Stub Nib versus Cursive Italic

[RonB]

I just received my new Richard Binder .6mm stub nib today with the Pelikan M200 fountain pen. I couldn't wait to try it out and compare it to my Binder .7mm cursive italic.

 

As I was informed by Wim, Kelly, Chupie and others, there is a trade-off between line variation and nib smoothness. Here is a handwriting sample of both with the same ink and paper, for anyone who might be interested in a comparison. The stub nib is definitely smoother than the cursive italic, but still has some nice line variation. Not as much as the cursive italic, but the difference is not that great unless you really look hard for it.

 

I think if I had to chose one or the other, I would chose the stub. However, since I now have both, I don't have to chose!

 

Thanks to all who helped and encouraged me to try these specialty nibs. And thank you, Richard!

 

Ron

[RonB]

Here is a close-up of the stub nib writing.

Edited May 23, 2006 by RonB

[RonB]

A close-up of the Italic.

[Roger]

Good job, Ron!

 

Looks as though the 0.6 mm Stub might have had a slightly wetter flow. Was it the same pen in each case?

 

I'm becoming a fan of stubs in the 0.4 to 0.6 mm ramge for everyday writing. As you say, they're as comfortable and fast to write with as normal ball nibs, and that 2:1 variation is just enough to give style points to the most humdrum writing. No, no your hand is not humdrum. Just making a point totally unrelated to you.

[RonB]

Roger, actually I used my Pelikan M605 with the cursive italic and the new M200 with the stub. You're right, the M200 does look wetter. I'll have to switch them and see if it changes things.

 

Ron

[southpaw]

Congrats on two great nibs!

[JRodriguez]

I've got a cursive italic and a stub from Richard and I love them both. As I understand it, the cursives get less smooth with a greater angle. Mine is a 1.0 LF Oblique and it is very smooth, though I have to hold the nib at the correct angle - but that's to be expected. Anyway, I'm loving mine and hope you get lots of use out of yours. Congratulations!

[TMLee]

Dear RonB... thanks for the enlarged images... They are more telling....

Heck buy both ?

[RonB]

If I had to chose one, I would chose the stub nib. However, both are nice to have!

 

Ron

[meanwhile]

It just shows how personal nib choice is - to me there's a big difference in how the two samples look, with the CI winning easily. I don't have to look for this at all - the CI grabs me at first glance.

[James P]

I have to agree with you, Meanwhile. I much prefer the look of the cursive italic to the stub. I wonder if it may be that the ink from the stub appears more uniform in color and depth, while while the shading is more evident with the cursive italic nib.

 

James Partridge

[Kelly]

Wonderful post, Ron - so many are tempted by the special nibs and I hope this sways more people to try them. I love both the stub and cursive and can definitely see more line variation in your cursive example. I've found that my favorite size stub is a Binder 0.6mm and dream cursive is a 0.75,also from Richard and have one by Deb Kinney that is exquisite, too - maximum line variation for my small scrawl.

[RonB]

Thanks, Kelly.

 

I used two different pens for the samples, which may have resulted in a difference in the relative wetness of the two samples. I will try to do a sample soon that is with the same pen but the two different nibs.

 

Ron

[RonB]

OK, here is a sample that shows both the .6mm Stub and the .7mm Cursive Italic

 

with the same pen. I think Roger was correct: the M605 I used before with the

 

Cursive Italic was a little drier writer. Here I used the M200 for both nibs and the

 

Cursive Italic sample looks wetter, I believe. How much difference do you notice

 

between the two?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ron

Edited July 14, 2006 by RonB

[RonB]

Close-up of the Stub nib:

[RonB]

Close-up of the Cursive Italic:

[JimStrutton]

Thanks for this Ron,

 

For me at least the Stub seems to be the one. Probably if you were doing a serious amount of cursive writing the cursive nib would be the one to go for, but for every day the Stub just adds that little bit of character.

 

Thanks for sharing, Jim

[Roger]

Great job, Ron, in keeping the variables under control, thus making the comparison both useable and reproduceable.

 

The downstrokes show slightly wider with the 0.7 mm CI. To be expected considering it is a carefully crafted 0.7 vs. the 0.6 stub. If I squint real hard, I might attribute an ever so slightly thinner horizontal stroke from the CI. Again, not surprising considering its pedigree.

 

For everyday writing, which is what Stubs and CIs in this size range are designed for, my pick is the Stub just for the greater ease in using it at speed. If the more elegant calligraphic effect is desired, one would probably go to a wider CI for the greater variation offered.

 

It gets less definable when you try, say a Conway Stewart IM nib. It writes, for all the world, as easily as what I wouild call a stub of the same width. From the name, "IM", it could even be inferred that CS is offering more of a crisp italic. Certainly not the case by my reckoning. At best, it is a cursive italic and, as I said, more of a stub, imo.

 

With all the variations, naming conventions and differing perceptions involving nibs capable of italic type writing, we must give Richard Binder his due. He has clearly set forth his parameters and meticuously crafts his nibs according to his stated specs. I like that kind of reliability!

[Dan Carmell]

Nice examples of the differences between what stubs and italics can produce, Ron. For myself, I have what seems to be a very hard to break tendency to "roll" the pen in my hand as I move down a line, writing. With a round nibbed pen, this is no problem, but with a pen with sharper corners, like an italic, it is fatal! So I've mostly switched to stub nibs, accepting the trade-off.

 

However, I had a Pelikan 100N that proves that a stub can produce as extreme line variation as any italic. While this Pelikan's nib (which is actually marked "B") has very rounded corners, the tip is flat (and wide) because there is very little iridium on it, not the typical modern pellet we see on stub and italic nibs. The line variation is easily 4 to 1.

 

best, Dan

[meanwhile]

Dan, Roger -

 

That's very useful! Thank you. I have a slot in Richard's waiting list, which I was planning to use to get a cursive italic... but despite my preference I'm beginning to think more about a stub. The planned pen is a M nib Parker 51 or Targa.. I'd appreciate hearing of people's advice and experiences, although Ryan, who has had a 51 CI made up has already been very helpful (he's go for the stub if I use the 51, because the pen is hard to align well enough to use with a CI).