I don't want to detract from your paper discussions as I'm most interested in that, too.)

 

6 hours ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

I now find myself turning my attention to the third aspect of the perfect writing experience, a trinity one might posit, the paper. Would a knowledgeable member kindly help me isolate which parameters most affect the outward character and performance of paper?

I haven't given this tons of thought, but here are the characteristics I can think of:

1. Color
2. Texture
3. Hardness / softness (this is about the surface, yet different than texture; Clairefontaine's white, French rule paper is very hard; Tomoe River 68gsm is soft)
4. Absorbency (in the range of friendly papers, there are those that suck the ink in and those that keep it atop the page)
5. "Drag" - I'm not sure if this can be entirely captured in #2 and #3 or not, but some papers, particularly with large, very smooth nibs make it feel as if something is keeping the nib from moving freely.  The opposite would be "slippery".  In both cases, the nib plays a big part in this interaction.  I suspect both drag / slipperiness are only observed on hard, smooth papers.
6. Fiber makeup - I'm not sure how conscious the user will be of this during use, but some fibers are fine and densely packed to the point of being invisible, where other papers allow the fibers to be seen, and in bad paper, the fibers are huge and loosely packed.
7. ETA: Ability to show shading, sheen, color.

Secondary observable features which are, I think, a consequence of the above:

• Dry time
• Water resistance
• Ink consumption (some papers will take (not accept, take ) more ink than others
• Smearing / rewetting / smudging (those papers that don't allow any absorption will leave the dried ink more vulnerable to this behavior)

While not an attribute of the paper or the nib, I'll note here that the writing surface can make a huge difference in the experience or evaluation.  For example, my bouncy nibs (Visconti palladium, Bock titanium, Pilot VP) feel much more pleasant on a hard writing surface (one sheet of paper, hard desktop).  My "nails" are comfortable whether on a hard writing surface or not (e.g. in the middle of a notebook / note pad so that there's a whole stack of paper under the one I'm writing on).  And individuals vary in preference.

 

 

Finally, pinging @arcfide! (Though I fear it may be in vain - 11 Mar 2025 was their last login.)  I might go look for some posts to see if they won't help this discussion.

[Claes]

My prime property in a dream scenario would be what I call glide.

Not too little - not too much (Rhodia 90gsm is far too skiddy for my taste).

But note that glide is not solely dependent on the paper -- it is a combination of pen + ink + paper.

[LizEF]

4 minutes ago, Claes said:

My prime property in a dream scenario would be what I call glide.

Not too little - not too much (Rhodia 90gsm is far too skiddy for my taste).

But note that glide is not solely dependent on the paper -- it is a combination of pen + ink + paper.

Yes, this could be the single-word label for my "drag" vs "slippery" bullet point.

[Tommaso Santojanni]

1 hour ago, Claes said:

Re your ink characteristics: many consider colour/nuance/hue of the ink as the most important factor.

Of course, that is implicit.
 

 

33 minutes ago, LizEF said:

If these three things are different, I'm very interested in knowing the differences!   (Though I don't want to detract from your paper discussions as I'm most interested in that, too.)

I actually took then from your google doc sheet and adapted with technical wording! ☺️ perhaps a bad idea? Here:

6 hours ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

flow, lubrication, line width, shading, sheen, water resistance, and drying time.

---------------------------------
Can we summarize thus:

33 minutes ago, LizEF said:

1. Color
2. Texture
3. Hardness/softness
4. Absorbency
5. Glide
6. Fiber makeup
7. ETA: Ability to show shading, sheen, color.
8. Dry time
9. Water resistance

Wouldn't (a) Ink consumption and (b) smearing/rewetting/smudging be part of absorbency?
 

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

2 hours ago, LizEF said:

8 hours ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

flow rate, wetness, ... and tendencies toward ink starvation or flooding

If these three things are different, I'm very interested in knowing the differences!   (Though I don't want to detract from your paper discussions as I'm most interested in that, too.)

I actually took then from your google doc sheet and adapted with technical wording! ☺️ perhaps a bad idea.
Dry Time, Flow, Lubrication, Line Width, Shading, Sheen, Water Resistance

 

The three I quoted were your own descriptors of nib properties.  To me, all three describe the nib's flow property.  I'll quote a larger portion of what you wrote, with the three properties in bold:

 

8 hours ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

In the case of nibs, the outward characteristics include: line width, flexibility, feedback or smoothness, flow rate, wetness, springiness (or bounce), start-up reliability, propensity to railroad, and tendencies toward ink starvation or flooding. These are the traits discerned by the hand and eye of the writer. Similarly, inks display their outward characteristics through flow, lubrication, line width, shading, sheen, water resistance, and drying time.

 

Hope that clarifies what I was asking.

[LizEF]

9 minutes ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

Wouldn't (a) Ink consumption and (b) smearing/rewetting/smudging be part of avsorbency?

Ink consumption is definitely related to absorbency, but apparently also impacted by the paper surface (sizing)  (per the Tomoe River discussion between me and Arcfide in this thread: In defense of absorbent paper: Strathmore Writing).

 

Smearing/rewetting/smudging is likely entirely a consequence of absorbency.  That's why I put these two and the other two as "secondary" observable features - regardless of how important they are to the user, they're likely entirely dictated by the other observable properties...

[LizEF]

42 minutes ago, LizEF said:

I might go look for some posts to see if they won't help this discussion.

OK, looked for some posts...   Extracted attributes from the OPs and skimmed the comments.  This one I think is the most useful if one wants to go in depth reading about paper properties (not that it necessarily covers everything, but it's go the most discussion):

 

Thoughts picked up from Arcfide's posts:

 

I didn't mention it, because it's kind of a given for us, but "Fountain Pen friendliness" is mandatory in a paper for our use.  If a paper feathers, bleeds, spreads (excessively), or at the opposite end, won't accept FP ink (because it's glossy/coated), that's probably the first thing the user will note.  I suppose the worst paper might "shed" (lose fibers, usually between the tines) or "pill" under a very wet nib - certainly after multiple strokes.

 

There's also the appearance of the ink - are the lines crisp or do they have jagged edges (this is partly the ink and may be entirely a consequence of the already-named attributes); is the ink solid (other than shading and sheen) or does it appear splotchy/mottled (may also be entirely a consequence)?

 

Just realized we may have skipped over the paper weight and transparency (how much it exhibits ghosting/show-through).

 

Also stiffness - partly the paper weight, but also related to hardness (but not the same as hardness).

 

Ah, perhaps we need to add sensitivity to hand oils (e.g. Iroful is rather sensitive to this, Rhodia doesn't seem to be).

 

Also, consistency on either side of the sheet (Rhodia dot pads are noticeably different on front and back; some can distinguish the two sides of Iroful - I can't say I do, but I also haven't made the effort).  Is it possible to have the two sides identical, or do the mechanics of paper-making require them to be different?

 

Do we care about binding, or are we focusing only on the sheet itself?  Same question for dimensions (A5 vs A4 vs letter, etc.).  Same question for ruling (lined, grid, dot, etc.) - and I'll note that application of ruling does seem to impact the performance of the paper.

[Tommaso Santojanni]

1 hour ago, LizEF said:

The three I quoted were your own descriptors of nib properties.  To me, all three describe the nib's flow property.  I'll quote a larger portion of what you wrote, with the three properties in bold:

I see, you were referring to nibs. In each case (ink, nib, and paper), my focus is on the writer’s experience, rather than the manufacturer’s considerations. I considered those to be the principal parameters, though I remain open to others.

 

1 hour ago, LizEF said:

Smearing/rewetting/smudging is likely entirely a consequence of absorbency.  That's why I put these two and the other two as "secondary" observable features - regardless of how important they are to the user, they're likely entirely dictated by the other observable properties...

I am trying to identify a manageable set of parameters, ideally no more than half a dozen, or slightly more, to reflect the writer’s experience.
 

 

34 minutes ago, LizEF said:

Just realized we may have skipped over the paper weight and transparency (how much it exhibits ghosting/show-through).

Yes, weight is certainly a must!

1. Color
2. Texture
3. Hardness/softness
4. Absorbency
5. Glide
6. Fiber makeup
7. ETA: Ability to show shading, sheen, color.
8. Dry time
9. Water resistance
10. Weight

Should more than 10 parameters emerge, I would prefer to list them in descending order of importance so as to eliminate those less important to my research. Ideally I would like to list only half a dozen or so.
 

 

35 minutes ago, LizEF said:

Do we care about binding, or are we focusing only on the sheet itself?  Same question for dimensions (A5 vs A4 vs letter, etc.).  Same question for ruling (lined, grid, dot, etc.) - and I'll note that application of ruling does seem to impact the performance of the paper.

No. Binding, dimensions, ruling, etc are not of interest. Merely the sheet itself.

 

 

[Claes]

I have a feeling that you are making things a bit too complicated...

 

Since around the mid 1960s I have been searching for the "best" combination of pen-ink-paper. I am still looking -- and naturally, this is a personal opinion of what is "best".

 

Even if we leave ink colour out of the equation, you have a myriad of combinations possible. Same pen + same paper but two different inks will behave quite differently. Have you studied Dr Ines' valuable results (you can find them here at FPN)? They taught me a lot, and I have been using her findings as a shopping list for my inks.

 

Have fun!
Claes in Lund, Sweden

 

 

 

[LizEF]

24 minutes ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

Yes, weight is certainly a must!

1. Color
2. Texture
3. Hardness/softness
4. Absorbency
5. Glide
6. Fiber makeup
7. ETA: Ability to show shading, sheen, color.
8. Dry time
9. Water resistance
10. Weight

Should more than 10 parameters emerge, I would prefer to list them in descending order of importance so as to eliminate those less important to my research. Ideally I would like to list only half a dozen or so.

IMO, you can remove #9.  It's almost certainly a simple consequence of other features, primarily absorbency and the paper's chemical make-up.  (The same can probably be said of dry time, especially since the going theory is that dry time is a chemical reaction between ink and paper.)  In both of these features, especially the first, the user looks more to the ink than to the paper as the defining factor.  But if you're going to keep one, dry time is the more important to end users (or so it seems from comments online).

 

If I were going to renumber your sequence in order of importance (in general, as opposed to my personal preference) it would be something like:

1. Color
2. Texture
3. Weight
4. Ability to show shading, sheen, color.
5. Hardness/softness
6. Glide
7. Dry time
8. Absorbency
9. Fiber makeup
10. Water resistance

The top four are preferences users often state when asking about paper (with #3 expressed as wanting a paper that doesn't show through or bleed; or as a paper that will withstand flexing).

 

I think most people don't notice #5 or 6 until they have more experience, if then.  Number 7 might ought to go sooner as people seem to care a lot about dry time, but as I said, it's not usually something they consider about the paper (at least not until they've experienced differences).

 

Numbers 8, 9, and 10 are more consequences of the paper's construction and I don't generally hear people asking about these - though @arcfide has expressed a preference for absorbent paper.

[Tommaso Santojanni]

To avoid confusion I should mention that my wish is to confine the parameters to those characteristics commonly perceived as desirable in the act of writing a letter, rather than drawing or other uses, by all writers, irrespective of (i) manufacturing choices (*) or (ii) personal preferences.

(*) which must naturally be designed to serve such purpose.

---------------------------
 

14 hours ago, Claes said:

I have a feeling that you are making things a bit too complicated...

Good morning, @Claes my intent is quite the opposite. I am seeking to define a half a dozen characteristics that are the most desirable to the writer.

 

14 hours ago, LizEF said:

MO, you can remove #9.  It's almost certainly a simple consequence of other features, primarily absorbency and the paper's chemical make-up.  (The same can probably be said of dry time, especially since the going theory is that dry time is a chemical reaction between ink and paper.)  In both of these features, especially the first, the user looks more to the ink than to the paper as the defining factor.  But if you're going to keep one, dry time is the more important to end users (or so it seems from comments online).

 

If I were going to renumber your sequence in order of importance (in general, as opposed to my personal preference) it would be something like:

1. Color
2. Texture
3. Weight
4. Ability to show shading, sheen, color.
5. Hardness/softness
6. Glide
7. Dry time
8. Absorbency
9. Fiber makeup
10. Water resistance

The list is much improved, if still a touch too long for my purposes.

This, I believe, requires the thread to distinguish clearly between three domains: first, subjective or user-defined preferences, such as colour, ruling, binding, or size; second, the paper’s objective behaviour with ink, governed by manufacturer-controlled properties; and third, those essential characteristics that define what many refer to as the trifecta that is, the qualities commonly perceived and appreciated by all writers at the moment the nib transfers ink to the page.

Does this distinction seem sound for our list? 

In that light, would not the first quality of fountain pen paper be what @Claes aptly termed glide, followed closely by its resistance to feathering and ghosting?

And, perhaps, colour should not be on this list as, all other factors being equal, a bright white surface will inevitably render sheen and shading quite differently from a matte cream. Yet this depends less from the paper’s intrinsic composition than from the buyer’s choice.

Similarly, I wonder if weight, hardness and fiber make up should make this list as these are the manufacturer controlled aspects that are closely associated, or determine, writer experienced characteristics such as feathering and ghosting or glide.

If we remain mindful of the fact that we are attempting to define only desirable characteristics for the nib/ink/paper trifecta, not the paper alone or the user preference, then certain aspects become far less relevant than their effect on that trifecta.

With that in mind, would weight not be considered more of a user defined preference, or manufacturer controlled parameter? And, for the same reason, would absorbency not be considered more of a manufacturer controlled parameter or even rather a user defined preference, rather than a writer's desirable characteristic?

 

What are your thoughts on this list:

1. Glide
2. Resistance to feathering/ghosting
3. Drying time
4. Texture
5. Shading, sheen, color responsiveness

I seek to confine the parameters, as far as possible, to those universally shared aspects of the writing experience, rather than elements determined by (i) manufacturing choices or (ii) individual preferences.

I should be grateful to read views and thought of those members whose knowledge and authority far exceed my own on matters of paper.

[Tommaso Santojanni]

Given that the aim is to confine the parameters to those characteristics commonly perceived as desirable in the act of writing a letter (rather than for drawing or other uses) by all writers, irrespective of (i) manufacturing decisions (*) or (ii) individual preferences, I am considering that these parameters are determining for the perfect ink, paper, and nib/feed trifecta:
(*) which must, of course, be directed towards serving such purpose

Paper:

1. Glide
2. Resistance to feathering/ghosting
3. Drying time
4. Texture
5. Shading, sheen, color responsiveness

Ink:

1. Resistance to feathering/ghosting (difficult to measure)
2. Drying time
3. Flow
4. Line width
5. Lubrication
6. Shading
7. Sheen
8. Water resistance

 

Nib and feed:

1. Smoothness/feedback (or perhaps glide?)

2. Consistent ink delivery (reliable start-up, uninterrupted flow, and stable line formation)

3. Springiness or controlled flexibility (responsiveness to pressure, line variation and character)

I look forward to improving this list with your helpful thoughts and views.

 

[LizEF]

5 hours ago, Tommaso Santojanni said:

This, I believe, requires the thread to distinguish clearly between three domains: first, subjective or user-defined preferences, such as colour, ruling, binding, or size; second, the paper’s objective behaviour with ink, governed by manufacturer-controlled properties; and third, those essential characteristics that define what many refer to as the trifecta that is, the qualities commonly perceived and appreciated by all writers at the moment the nib transfers ink to the page.

Really, there are only two categories - the subjective and objective.  That third category - there aren't any that apply to "all writers" - outside the objective.

 

Objective: It takes ink without bleed, feathering, or excessive spread.  This would include not creating excessively jagged edges on the ink line - at the very least, the jaggedness shouldn't be visible to the naked eye.  I don't recall anyone ever requesting a paper that bleeds, feathers, or spreads a lot (though I have heard people who are accustomed to absorbent paper complain about how thin the line is when they write on FP-friendly paper).

 

Subjective:

• Color (white, cream, ivory, off-white, cool white, warm white - you get the idea)
• Texture (Yes, some like a bit of tooth, others like glass)
• Weight (some want really thin paper so they can have 500-page notebooks; some want really thick paper so their triple super extra broad firehose with dark ink doesn't exhibit ghosting)
• Ability to show shading, sheen, color. (Some hate shading (mental illness, no doubt); some can't stand sheen; some want amplified color; some prefer the opposite of those things)
• Hardness/softness (I don't know how to describe this, but some like Clairefontaine and others prefer Leuchtturm)
• Glide (I think this is a consequence of other choices, but some like slippery and others like a bit of drag)
• Dry time (almost everyone wants it yesterday)
• Absorbency (rarely does anyone want absorbent, but they want fast dry times, so....)
• Fiber makeup (I've never heard anyone ask about this; it comes up when telling people how to guess whether a paper might work well with FPs)
• Water resistance (Again, I've never heard anyone ask for this; it's an observation that absorbent papers also keep the ink better when exposed to water)

Sorry, no time to respond to the rest - must post a review!