fountain pen taboos - don't enter if you're easily offended

[Vladimir]

  On 3/29/2010 at 4:52 AM, mahkie said:

  On 3/28/2010 at 5:24 PM, bushido said:

  On 3/28/2010 at 1:20 AM, LinusL said:

Also, Bose is horrible and I agree with the comment about audiophiles not wanting to touch them. Their headphones are horrid (even the high end ones).

 

i'm not an audiophile but when i first listened to those tiny bose speakers in the 90s i was blown away. the sound was incredible. since i'm not an audiophile however i was never willing to pay that much for a set of speakers.

 

This reaction was carefully cultivated by a lot of marketing research by Bose. They are VERY picky about how their speakers are shown off, and will not allow sellers to compare Bose speakers to other speakers.

 

Basically, Bose has learned how to exploit psychological biases to give the appearance of high quality.

 

That's a very interesting comment. Could you please explain it in more detail?

How do they exploit psychological biases and which ones are those?

I'm very neutral about bose, btw.

[Sharkle]

  On 3/29/2010 at 5:51 AM, Vladimir said:

  On 3/29/2010 at 4:52 AM, mahkie said:

  On 3/28/2010 at 5:24 PM, bushido said:

  On 3/28/2010 at 1:20 AM, LinusL said:

Also, Bose is horrible and I agree with the comment about audiophiles not wanting to touch them. Their headphones are horrid (even the high end ones).

 

i'm not an audiophile but when i first listened to those tiny bose speakers in the 90s i was blown away. the sound was incredible. since i'm not an audiophile however i was never willing to pay that much for a set of speakers.

 

This reaction was carefully cultivated by a lot of marketing research by Bose. They are VERY picky about how their speakers are shown off, and will not allow sellers to compare Bose speakers to other speakers.

 

Basically, Bose has learned how to exploit psychological biases to give the appearance of high quality.

 

That's a very interesting comment. Could you please explain it in more detail?

How do they exploit psychological biases and which ones are those?

I'm very neutral about bose, btw.

 

My guess is that Mahkie is talking about making a product appear exclusive such that enough people will feel special for owning it. That, and the fact that a manufacturer can sometimes restrict what a seller or even an owner can do with such a product, however, is exactly what many consumers despise about certain products in addition to it possibly not being a superior product in its category. These consumers feel that the value of the product should rest on its actual assets, not marketing ploys alone (or at all in some cases).

 

 

Edited to add: I don't want to put words in somebody's mouth, so Mahkie, if this is not what you mean, please let us know, as I'm also interested.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Sharkle

[bushido]

  On 3/29/2010 at 6:20 AM, Sharkle said:

 

 

My guess is that Mahkie is talking about making a product appear exclusive such that enough people will feel special for owning it. That, and the fact that a manufacturer can sometimes restrict what a seller or even an owner can do with such a product, however, is exactly what many consumers despise about certain products in addition to it possibly not being a superior product in its category. These consumers feel that the value of the product should rest on its actual assets, not marketing ploys alone (or at all in some cases).

 

 

Edited to add: I don't want to put words in somebody's mouth, so Mahkie, if this is not what you mean, please let us know, as I'm also interested.

 

sounds like apple's business model as well!

[impossiblebird]

  On 3/28/2010 at 7:37 PM, AtomicLeo said:

...And while I'm on a roll, why anyone would use an ink that wasn't at least waterproof just baffles me! I mean, what is the point? If a splash of water erases the writing you might as well with a pencil!

 

LOve Noodler's and Private Reserve inks. The more saturated, the better!

I second that emotion. If I ever set foot in a lab again , I'll be armed with the right tool for the job of making sure I can make my benchnotes stay put on the paper: a stainless steel pen full of Noodler's Polar Black (even works after a long stretch in the coldroom). I'm baffled by the occasional posts along the lines of "why the fixation on bulletproof?"; I can appreciate that some people think it's cool that their writing be given the chance to dissolve in whatever random liquid might come their way, but why can those folks not reciprocate and appreciate that, frequently, that which is written needs to STAY written.

[impossiblebird]

  On 3/29/2010 at 6:20 AM, Sharkle said:

 

My guess is that Mahkie is talking about making a product appear exclusive such that enough people will feel special for owning it. That, and the fact that a manufacturer can sometimes restrict what a seller or even an owner can do with such a product, however, is exactly what many consumers despise about certain products in addition to it possibly not being a superior product in its category. These consumers feel that the value of the product should rest on its actual assets, not marketing ploys alone (or at all in some cases).

 

I know it's far from being an original observation, but my bug bear along those lines is the phenomenon of setting, for any item, a price point which is deliberately far in excess of anything representative of quality or production costs, such that its desirability rests PRIMARILY on its price; the act of purchase becomes, above all, a demonstration of status and wealth, since only a certain section of the buying public can afford such a price. Of course, humans have fought for status through conspicuous consumption ever since we organised ourselves into communities, the people making such purchases are all volunteers, and few of us here could claim to be free of the collecting disease, but the cynisism of the manufacturers can take the breath away.

 

I was amused to read an article about how Scottish Whiskey distilleries selling single malts had been persuaded to create and release novel vintages at ludicrously inflated prices, purely in order to satisfy collectors' need to find new areas in which to exercise their desire to invest in status items. Some of the companies' representatives seemed genuinely bemused by the ridiculously high prices they were required (by the market) to set, but justified it in terms of the need to subsidise the bread-and-butter end of the whiskey trade, which seems to operate on relatively slim margins. This form of subsidy is always welcome; in the 80s and 90s I used to go up to three times a week to the Royal Opera House, in the upper slips for £1 and £2 a pop, knowing that I was being subsidised by the corporate guests in the front stalls paying up to £100. Not possible these days, with prices there racing well ahead of inflation and the ROH selling opera by the yard...

 

Less amusing is the phenomenon when applied to, for example, house prices: when selling my house in outer London a couple of years ago, I was perplexed by the 5% higher prices commanded by houses in a nearby street which was (genuinely) narrower, darker, noisier, busier (with traffic, double parking etc), and the houses and gardens of significantly smaller proportions. I asked the estate agent (whom I ended up sacking) why they were more expensive? "because they're more desirable". I pointed out the above disadvantages of living on that street and asked what made them more desirable? his answer: "beause they're more expensive"! Set a particular price range for an area, and you restrict the buyers to the people who can just about afford to buy there: ghetto bulding 101.

[Anna Cecilia]

  On 3/29/2010 at 1:42 PM, impossiblebird said:

This form of subsidy is always welcome; in the 80s and 90s I used to go up to three times a week to the Royal Opera House, in the upper slips for £1 and £2 a pop, knowing that I was being subsidised by the corporate guests in the front stalls paying up to £100. Not possible these days, with prices there racing well ahead of inflation and the ROH selling opera by the yard...

Completely off topic, but you can still get those Opera tickets at Covent Garden for under £10 - not quite £1 or £2 like in the '80s, but still only the same or less than your average cinema ticket or night out in London nowadays and definitely less than a pop/rock concert. I think that's pretty reasonable for a world class production.

[Vladimir]

  On 3/29/2010 at 10:14 PM, Anna Cecilia said:

  On 3/29/2010 at 1:42 PM, impossiblebird said:

This form of subsidy is always welcome; in the 80s and 90s I used to go up to three times a week to the Royal Opera House, in the upper slips for £1 and £2 a pop, knowing that I was being subsidised by the corporate guests in the front stalls paying up to £100. Not possible these days, with prices there racing well ahead of inflation and the ROH selling opera by the yard...

Completely off topic, but you can still get those Opera tickets at Covent Garden for under £10 - not quite £1 or £2 like in the '80s, but still only the same or less than your average cinema ticket or night out in London nowadays and definitely less than a pop/rock concert. I think that's pretty reasonable for a world class production.

 

Anna, you get the tickets and I shall meet you at covent garden!

[stacybean]

  On 3/29/2010 at 1:42 PM, impossiblebird said:

  On 3/29/2010 at 6:20 AM, Sharkle said:

 

My guess is that Mahkie is talking about making a product appear exclusive such that enough people will feel special for owning it. That, and the fact that a manufacturer can sometimes restrict what a seller or even an owner can do with such a product, however, is exactly what many consumers despise about certain products in addition to it possibly not being a superior product in its category. These consumers feel that the value of the product should rest on its actual assets, not marketing ploys alone (or at all in some cases).

 

I know it's far from being an original observation, but my bug bear along those lines is the phenomenon of setting, for any item, a price point which is deliberately far in excess of anything representative of quality or production costs, such that its desirability rests PRIMARILY on its price; the act of purchase becomes, above all, a demonstration of status and wealth, since only a certain section of the buying public can afford such a price. Of course, humans have fought for status through conspicuous consumption ever since we organised ourselves into communities, the people making such purchases are all volunteers, and few of us here could claim to be free of the collecting disease, but the cynisism of the manufacturers can take the breath away.

I have become a bit concerned about the progression of my "collecting disease". While rhe collection itself is small, I want to investigate the dynamics of acquisition. Assertions of individuality and status do not seem to be relevant. Writing with a fountain pen is for me a visceral pleasure and I do not believe that possession of a specific pen enhances my value as a human. I mostly own cheap pens that I use at work in the 30-50 dollar range. I have come to a new appreciation of a Montblanc Boheme (Large body)recently. The nib seems to have sweetened considerably with more use.

I was amused to read an article about how Scottish Whiskey distilleries selling single malts had been persuaded to create and release novel vintages at ludicrously inflated prices, purely in order to satisfy collectors' need to find new areas in which to exercise their desire to invest in status items. Some of the companies' representatives seemed genuinely bemused by the ridiculously high prices they were required (by the market) to set, but justified it in terms of the need to subsidise the bread-and-butter end of the whiskey trade, which seems to operate on relatively slim margins. This form of subsidy is always welcome; in the 80s and 90s I used to go up to three times a week to the Royal Opera House, in the upper slips for £1 and £2 a pop, knowing that I was being subsidised by the corporate guests in the front stalls paying up to £100. Not possible these days, with prices there racing well ahead of inflation and the ROH selling opera by the yard...

 

Less amusing is the phenomenon when applied to, for example, house prices: when selling my house in outer London a couple of years ago, I was perplexed by the 5% higher prices commanded by houses in a nearby street which was (genuinely) narrower, darker, noisier, busier (with traffic, double parking etc), and the houses and gardens of significantly smaller proportions. I asked the estate agent (whom I ended up sacking) why they were more expensive? "because they're more desirable". I pointed out the above disadvantages of living on that street and asked what made them more desirable? his answer: "beause they're more expensive"! Set a particular price range for an area, and you restrict the buyers to the people who can just about afford to buy there: ghetto bulding 101.

[Aunt Jill]

  Quote

 

And while I'm on a roll, why anyone would use an ink that wasn't at least waterproof just baffles me! I mean, what is the point? If a splash of water erases the writing you might as well with a pencil!

 

LOve Noodler's and Private Reserve inks. The more saturated, the better!

 

*SIGH* Now I feel better.

 

I want ink that isn't waterproof. I want to wash it out of fabric, skin, and cats. I doubt I'll splash my journals, letters, or calendars with water or any other liquid. If I do, well, splash happens.

 

In defense of pencil, I offer this:

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2760/4475660697_e42fc26b28_o.jpg

 

—Jill

[stacybean]

Apologies to Impossiblebird for accidental insertion of blather into their post. I will not attempt to rectify for fear of taking down the Northeast US power grid. Inane blather re : my Montblanc and pen acquisition problems are mine. Kindly add emoticon for chagrin and remorse. sincerely, Stacy

[impossiblebird]

  On 3/30/2010 at 2:01 PM, stacybean said:

Apologies to Impossiblebird for accidental insertion of blather into their post. I will not attempt to rectify for fear of taking down the Northeast US power grid. Inane blather re : my Montblanc and pen acquisition problems are mine. Kindly add emoticon for chagrin and remorse. sincerely, Stacy

No problem: I'm in sympathy with everything you said, except: "I have come to a new appreciation of a Montblanc Boheme (large body) recently." I have no knowledge of the MB Boheme's body... :embarrassed_smile:

[Vladimir]

  On 3/30/2010 at 1:42 PM, Aunt Jill said:

  Quote

 

And while I'm on a roll, why anyone would use an ink that wasn't at least waterproof just baffles me! I mean, what is the point? If a splash of water erases the writing you might as well with a pencil!

 

LOve Noodler's and Private Reserve inks. The more saturated, the better!

 

*SIGH* Now I feel better.

 

I want ink that isn't waterproof. I want to wash it out of fabric, skin, and cats. I doubt I'll splash my journals, letters, or calendars with water or any other liquid. If I do, well, splash happens.

 

In defense of pencil, I offer this:

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2760/4475660697_e42fc26b28_o.jpg

 

—Jill

 

I was under the impression that Noodler's only binds to cellulose and you can wash it out of pretty much everything else.

 

I have certainly managed to wash eternal black out of clothes before...

[impossiblebird]

  On 3/30/2010 at 1:42 PM, Aunt Jill said:

  Quote

 

And while I'm on a roll, why anyone would use an ink that wasn't at least waterproof just baffles me! I mean, what is the point? If a splash of water erases the writing you might as well with a pencil!

 

LOve Noodler's and Private Reserve inks. The more saturated, the better!

 

*SIGH* Now I feel better.

 

I want ink that isn't waterproof. I want to wash it out of fabric, skin, and cats. I doubt I'll splash my journals, letters, or calendars with water or any other liquid. If I do, well, splash happens.

 

In defense of pencil, I offer this:

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2760/4475660697_e42fc26b28_o.jpg

 

—Jill

 

Regarding waterproofness, I'm relieved that, nowadays, we all have a dazzling choice of colours available to us, whatever our preference. What I've found frustrating about some of my washable inks is that although they wash nicely off paper, they stubbornly cling to clothes, bathroom floor grout, and wooden furniture (perhaps I've been too gentle). And bulletproof inks come nicely off my skin with a soft bristle nail brush. I never managed to dob the cat with ink, no matter how old she got, and no matter how hard I tried.

 

Pencil, for the most part, offers the best of both worlds: erasable, though doesn't easily rinse off paper, doesn't fade badly with age, but does rub or wash out of clothes etc. I love pencil! The softer, the better.

[GronK]

As for the Bose analogy, I worked in the manufacturing arena of high end audio for several years. The best speakers I ever heard (a pair of which I still enjoy today) hit the market as an affordable alternative to the super expensive speakers being sold at the time. Two of the gurus of high end audio at the time told them to double the price and pack them in foam lined road cases or some such or they would never get the exposure they deserved. They raised the price from a mere $3295.00 to $3995.00 and shipped in wood crates rather than the previously used cardboard but went out of business a couple of years later. Dealers wouldn't put their 4k speakers in their showrooms sounding better than the 10k speakers they made the same margins on.

 

Bottom line? The buying public's perception of quality is very much affected by the price being asked and the packaging used.

[Juicyjones]

  On 3/30/2010 at 4:21 PM, GronK said:

As for the Bose analogy, I worked in the manufacturing arena of high end audio for several years. The best speakers I ever heard (a pair of which I still enjoy today) hit the market as an affordable alternative to the super expensive speakers being sold at the time. Two of the gurus of high end audio at the time told them to double the price and pack them in foam lined road cases or some such or they would never get the exposure they deserved. They raised the price from a mere $3295.00 to $3995.00 and shipped in wood crates rather than the previously used cardboard but went out of business a couple of years later. Dealers wouldn't put their 4k speakers in their showrooms sounding better than the 10k speakers they made the same margins on.

 

Bottom line? The buying public's perception of quality is very much affected by the price being asked and the packaging used.

 

mmm you just reminded me of my old dahlquist dq 10 speakers. Man I miss those!

[born t]

I find that modern manufacturers pay little attention to nibs nowadays.

 

1.I want all pens to be able to write well out of the box, with the slightest pressure, i.e. under their own weight. Almost all nibs suffer from baby-bottomitis to some degree, and most will write fine if you press. But hey, I have stoped using ballpoints because I don't want to press!

 

2. I want Montblanc pens to have more flexible nibs, or at least a choice of more flexible nibs. I think they make the best quality pens, craftmanship-wise, but I can't stand those nails that they put at the end of what they call fountain pens!

[CowboyBlue]

I hate it when somebody asks to borrow my fountain pen ... as if they did not know that the nib would have to be re-trained after they wreck it with their chimpanzee-like attempts at penmanship ...

[impossiblebird]

  On 3/29/2010 at 10:14 PM, Anna Cecilia said:

  On 3/29/2010 at 1:42 PM, impossiblebird said:

This form of subsidy is always welcome; in the 80s and 90s I used to go up to three times a week to the Royal Opera House, in the upper slips for £1 and £2 a pop, knowing that I was being subsidised by the corporate guests in the front stalls paying up to £100. Not possible these days, with prices there racing well ahead of inflation and the ROH selling opera by the yard...

Completely off topic, but you can still get those Opera tickets at Covent Garden for under £10 - not quite £1 or £2 like in the '80s, but still only the same or less than your average cinema ticket or night out in London nowadays and definitely less than a pop/rock concert. I think that's pretty reasonable for a world class production.

To continue off topic (but then we're allowed to court controversy on this thread): when I lived in London, I was one of the "Friends" of Covent Garden, and so had priority booking, which was useful with seats selling as rapidly as those slips. I'd originally started going to opera and classical gigs because with me so impoverished and in need of the odd night out, and tickets so cheap, it would frankly have been silly not to explore that repertoire; I developed a real love for it (I especially love the Wigmore Hall :clap1: ). In the last few years, I've only occasionally been to London; I've only been able to go for the tickets which go up for sale in the morning, and the prices of those have multiplied far more even than house prices! Nowadays I live on the far North coast of Scotland with my ENORMOUS record collection, and Covent Garden is a long, long way away. With a couple of rock-bottom price bargain berth overnight train tickets and a cut price ticket to Inverness, I could get there for about £100 return... I know there's plenty of people wouldn't blush to pay that much for a night out, but I've never wanted, nor been able to afford, to be one of them. And the productions that I stage in my head are pretty damned magnificent, and the cast, some of them, just aren't available any more, one way or another!

[InkyWinky]

Rats, I thought this was "fountain pen tattoos - don't enter if you're easily offended"

 

Maybe I need to start that thread...

[sombrueil]

  On 3/28/2010 at 7:37 PM, AtomicLeo said:

...

 

And while I'm on a roll, why anyone would use an ink that wasn't at least waterproof just baffles me! I mean, what is the point? If a splash of water erases the writing you might as well with a pencil!

 

LOve Noodler's and Private Reserve inks. The more saturated, the better!

 

*SIGH* Now I feel better.

 

because it would void your warrenty? because you don't want to worry about your vintage pens?

just sayin'