In Defence Of The Lamy 2000M Stainless Steel

[Schreiber]

Greetings, fountain friends,

 

I’ve been an offline observer to this wonderful community for some time now, and it has influenced me in many of my pen decisions and handwriting expansions. I'm an Irish doctor working in England, and in my spare time, I am a keen German language user, chess player, philosophy and psychology enthusiast, and now beginning to dabble in the world of writing. I’d like to begin to give back with my own opinion regarding an undoubtedly biased view on my favourite fountain pen purchase to date – the Lamy 2000M Stainless Steel (my model is a fine nib, and I like to rotate between Diamine Oxblood, Teal, and Montblanc Toffee Brown).

Excellent reviews for this well-known model – most prominently the original makrolon edition – already exist in this forum, and further afield. However, I would like to write something about the SS version of this pen, which has attracted mixed-to-negative reviews regarding it’s 1) weight, 2) similarity without difference, and 3) price. I do not pretend to be impartial regarding this particular piece, and I must suggest that this is an opinion primarily for those who are closer-than-not to a purchase regarding this model with the attributes I will discuss, later, and go some way to defend the model fit enough to be considered both distinct and worthy of purchase and recognition.

1). Weight.

The most notable set of specifications is the weight of this pen – both in-and-of-itself, and in contrast to the lighter, original version. For convenience, the total (54g), body (34g), and cap (20g) weights are significantly heavier than the makrolon version (typically 25g, 15g, and 10g, respectively). Particularly when the cap is posted, this can be a considerable contributor to writing fatigue, back-heavy imbalance, and an uncomfortable writing experience with poor stamina for even those with larger hands.

I think this is an unfair area of criticism, and rather, should be a binary factor for those who like heavy or light pens. Consider a fountain pen reviewer who takes on a ballpoint pen – by the very nature of the pen’s mechanism, this will be reviewed much more poorly than it’s capillary counterparts by the nature of what makes the pen a writing instrument. I believe that weight – as well as dimensional size – are factors in review that should be areas of distinction, rather than comparison, when considering models of pens (even when such models are within the same branding).

Therefore, I think that those who favour heavier, metal pens should take interest in the Lamy 2000M as distinct in interest even from those who use the original makrolon Lamy 2000. Whereas the first example I provide is clearly an extreme version of the issue described, here, I think that the factors of size, weight, and filling system are considerable enough to be whittled down to pens that address those precise categories rather than having (e.g.) a Kaweco Liliput scolded by a user who’s daily driver is the MB 149.

2). Similarity without difference.

Apart from the material use and the weight of the pen, criticism is offered by reviewers who perhaps borrow too much influence from these paradoxically drastic differences, by finding nothing new offered by this version once the novelties are stripped away. I believe this is an easy mistake that we all can make when we overanalyse versions with heavy influences in one area or another and seeing it as a simple marketing rehash. I’d like to offer the opinion that these two factors bring about differences in performance and suitability in preference that are drastic enough to address an entirely different audience to attract those that were perhaps failed or disappointed by the Lamy 2000 in its original format.

The material and weight provide a unique writing experience that is (I’d argue) much more palpable than the difference between modern steel and gold nibs. It is difficult to capture the sensory, tactile, and phenomenological experience in the differences between both versions without robbing the reader of an hour’s time, but there is something tremendously satisfying about the gravity and industrial nature of this instrument. I think it more excellently captures the Bauhaus movement than it’s makrolon parent, but aesthetics aside, even the differences in brushing material and the lack of a two-tone/material compartment provide a different experience to those deliberately sensitive enough to notice a difference.

Clearly, there are differences which I think are rather miniscule (the plating on the hinged clip, or the placement of the Lamy logo, for example), whereas others are perhaps discriminatory to those who prefer other attributes (the removal of the ink window seems to be a sore point for many consumers, as is the smoother metal finish of the grip). However, when it comes to the ultimate endpoint of a writing instrument – the writing – then this pen deserves a mention distinct from the original as being paradigmal in it’s feeling, experience, and output. Everything else is style and preference.

3). Price.

Finally, the Lamy 2000M is noted as being approximately 50% more expensive than the original*. This is an area of criticism, compounded further when the two areas addressed, above, are neglected in final consideration. One could talk endlessly regarding the economics of price, but I believe there are a few more objective factors to consider before discussing the differences in the intangibles:

Stainless steel is a difficult material to manufacture, and clear that it is at least a significant percentage of the pen that this instrument is fashioned with (I have yet to see a demonstrator video in which the pen is sliced in half at various angles for a more accurate opinion on this, though the innards are made from essentially plastic on disassembly). The weight specifications should be enough to reassure most to a reasonable standard of this. Lamy is also a brand of (at least in my experience) good and efficient quality – perhaps the Ikea of manufacturers when it comes to template design with the odd-revolutionary product. With this comes a certain level of brand investment, especially as an edition of an item that sits on permanent display in an art museum.

More subjectively, those wishing to purchase something metal, heavy, and made by a manufacturer such as Lamy, will find themselves justifying this purchase (rightly or wrongly), as it is a widely-recognised and reliable model of a pen that has already been proven to survive over long periods of time, but utilises their preferred categories of material choice and weight. Stainless steel is also tremendously robust, and provided that the user is aware of the interplay between it and the more sensitive innards, then this pen should act as its own safeguard against wear, damage, and accidents that will inevitably creep up in the coming years and decades.

C). A worthy purchase for those who can discern it.

The conclusion may seem as weak as point 2) that I make above – clearly, this is a pen that will satisfy those who will be satisfied by it just as much as it is the same pen without its differences. But I write this piece (which is also my first – constructive feedback would be very much appreciated from the community) in biased defence and justification to what is a wonderful writing instrument that I believe has been treated unfairly even in favourable reviews (who towards the end may conclude that the makrolon version is better simply because it is essentially the same, and more affordable).

I argue here that these are two distinct pens that should not be compared any more than a small and a large pen be reviewed by an individual who is more/less suited to one or the other. That is not to argue the Lamy 2000 out of hands who love it – I merely stress that there are differences that are more significant in the review of such pens than are given credit (some which are not even available in filters for online pen retailers, e.g., weight) that will eliminate certain pens from consideration even if they are identical in other superficial aspects. Furthermore, I wish to offer the opinion that such differences then go on to contribute meaningful changes both in hand and on paper, and that these should be noted as both distinct, and as incomparable to pens with category differences such as weight that are paradigmal.

Lastly, this is a pen that will suit some, and not others. For those that it will suit, however, will depend more on attributes and qualities of pens that make it knowingly or unknowingly both more appealing and satisfying in acquisition and use than variants (Lamy 2000) and competitors (when considering weight, e.g., Faber-Castell Basic Metal). Clearly, other factors also play a role (i.e., price, availability, European nib sizes, etc.), and some which I have not noted, here.

But for those who can discern their ideal pen yet find themselves a little underwhelmed by the community’s reaction despite its pedigree and performance, I hope this piece can help to explain some of the feeling on both sides.

 

Thank you for your time.

Schreiber


*Thank you to 1nkulus, who corrected my original gross approximation as being double.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Schreiber

[sentience]

Bravo!

[1nkulus]

Great effort.

 

3). Price.

Finally, the Lamy 2000M is noted as being approximately twice as expensive as the original.

 

The pricing is inaccurate, the 2000M is 52% more than the original rather than double.

(£199 vs £131.50)

The amended pricing could make it more appealing, provided the weight is acceptable.

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by 1nkulus

[Calabria]

I.e. for those who like this kind of pen, this is the kind of pen they like.

 

I love my Edition 2000 which has part of the makrolon version in the section, and is a bit lighter.

[Schreiber]

- sentience, thank you for taking the time to read!

- 1nkulus, quite right, my approximation is off. I'll make an amendment in my original piece if I can find my way around the editing. Thank you for your welcome!

- Calabria, yes, it's quite the tautology, isn't it? I think this post could be read one of two ways - 1) utterly self-explanatory, and 2) a reminder that even pens within the same namesake should be compared with others that share attributes that are often decisive, but seem to slip under the radar as assumed or novel. I think of it as especially unfair that the Lamy 2000M SS is compared with the original, rather than like-material or -weighted pens. That's absulutely not to detract from those who love the makrolon, though!

[Inkysloth]

I second support for the steel 2000!

 

I bought one half price with a BB nib because I couldnt not at that price, and although I like a light pen usually, it feels so sturdy and balanced its lovely to use.

 

The combination of the curve & the metal can make the grip a bit slippy but overal Im glad I bought it.

 

Correction! Not a BB, just a B. Its a pretty broad B so I mislabelled it!

Edited April 10, 2019 by Inkysloth

[Schreiber]

- Inkysloth, I'm delighted for your purchase! I couldn't possibly imagine how buttery a BB would be compared to my F.

I agree somewhat with the lack of texture and various combinants making the pen a little difficult to hold, but the shame for me is that it makes working with the pen while posted impossible without overcompensating for the backload by straining muscles that quickly cramp up. Fortunately, an unposted pen is delightfully balanced, and I think it looks finer in the hand, too.

[readytotalk]

Great story!

IMHO if the pen completely suits the owner, its physical parameters don`t matter much.

After quite a long time using the Montblanc 146 Solitaire, for me the question of the weight of the handle is no longer critical).

I really liked the LAMY2K Stainlless Steel design, I tried it on the Moscow penshow in 2018.

As I noticed, the F pen in combination with such a heavy pen leads to a noticeable change in my handwriting, it becomes larger and somewhat sweeping.

Overall, the pen is just gorgeous!

[Schreiber]

- readytotalk, agreed, everything else is just opinion.

 

I do think more should be said about this pen in "heavy" or "metal" comparisons, rather than an "original Lamy 2000" one. Even with their differences set aside, it's hard to introduce a different model against a backdrop of 53 years of ongoing history to all the fans accumulated alongside.

 

Moscow must have been a beautiful experience!

[sansenri]

thank you for convincing argumentation

 

I'm a happy owner of a Lamy 2000 02 (Metal edition) and was convinced before reading your well written defence

 

I took a slightly different approach when choosing mine,

i) as a pleased owner of the macrolon version I was comforted by the pleasant writing experience I would get from the nibs, so no surprise, although I wanted a different size (the B on my macrolon is almost a BB! which is wonderful, but does leave to desire a finer nib sometimes)

ii) as the owner of quite a number of pens, I did not really go into great comparison details with other options, I liked the clean design, and comforted by point i) and by a sale discount opportunity, I proceeded to buy it as "another" pen.

 

All in all I consider it quite a different pen, (more for example than owning a Pelikan M600 blue striped and an M600 green striped), due to material, weight and looks, and I am happy to own and use it as such.

(It is true it is not a lightweight pen, but since I don't post I find it's still a reasonable weight)

Here is mine

 

btw, the dark area on the pen in the photo is a lighting effect

Edited April 10, 2019 by sansenri

[1nkulus]

- 1nkulus, quite right, my approximation is off. I'll make an amendment in my original piece if I can find my way around the editing. Thank you for your welcome!

 

HTH...

[1nkulus]

I second support for the steel 2000!

+1

 

Fortunately, an unposted pen is delightfully balanced, and I think it looks finer in the hand, too.

+1

 

I just like heavier pens and there aren't many that weigh 35g and over unposted.

[Glenn-SC]

I.e. for those who like this kind of pen, this is the kind of pen they like.

 

 

+1 but the OP took a lot of words to say that.

There are enough qualifications and obfuscations to say "In my opinion, if you like it you'll like it if you don't you won't."

 

Why someone likes or doesn't like something/anything is totally personal and does not require justification.

 

Just for reference, I have both models of the 2000, and while neither is my "go to" pen, I do have a slight preference for the original.

[Intensity]

 

 

+1 but the OP took a lot of words to say that.

There are enough qualifications and obfuscations to say "In my opinion, if you like it you'll like it if you don't you won't."

 

Why someone likes or doesn't like something/anything is totally personal and does not require justification.

 

Just for reference, I have both models of the 2000, and while neither is my "go to" pen, I do have a slight preference for the original.

 

I typed a longer reply a couple of days ago wishing to say the same but did not end up posting it. There is such a thing as choice-supportive bias ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias ), and it happens to all of us: we want to be happy with what we got, which sometimes involves making vocal statements or forum posts about the correctness of our decision.

 

Ultimately there are different versions of pens for the simple reason that everyone's preferences are slightly different, and having more choices helps sell more products. Lamy 2000 Makrolon has been in production far longer than the relatively-recently released stainless steel version, and it's only natural that people will compare the new release to the old model. Some will be intrigued, some will be disappointed. Everyone votes with their own wallet, and there are still other choices to make within the same brand and outside the brand entirely.

[Calabria]

In the end, it's a pretty gutsy pen. Comparing it to the makrolon version probably won't do it justice, as Schreiber points out. You just have to deal with the object-ness of it, and if that's too much, go for another model.

 

Thanks for the photo - that's more convincing than words.

[Glenn-SC]

You just have to deal with the object-ness of it,

 

 

I am at a loss, please explain what "the object-ness" means?

[Calabria]

 

 

I am at a loss, please explain what "the object-ness" means?

Sorry that's jargon for when the physical characteristics of the object become more interesting than its function. I feel that way about the 2000 M - that its heft, texture, and shape seem more important than the fact that it can write.

[Glenn-SC]

Sorry that's jargon for when the physical characteristics of the object become more interesting than its function. I feel that way about the 2000 M - that its heft, texture, and shape seem more important than the fact that it can write.

 

IMHO every pen is expected to "write". That a pen writes is "given" to be true. If it doesn't write the pen is not a consideration.

 

Therefore, it is the very attributes you propose to ignore - the weight, texture, shape, balance, color, material, etc. - that are important factors in differentiating between competing pens (and they are competing for your money). Even more so when they are variations of a single design.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Glenn-SC

[sansenri]

Sorry that's jargon for when the physical characteristics of the object become more interesting than its function. I feel that way about the 2000 M - that its heft, texture, and shape seem more important than the fact that it can write.

 

I do get what you mean, in fact in a way we are saying the same thing (although I don't exactly go to the extent of saying that its characteristics seem more important that the fact it can write).

Both 2000s write well, I can confirm since I own both, they are the same pen in design, but the way the 2000M looks, the material (so as you say also the texture, the way it feels) and the weight in the hand, really do make it feel very different.

 

So they are really two very different pens, and you may choose one or the other depending on preferences, or like me, since I am capable of using very different pens according to mood, you may choose both, with no risk of having doubts you bought almost the same pen twice (which by the way does happen, with no regrets also... )

[Calabria]

 

I do get what you mean, in fact in a way we are saying the same thing (although I don't exactly go to the extent of saying that its characteristics seem more important that the fact it can write).

Both 2000s write well, I can confirm since I own both, they are the same pen in design, but the way the 2000M looks, the material (so as you say also the texture, the way it feels) and the weight in the hand, really do make it feel very different.

 

So they are really two very different pens, and you may choose one or the other depending on preferences, or like me, since I am capable of using very different pens according to mood, you may choose both, with no risk of having doubts you bought almost the same pen twice (which by the way does happen, with no regrets also... )

Totally. That's what I'm trying to say. Glenn-SC, I was trying to make the point that all the attributes you mention are exactly what makes you like it dislike the pen.