Debate: a more systematically defined FLEX nib classification (based on large vintage 14k flex nib samples and data)

[A Smug Dill]

4 hours ago, Aether said:

I think y'all need to take a step back and ask yourself what, apart from idle curiosity, is the point of all this discussion.  No matter what measure you dream up it is never going to be adopted widely enough to be of any use to anyone.

 

I understand your concern, but I disagree with your statements. It is not the active participants in the exploration of the topic that need to step back; and, if the output of the exercise is useful to them, even if only marginally and imperfectly — for their own personal records of what they have on hand, so they know which pen to pick up and ink up for a particular task, or for discussion or comparison of certain pens among themselves as a small group — then that already positively satisfies the criterion of, “of any use to anyone.”

 

It is not as if anyone else could decide on their behalf (or, in other words, pass judgment) that their efforts would be better spent, or more rewarding or beneficial to them, if they centred on the perspective and requirements of some unidentified or non-specific third party instead of their own interests.

 

2 hours ago, Ron Z said:

To say that any one trying to get the pen community, or the dealers/pen mechanics who work the pen show circuit to not only agree, but adhere to a "standard" of flex is facing an uphill  battle is an understatement.  ...and Ebay?  HA!

 

The industry at large cannot even agree on what the nib width grade of Fine specifies, in terms of line width produced or some other metric of output or technical performance. One company's chart of “standards” has no standing and means nothing to any competitor, and not even manufacturers from a given country with a large enough minority share of the market can agree between themselves and stick to a common set of definitions.

[Aether]

Kinda made my argument for me.  Outside of the interest of the participants in this thread, the discussion has zero impact on the pen world at large.  Nothing wrong with that, just wanted it to be clear.

[txomsy]

Sorry for the long post, I tackle different issues at once.

 

About adoption

 

That, excuse my bluntness, is the very example of a self-fulfilling negative prophecy. Like predicting that I will starve because I will not work. Certainly, as long as I don't, I will, and it only depends on me sticking to it. Negationism is certainly cozy and comfy: we do not need to expend any effort nor get out of our comfort circle, just stay quiet and let things go on; but it does not necessarily imply that positivists who try may not succeed.

 

Actual prophecy would be to predict the opposite. And as real prophecy would have had as much likelihood of becoming true as any other outcome (without considering any priors).

 

That said, I also doubt that any simple scale will be very useful (but it might be adopted for marketing reasons), and I'd expect a useful scale to be non-trivial which would make it difficult to adopt. But even so, once you have a reference, it is only a matter of time that data accrues until it reaches a critical point and becomes useful for users (even if they are only a niche).

 

About priors.

 

A second thing to dispute is why no scale has existed in the last 100 years. I do not think there is no interest. If that were so, there would be no longer any dip pen nibs around any more. As long as people (and actually a lot -even if a niche in the "big scope"- ) uses dip nibs, there will be an interest in fountain pens (for that's what they were invented for in the first place: to allow nib usage without continual re-dipping, and the BP is of no use).

 

My search for flex started out of "boredom" with inking. I still have hundreds of flex (and italic) dip nibs and a good handful of dip-pens. But can't stop looking for ways to avoid reaching for the inkwell every few words.

 

In "modern" world, I'd guess that at least about 3/4 (approx.) of humans still like to and do things they like by themselves: cooking, fixing your car or bike, doing handwork, crafts,sewing,  drawing, sketching, taking pictures, blogging, ...

 

One may argue what's the point in taking pictures and sharing them when the Internet offers you much better images of anything than any one you will ever take, and you can PS yourself in: We like to do it ourselves and pride on it.

 

So, does it mean people is wasting all that time in useless hobbies but nobody wants to have a nice writing? I seriously doubt it. Much like using watercolors or brushes. Still they sell and artists know which hair is better. Niche? maybe, lack of interest? No.

 

I rather think it is not lack of interest or demand, but practical production and profit concerns that drive mass production. If something is demanded but there is a more profitable and less satisfying solution, the last wins by a landslide, not just because of raw margin, also because its 'less-satisfying' status creates the tiny bit of insatisfaction needed to drive further purchases and increase income (that's basic psychology/neuroscience).

 

Think of it: if you are a dealer in FPs, the current status is great, users chasing flex and buying one pen after another, never sure of what they will get or if it will be what they seek. A user who can just get what he wants is a one-sale-only user.

 

It was easier on users in B&M times: just go and try. Only you could only try so many pens at a shop, and had to do a migration through many shops until you found something close (know it, been there, done that). Now you have a huge array of options accessible from home, but cannot try them. Which is more profitable to sellers? Which is less to users?

 

A public reference may help shift the balance back to users. Sellers won't likely adopt it. But users do certainly have a vested interest on it.

 

About the scale:

 

I agree that tine spread is a good measure, and that the force required to spread must be considered, and ever since some guys in Spain came up with the idea of the weight balance to measure it (some years ago), I've liked the idea (btw, it may be worth digging their data, I seem to remember they had a table for a number of nibs, plus they had worked on how to standardize the measures).

 

But the engineering view may not be the best or only approach. Neuromuscular considerations may also play a role. We are not talking of a "device" to be built. But of a tool to be used by humans with fine motor skills. The human brain is to a large extent a differential engine. From that point, it is not enough to "measure", one has to couple it with an expert diagnosis and opinion: it may well be that what the hand perceives as linear is actually exponential, or the opposite. I think that may be the reason for the disagreement between the 1/2 and the linear scale systems. Material has fatigue, but brain and muscle also tire. A reduction from 1 to 0.9 (1/10 less) units of force may be felt over time (after writing a couple sentences) as a reduction to 0.1 (1/10 less).

 

The problem is that what matters to a user is not the actual ergs/jules/Kg applied, but the subjective feeling they feed their brains and muscles. From that point of view, @Bo Bo Olson's system is more intuitive, yet less objective.

 

My stance

 

I've always defended a different approach. My take is that the average user needs a reference. For me, something that is cheap and anybody can get would be a useful reference, like, say a Zebra G nib. Then, define all the scales you want, take as many measures as you want, and finally, reflect them with reference to the chosen gold standard.

 

For me, the best advice I found was to first try pointed pen Calligraphy with a Zebra G, which is ideal for beginners, then decide whether I want better flex (and end up with a Leonardt or Hunt101 or Brause Rose, or all the nibs I already had, or whatever) or convenience (sacrificing flex and then move to, e.g., a Jinhao+Zebra, and end up chasing a durable FP flex). BTW, when I tried the Zebra/Tikko G, I had already mastered lighter nibs, but I admit it is a great beginner's nib.

 

But once you have a reference, deciding is easier. Lack of references makes it harder work, makes you never ever being sure and always dependent on your next buy. That's the rabbit hole.

[txomsy]

As for the scale itself.

 

I think that the precision balance is a good start. One needs to define the method more precisely, as did they Spaniards of the former scale years ago (i.e. defining the angle at which it has to be measured, and how).

 

A balance measures force to spread tines but it is useless without an estimate of how much do they spread. In Photography there are lens calibration sheets (for back-focus) that one may print and use to calibrate a lens. One can design a test sheet as well with different line widths and some tips to ease testing (need to think of that).

 

Nib spread happens on writing. To measure it, I think it is better to do it against a reference paper, which needs to be defined, where these guide lines have been printed. Then one can simply see how much force is required for each line width by sliding the nib over the paper and pressing until tines match the printed line and noting the force applied at that point. Try with various widths and you'll get a measure of pressure needed at each width.

 

I think that the nib should be moving.

 

With a bit of materials knowledge and an approximate idea of modern nib thickness and alloys, one can estimate at which force we may be exceeding the tolerance and avoid springing a standard nib by stopping the spread before reaching that cautionary force. And thus, we could get minimal and maximal spread too.

 

The problem then is that that is not enough. We need also a way to measure snap-back. One way is the traditional way, but I cannot see a way to universally objectivize it. I mean, drawing a vertical line, pressing and releasing and measuring the ratio of open to close (you get diamond-shaped figures) but that depends on the speed at which you do it, and it is difficult to keep constant for even the same human on two tries.

 

In so doing we may be overstretching a nib and only discover after use that material has fatigued. That is more difficult to measure, or I cannot come up with an idea now. But we do not want to get a nib, use it satisfactorily for one month and end up with it sprung and having to buy a new one. For that we may as well stick to a Zebra G Ti. Similarly for tipping, untipped XXF nibs may widen slowly and that takes time. Maybe repeating the measures after one year of use would help, but is a level of compromise difficult to maintain.

 

Nib tipping and point shape is relevant too: it will define its slidind/paper catching properties and influence writing fluency.

 

Finally one would have to couple that with subjective feelings: how "soft" is it on writing (both flexible and catching of the XXF tip on paper), how "tiring" is it after some use, how well does it feel/slide on the up and down strokes, ...

[Aether]

Understood, mostly.  An interesting and wholly overlooked factor in all this is that humans are adaptive.  For example, give me any kind of flexible nib and within a few practice strokes I will know it's capabilities and will be able to use it appropriately.  Largely that comes from the fact that I was taught how to write using correct technique, but it shouldn't be difficult for anyone. 

 

In my opinion, for all of us there is likely a range of flexibilities that we can command with comfort, and that range probably will not differ much between people.   I see people hunting for wet noodles, erupt in joy when they find one, and then are strangely silent about their exploits with that nib ever after.  I infer that the hunt for such a nib far exceeds in some personal way their ability to use it or their desire to learn to use it.  Having it seems to be enough by itself. Otherwise where are all the post s showing progress in learning or some beautiful calligraphy?   It's absence suggests that owners quickly realise that their desire to own is far greater than their willingness to work on their handwriting.  In part this is tied to the idea that 'if only I can find the right pen my handwriting will improve'.  A myth in other words.

[InesF]

18 hours ago, dipper said:

"Whimpeget" is too silly a name to be tolerated. Somebody rename it, please!

I love how much effort you put into the "flex thing".

My suggestion is to call it: elasticity (or nib elasticity)  

 

Did you consider the uncomfortable feel of a flex nib requiring 600 gram pressure to spread very wide? You will never like to write line variations fluently with such a thing, even if elasticity is >7.

(or only on steel plates ... )

 

11 hours ago, Aether said:

There's a reason why in the last 100 years or so there has been no guide to flexibility, no real desire for one either. 

+1 👍

 

10 hours ago, Ron Z said:

A picture in the corner is usually sufficient.

+1 👍

... or a few words of test writing by yourself.

[txomsy]

3 hours ago, Aether said:

Having it seems to be enough by itself. Otherwise where are all the post s showing progress in learning or some beautiful calligraphy?

Maybe shyness?

 

Not everybody things showing off their exploits will interest anyone else. As in most forums, most users prefer to lurk in the dark.

[Bo Bo Olson]

11 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

The industry at large cannot even agree on what the nib width grade of Fine specifies,

Each companies very own standards were there for a real reason...IMO.

Parker was a wider nib, so trained it's One Man One Pen customers, to want a wider nib. Had they made a narrower nib, some poor fool might make a major mistake and buy a narrow nibbed Sheaffer.

Same vice versa.

 

Back in the day of the Old Corner Pen Shoppe, or pen counter in Department stores with trained pen sales personel, I imagine one was asked what pen one used, so the customer could be first shown pens with nibs of the width he was use to.

It must have been a shock to a Shaffer owner to see a Parker F was an M!

Vice versa a Sheaffer M was a Parker F.

 

Back when one bought a new pen once a decade, having the nib size one's own customer's were use too, prevented a catastrophe.....while with in the decade between new pen buy's the customer would become use to a too narrow or too wide nib and that customer was lost forever!!!!

 

The number standardization...is no more standardized than Letter nibs. 0.8 could be 0.9 or 0.7 just as easy as if one lucked into a 0.76 or  0.82. 0.80 would be as rare as a M = 0.025 - 0.031,,,middle of tolerance.....0.028..........

Nib width is either horseshoe or hand grenade close; only.

 

 Ron Zorn and Richard Binder went to the Sheaffer factory as it closed down. I use Ron's chart often to illustrate even with in one company's tolerance/slop there is a good amount of variance.

Then the companies overlap from antique market surveys where they established their own standards back in the dark ages before nation wide radio.

"""Sheaffer used a dial indicator nib gauge for measuring nib sizes. The nib was inserted into the gauge, and the size read off of the dial. A given size being nibs that fell within a given range. What is listed below were the ranges given on a gauge that I saw in the Sheaffer service center prior to being closed in March 2008.

Measurements are in thousandths of an inch.

XXF = 0.010 - 0.013
XF = 0.013 - 0.018
F = 0.018 - 0.025
M = 0.025 - 0.031
Broad* = 0.031 - 0.050
Stub = 0.038 - 0.050

*there was some overlap on the gauge. May be 0.035 - 0.050"""

 

 

Even in Japan each company has it's very own standards...a fine Japanese poster said Sailor was the 'fat' Japanese nib.........(I have enough trouble chaseing German pens, so have no Japanese pens.

 

After the mid-late '90's Pelikan and MB got fatter than the vintage and semi-vintage days.

So the era counts when worrying about how wide a nib is.

IMO from years of reading, it's those with F and EF nibs that worry about exact width.

M and B users....I never see my B is too Fat**....or Too Narrow.

**Out side of me and my B=BB MB nib.

 

It really don't bother me that my W.Germany 600 OBB writes a half a width narrower than my 1005 OBB.It was expected different era.

[duckbillclinton]

@Bo Bo Olson  my friend, don't worry about the pressure reduction thing.  You were lured to come to the wrong 1/2 reduction conclusion, even others, would very likely make the same mistake. 

 

I will try to explain the whole thing properly and more scientifically later, and you will see why.

 

The important thing here is, you shared your personal experience with a passion, and what you shared is based on your large collection of vintage flexible pens.  So it really doesn't matter if one of the points you made is flawed.  You should be proud of yourself, and I have great respect for you. 

 

Sometimes when we Google search, regarding flex nib, on some other sites/ forums, we can see a lot of BS flowing around, the keyboard warriors behind these fabricated "facts" and stories, are nothing but virtual flex nib users, and likely they have never experienced real vintage flex nibs, or just owning a few and try to imagine the whole scene.

 

By the way though, has anyone in the past explain what "snapback" really is?  Like in physics, math or some sort engineering explanation?  I want to know what exactly fast snapback speed implies, and how does it affect writing quality.

[txomsy]

Maybe you should have a look at the https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/  web site by fellow @Pen Engineer. Many of your questions will surely be addressed there. Amadeus' blog is as much of a must as Richard Binder's for any pen enthusiast.

[duckbillclinton]

45 minutes ago, txomsy said:

Maybe you should have a look at the https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/  web site by fellow @Pen Engineer. Many of your questions will surely be addressed there. Amadeus' blog is as much of a must as Richard Binder's for any pen enthusiast.

 

 

I have been to Amedeus' site many times...  But I didn't see him cover anything regarding the mystified "fast snapback speed", or maybe I am too careless.  Anyways, if anyone sees a technical/ scientific way of explaining snapback speed, it would be much appreciated.

[dipper]

8 hours ago, duckbillclinton said:

By the way though, has anyone in the past explain what "snapback" really is? 

There may be multiple meanings, depending on the intention of the writer using the word.

That would be OK - if explained by the user of the word.

 

We did make an attempt at clarifying this a few months ago.

 

I think we established that there are different meanings possible.

[duckbillclinton]

I need to find some free time to write 2 long posts,

 

The first one will explain the actual force reduction (with approximation) on operating higher grades of flex nibs, and why @Bo Bo Olson got tricked into the 1/2 reduction theory.  To our surprises, in fact, he was RIGHT in a certain extend. 😉😉😉

 

The second post will try to demystified the so called "fast snapback speed" concept with physics models and some math.  This concept has been widely accepted by calligraphers, painters, and experienced fountain pen users around the world, however, it's dismissed by many engineers and scholars, and it's treated like an urban myth, so no real technical or scientific explanations were found on the net.  I might be wrong on this, and my upcoming explanations might as well be wrong, but it's worth a shot and could be some good laughs for the fountain pen community.  😅😅😅 

 

Anyways, for the meantime, let me post a few more photos, readings from my mini digital scale for a stainless steel dip nib, tine spread is at roughly 2.2mm.  (I am not a dip pen user and know little about them.)

 

 

[duckbillclinton]

Vintage 14k size 7 (?) dip nib pen, center slit is cracked but don't affect much, tine spread is 2.4mm max.

 

 

[duckbillclinton]

A super soft vintage 14k size 6 dip pen (Leroy No. 6).  Max tine spread is only at 1.4mm. (The first photo is nib size comparison to a size 7 (?) from above.)

 

 

[JulieParadise]

1 hour ago, duckbillclinton said:

Ouch. This does not look healthy.

[duckbillclinton]

30 minutes ago, JulieParadise said:

Ouch. This does not look healthy.

Got no choice, I have only 2 hands, one is taking the photo, the other is trying to max the tine spread with the minimum force, at the same time trying to read the unstable readings from the scale.  😅😅😅

[dipper]

6 hours ago, duckbillclinton said:

The second post will try to demystified the so called "fast snapback speed" concept with physics models and some math.  This concept has been widely accepted by calligraphers, painters, and experienced fountain pen users around the world, however, it's dismissed by many engineers and scholars, and it's treated like an urban myth, so no real technical or scientific explanations were found on the net.

I cling to the belief that pen users who claim to have pens with good "snapback" must be trying to communicate something real about their favoured pens. Something that is inherently difficult to communicate if the reader (like me) has not experienced pens with good snapback and pens without good snapback.

 

I wonder... what is a pen with bad snapback like to use? Or a pen with slow snapback? Or a pen with no snapback?

[Aether]

There's no mystery here.  Snapback is the term chosen to describe how spread tines return to their resting position when pressure on the nib is relieved.  On some nibs this is slower than on others.   For calligraphers it is important that snapback is rapid so that exit strokes from a swell are the same hairlines as they were on the entry strokes.   What it means is simple to understand.    How it is described using something like Young's modulus I leave to the physics geeks, but apart from idle curiosity it won't enhance anyone's experience. 

[dipper]

26 minutes ago, Aether said:

How it is described using something like Young's modulus I leave to the physics geeks

That's the problem.

I am a physics geek.😎😎😎.

 

Bend any nib tine (gently, within its elastic limit) with your thumbnail, and then let the tine slip off your thumbnail like plucking a guitar string. The speed at which the tine springs back to its natural at-rest position is faster than the eye can see.

 

But...

33 minutes ago, Aether said:

On some nibs this is slower than on others.

... So there is a conflict of observations here.

 

I hope this is due to a problem of communication. If the laws of physics are really different for some pen users then us physics geeks are in deep trouble!