The Myth of the Wet Noodle

[txomsy]

That is why I think a loose definition is good enough, but one would benefit if some standardization was applied.

 

it is true there are lots of variation. Within and outside the nib.

 

But we are talking "writing".

 

So, let us explore "writing". Professionals (calligraphers) have the same problem and need to deal with it. and they do, albeit at a different level (that of what we'd likely call wet-noodle and more). Yet, you take a look and most seem to agree a Zebra/Nikko G is for newbies, and from there, most do also agree on a few reference nibs that form the typical progression.

 

I do not think any of those many calligraphers/teachers is proposing everybody should only use those three or four nibs. I do rather interpret that what they are saying is "look, if you want to start, look for nibs that react like a Zebra/Nikko G, any", and when you get used to one such nib, proceed to nibs that behave like X, Y, Z, and so on.

 

Indeed, when one gets into forums, blogs, etc. most people will argue "I like this nib because it is like that other" or "this other nib is a good substitute or lookalike of that one".

 

The point is that there is a reference. Couple that with some experience of what works for you at your level of expertise, and at your writing habits, and you know what to look for.

 

The difference is that getting a Zebra, Gillot or whatever other nib is easy and cheap, so everybody can try one and see how it works and learn the behavior of the reference. Then they can try other nibs and see which reference they match best, or ask for help and learn that other nibs match some reference. This way they know what they are most likely buying.

 

Getting an FP nib is not that much different, but the offer is currently most limited and the vast majority of users/prospective users do not want to risk ruining a pen swapping nibs. Then, if there were a reference, one would have to buy whole pens to test, and that is more expensive and inconvenient that buying a single dip pen nib or a set with four reference nibs.

 

My point then. It is absolutely false that a reference scale cannot be defined, or that it would be useless since each one writes different. A scale needs not be precise.

 

A scale might be as diffuse as a calligrapher's: e.g. start with a -say- Noodler's flex (or a Falcon -but is more expensive- or any other nib reputed as similar in media), then from there, you proceed to -say- an FPR Ultraflex (or any other reported as similar), then to... -here is where modern options fall short. That would be enough for most people to have an approximate idea of what they are getting/offering. Then one would report nibs as "similar to a X-grade nib",  as calligraphers do.

 

Since current options are so limited, I think that a simple objective scale may be a good enough alternative.

 

We already see several. @Bo Bo Olson's, some nib grinders seem to define flexibility by the amount of line variation, some provide a serially alternating thin/wide line to try to show variation and snapback, etc...

 

So, I think there is case enough that most people is looking for some way to make clear what they are offering or buying, and that there already are many temptative "scales". What we need is someone come up with a simple scale that is "good enough" not to be trivially falsifiable and relatively objective.

 

As said by many, many scales (like @Bo Bo Olson's) are subjective or lack a 'zero' or a clear point of reference or difficult to interpret. That is why some measure just line variation, which is more objective (though may be forced beyond reasonable and does not measure snapback), or why some provide the wide/thin lines (but not knowing the speed or pressure it is also trivially misleading).

 

Personally, I think, say, an electronic balance, with an USB cable to record pressure might do a trivial setup: draw a thin/thick series and record the variation and associated pressure/time. That would give how hard/light one has to write and the time required for recovery/opening. Yeah, some nibs are more open than others and some people will venture farther than others, but as people try the accrued knowledge would soon reach a stationary level.

 

Too complex.

 

But then it can be reported with reference to a simple reference scale with say, three or four levels (nail, introduction, advanced, calligraphy) and one would get it done.

From calligraphy (an FP nib like a Zebra G) on one might just proceed with the same references as professional calligraphers use, specially because those users would already be entering that realm.

 

Picture it:

 

This new ACME nib can give an "advance-level" line variation, has a "nail" snap back and requires a very strong hand (ACME is a nail that was destroyed in the test).

 

This new ACME nib can give a "calligraphy-level" line variation, with "calligraphy-level" snap back and a very light hand (ACME is like a Zebra G).

 

This new ACME nib can give a "calligraphy-level" line variation, with a "starter" snap back and a mid pressure (ACME is like an FPR Ultraflex).

 

This new ACME nib can give a "starter" variation, with "starter" snap back with a mid-hand (ACME is springy)

 

This new ACME nib can give an "advanced" variation with "starter" snap back and a heavy hand (ACME is a Noodler's or FPR flex)

 

This new ACME nib can give a "calligraphy" variation with "calligraphy" snap back and a light hand (ACME is a Montblanc 146c/149c)

 

And so on...

 

i.e. just define three/four reference levels (for line variation, snap back time and pressure) and off you go. That is actually what most people writing reviews of flex nibs is already doing, only each does it subjectively based on their personal experience because there is no objective reference.

 

Granted, it would be a rough approximation. But there is always some way to measure something that is better than no measure at all.

[A Smug Dill]

6 hours ago, txomsy said:

My point then. It is absolutely false that a reference scale cannot be defined, or that it would be useless since each one writes different. A scale needs not be precise.

 

Perhaps it need not be, but the way I see it, a reference scale absolutely should be.

 

It doesn't matter if it's something that takes someone ‘new’ to the world (of fountain pens, or that we inhabit) make find it overwhelming or onerous to learn and comprehend. How many years of formal education or informal tuition (including at home, by Mum and Dad) before one was taught to understand and communicate in temperature scales, the monetary system in one's locale, etc. and what prerequisite knowledge did one have had to acquire for that, outside of real-world experiences (of a cold day, or a hot object, and so on)? I'm pretty sure not everyone was that interested or thrilled when being taught that; and some would have preferred to be outside playing ball, and found the ‘study’ off-putting.

 

Oh, but the learners were children then, you may protest, and adults would find it ridiculous and demeaning to have to be taught something that is conceptually simple, especially when most of all they just want something to fit what they personally want from a nib, never mind the dozens or hundreds of other possibilities on the same logical landscape. I'd counter that with, oh, but these adults are driven — both by actively wanting a practical outcome for themselves that is nobody else's responsibility to help them achieve, and wanting to contain/minimise the financial outlay for the prerequisite learning. Well, the reasonable compromise is that they avoid spending money on things they'll end up regret buying, by ‘paying’ for learning upfront with effort, even if it rubs them the wrong way. It's their compromise to make; or they could just choose to walk away, not having spent either the money or the effort to learn, but also not having the writing instrument they want (except perhaps by sheer luck of chancing upon something that's ‘more than’ good enough for their purposes, without also seeing the full extent of the horizon).

 

So, a — or ‘the’ — reference scale ought to be quite objective, precise, and comprehensive, such that it covers all the possibilities even if the individual who “just wants what he wants” is only interested in 1% of what it covers. Spending time to understand (almost) the entirety, then being able to zone in on the small section that interests oneself (at the moment), may be a hundred-fold the effort that one imagines it ought to take; but it pays off by one being able to avoid ‘wasting’ hundreds or even thousands of dollars in what is ultimately experimentation and experiential learning, when one understands also what wouldn't suit oneself by having an intellectual grasp of all that is covered by the reference scale. If it's off-putting to individual (who imagines it's ‘self-respect’ that stops them from wanting to go through all that and learn), so be it.

 

[txomsy]

While I feel inclined to agree, I have a problem: some things are objective, some are not. I have been a perfectionist for a long time and to a large extent I still try to when it comes to my own work, so I sympathize with you and see your point, but have grown realistic about variability.

 

For non-objective goals, one must do with a 'partially subjective' or approximate scale.

 

Let us take another example. I think you mentioned some time elsewhere an interest in martial arts. The belt system allows one to grade students. However, there is no totally objective way to grant it. It is not absolutely subjective either:

 

An aspirant will need to be able to demonstrate she or he can carry out some feats or routines, and that is objective (you do or don't), but deciding whether the performance is up to some "standard" bar to be passed is a subjective decision that only the master can grant.

 

Each master/sensei will have different requirements, some will be more exacting, some less. A performance will not need to be perfect, the "spirit" may mean more. But at a minimum one knows an X color belt must have "demonstrated" some approximate level of skills. Maybe barely so, maybe perfectly so. Maybe s/he couldn't complete one basic routine but could perform more advanced ones. Maybe one is a great strategist and the other is a perfect imitator. In the end, it will be up to the master.

 

So, no need for (and no way to get) absolute precision when personal skills are at play. Yet there is still a belt system. And while it is not fully precise, it gives enough of an idea of what to expect.

 

Music is similar: some are perfect performers, some are lousy but are perfectly expressive, some can only play perfectly tuned instruments, some can play anything. But all will benefit of knowing if an instrument is tuned or not, and how well can it be tuned, and the range of notes it can reach, how hard/soft the strings are... Today that can be done with huge precision, but not so long ago that was mostly a relatively subjective appreciation of the performer. And deciding if an instrument is more or less "expressive" still has a subjective component.

 

Writing is also highly subjective. But one may require some "routines", "ranges" and "levels" of a nib and use these to grade it, and this will be useful to (with due inaccuracies) rank nibs and let everyone get a rough idea of what to expect from a nib. Then Arts will come by each one at their own rhythm.

 

Thus, one may buy an "Stradivarius" nib. That will not imply it will flex at all, but it will mean in the proper hands it will play gorgeous calligraphy and in the wrong ones it may just break all the strings (er, I mean, the tines).

 

I do still think that there can be a useful reference grading.

[DiveDr]

5 hours ago, txomsy said:

That is why I think a loose definition is good enough, but one would benefit if some standardization was applied.

 

it is true there are lots of variation. Within and outside the nib.

 

But we are talking "writing".

 

So, let us explore "writing". Professionals (calligraphers) have the same problem and need to deal with it. and they do, albeit at a different level (that of what we'd likely call wet-noodle and more). Yet, you take a look and most seem to agree a Zebra/Nikko G is for newbies, and from there, most do also agree on a few reference nibs that form the typical progression.

 

I do not think any of those many calligraphers/teachers is proposing everybody should only use those three or four nibs. I do rather interpret that what they are saying is "look, if you want to start, look for nibs that react like a Zebra/Nikko G, any", and when you get used to one such nib, proceed to nibs that behave like X, Y, Z, and so on.

 

Indeed, when one gets into forums, blogs, etc. most people will argue "I like this nib because it is like that other" or "this other nib is a good substitute or lookalike of that one".

 

The point is that there is a reference. Couple that with some experience of what works for you at your level of expertise, and at your writing habits, and you know what to look for.

 

The difference is that getting a Zebra, Gillot or whatever other nib is easy and cheap, so everybody can try one and see how it works and learn the behavior of the reference. Then they can try other nibs and see which reference they match best, or ask for help and learn that other nibs match some reference. This way they know what they are most likely buying.

 

Getting an FP nib is not that much different, but the offer is currently most limited and the vast majority of users/prospective users do not want to risk ruining a pen swapping nibs. Then, if there were a reference, one would have to buy whole pens to test, and that is more expensive and inconvenient that buying a single dip pen nib or a set with four reference nibs.

 

My point then. It is absolutely false that a reference scale cannot be defined, or that it would be useless since each one writes different. A scale needs not be precise.

 

A scale might be as diffuse as a calligrapher's: e.g. start with a -say- Noodler's flex (or a Falcon -but is more expensive- or any other nib reputed as similar in media), then from there, you proceed to -say- an FPR Ultraflex (or any other reported as similar), then to... -here is where modern options fall short. That would be enough for most people to have an approximate idea of what they are getting/offering. Then one would report nibs as "similar to a X-grade nib",  as calligraphers do.

 

Since current options are so limited, I think that a simple objective scale may be a good enough alternative.

 

We already see several. @Bo Bo Olson's, some nib grinders seem to define flexibility by the amount of line variation, some provide a serially alternating thin/wide line to try to show variation and snapback, etc...

 

So, I think there is case enough that most people is looking for some way to make clear what they are offering or buying, and that there already are many temptative "scales". What we need is someone come up with a simple scale that is "good enough" not to be trivially falsifiable and relatively objective.

 

As said by many, many scales (like @Bo Bo Olson's) are subjective or lack a 'zero' or a clear point of reference or difficult to interpret. That is why some measure just line variation, which is more objective (though may be forced beyond reasonable and does not measure snapback), or why some provide the wide/thin lines (but not knowing the speed or pressure it is also trivially misleading).

 

Personally, I think, say, an electronic balance, with an USB cable to record pressure might do a trivial setup: draw a thin/thick series and record the variation and associated pressure/time. That would give how hard/light one has to write and the time required for recovery/opening. Yeah, some nibs are more open than others and some people will venture farther than others, but as people try the accrued knowledge would soon reach a stationary level.

 

Too complex.

 

But then it can be reported with reference to a simple reference scale with say, three or four levels (nail, introduction, advanced, calligraphy) and one would get it done.

From calligraphy (an FP nib like a Zebra G) on one might just proceed with the same references as professional calligraphers use, specially because those users would already be entering that realm.

 

Picture it:

 

This new ACME nib can give an "advance-level" line variation, has a "nail" snap back and requires a very strong hand (ACME is a nail that was destroyed in the test).

 

This new ACME nib can give a "calligraphy-level" line variation, with "calligraphy-level" snap back and a very light hand (ACME is like a Zebra G).

 

This new ACME nib can give a "calligraphy-level" line variation, with a "starter" snap back and a mid pressure (ACME is like an FPR Ultraflex).

 

This new ACME nib can give a "starter" variation, with "starter" snap back with a mid-hand (ACME is springy)

 

This new ACME nib can give an "advanced" variation with "starter" snap back and a heavy hand (ACME is a Noodler's or FPR flex)

 

This new ACME nib can give a "calligraphy" variation with "calligraphy" snap back and a light hand (ACME is a Montblanc 146c/149c)

 

And so on...

 

i.e. just define three/four reference levels (for line variation, snap back time and pressure) and off you go. That is actually what most people writing reviews of flex nibs is already doing, only each does it subjectively based on their personal experience because there is no objective reference.

 

Granted, it would be a rough approximation. But there is always some way to measure something that is better than no measure at all.

Terms like calligraphy level, heavy hand, starter level, etc. are all qualitative.  How is a scale, a definitive standard of measure in difference of specific properties delineated absent quantitative measurements with specific reference ranges?  From the description and examples given this is a subjective scale.  As with all subjective scales there is dependency on individual interpretation as determined by a multitude of variables and lack of controlled environment.  Point in fact, how then is this different than "feels good to me"?

[Bo Bo Olson]

14 hours ago, LoveBigPensAndCannotLie said:

At the end of the day, superflex, wet noodle, semi-flex, "easy full flex," and maxi-semi-flex are not at all scientific terms and don't have definitive measures.

If you don't have a regular flex or Japanese 'soft' nib ignore this....in my system of half's is built off the regular flex/Japanese soft nib flex rate.

 

Sure they do...........subjectively.  Various folks have tried to make sense using electric scales and high tech measuring devises. It didn't work.........some was what angle the nib was being held at. And other hair splitting items.

 

I developed my system of decreasing 1/2's because I live in Germany and finding vintage semi-flex nibs was easy to find. Most folks don't have that advantage.

 

When I was new, at the German flea market, I didn't buy nail nibs tested on my thumbnail. I didn't realize the nibs I was buying were the nib flex of my US childhood. Some Esterbrooks, Wearevers and such. Regular issue nibs, softer than nails and semi-nails.

The first time I put a semi-flex nib (140 OB) to my thumbnail, I suddenly knew what all the fuss was a bout that I read on this com...............so that was semi-flex.

 

Back when 'flexi' was The Word,** I chased Swan pens so slowly I didn't catch any....Even the two good pen sights...I think they belonged to Marshal and Oldfield, were vague to how flexi the nibs were that they were selling. I didn't want to end up with another semi-flex nib. I had a slew of them by then.

With the price of American Mail, I couldn't afford to look across the pond for 'flexi'

That was back when the term superflex seemed to be coming in.

At a German second hand junk shop I ran into a well made  'Predo' no name war pen with a steel Degussa 'flexi nib on it.

One of the first definitions.

I was happy I didn't need any more of them 'flexi' things. One was enough of course, or I might have to learn how to write.

Here on the com, I learned some Soennecken nibs were so flexi, they were wet noodles. Soennecken were over my limit.....but there was a no name pen with a Soennecken nib on it I won cheap enough E-35...............it made that Predo nib look a bit stiff, so was my first 'wet noodle'.

 

Not a hell of a bit longer I lucked into an Easy Full Flex/Superflex Pelikan 100n post war gold nib. So I had two superflex nibs and a wet noodle.

 

There I had it all in place but the key.....not knowing maxi-semi-flex existed, I'd not looked for it.

I bought a black cracked ice that needed a new gasket. The Rupp nib screwed out and fit this Clipper pen. Rupp made nibs in Heidelberg the once pen capitol of the world from 1922 to 1970. One of these mid to late '50's Clipper pens I had had no nib (The other two have 'Clipper' nibs.), and that Rupp nib screwed right in.

 

The Rupp nib didn't expand over 3X.....after a while you can tell when a nib is being abused. So it wasn't a 'flexi' nib...(4X-5-6X mostly and very rarely 7X unless the nib is being abused in Youtube or Ebay)..........even if it was more flexible than semi-flex.

 

I stumbled around in tight little circles for about 3 days muttering, that is certainly a maxi-semi-flex nib................then I went into my 20 semi-flex pens and found four others that were maxi....but not quite as much as that Rupp nib......A,B,C, D, E, F and G. (I of course didn't worry about scarce as hen teeth H....or Weak Kneed Wet Noodle.

A, nail/manifold. 1 X no tine spread or bend.

B. semi-nail, when well mashed up to 2 X tine spread with some tine bend....like a P-75 or modern Pelikan 400/600.

 

Regular flex, semi& Maxi are a nib set where the tines spread to 3 X....one can of course be guilty of nib abuse and press it out to 4 X....but sooner or later it will spring.

C. regular flex/Japanese soft when well mashed the tines will spread to 3 X, with some tine bend. One can not write when the nib is maxed to 3 X wider than a a light down stroke. Japanese soft, some Esterbrooks, Wearevers, Pelikan 200's and semi-vintage 400's. Soft +.

 

D. Semi-flex, with half less pressure to reach 3 X tine spread. One can be heavy handed and write at max. It took me some six weeks to get to I wrote less heavy, and six weeks later to finally get a lighter Hand. One needs a lighter hand to get line variation on demand...in one needs to demand it.

Many German '30's-50-70 era vintage pens and many are factory stubbed. Soft ++.

E. Maxi-semi-flex uses half the pressure of a semi-flex to reach 3 X....or 1/4th the pressure needed to max a regular flex.  Soft +++.

 

Superflex, has tine spreads of 4x, mostly 5-6 X, seldom 7X.

Easy Full Flex....half the pressure needed to max the nib than maxi......or 1/8th the pressure  needed to max a regular flex.(Have8-10.) Soft ++++.

Wet Noodle, half the pressure needed to max a Easy Full Flex or 1/16th the pressure needed to max a regular flex. (Have 3, the Soennecken 7X nib is best, of my two '52 the 7 X nib is two stage the 6X is single stage.) They are in the lower third of nib pen nib flex.

(One good poster had only sprung nib...mushy wet noodles so thought that was what folks were talking about. I was lucky all three of mine have good snapback, and are not mushy. Not bought off of look how wide I can spread nib tines (and spring the nib) on Youtube or Ebay.)

Soft  +++++

 

Weak Kneed Wet Noodle....a term invented by John Swoboda(sp). My wife found a pre'23 MB Simplo nibbed Safety Pen  for free and Francis made it look great and work. I haven't decided if it's at 1/32nd the max of a regular flex or 1/64th or in between. Very cubed rare.

I've run across two, both MB Safety Pens. Soft ++++++ or soft +++++++,

 

I've had it for two months and still haven't started learning how to write.

 

IMO if one is OCD/AR in exactness of flex rate to find my system inexact, .....I'll be glad to see what you come up with, I think my system works..............didn't have an electric Kitchen scale back then so wasn't lead down that false paths....didn't have Star-Treck measuring instruments, so had to go subjunctive. 

Regular flex and semi-flex seem to clump together. There is a bit more spread of tine values in maxi-semi-flex....but my attempt of F-1, F-3 and that Rupp nib at F-3....failed in there was no need for it. There is a touch of flex variety, but not enough to make another flex rate. Don't sweat the small stuff.

In Maxi, I have a Geha 790 EF, Pelikan 400nnOF& 500, MB 742& medium large '48-60 146 and a few other pens. This no name brass overlay has a maxi-nib that I had to check twice vs a Superflex.

 

Superflex................if you have enough of them, my system of half's fails....if you don't have a lot of them....it works good enough.

Do read what Mauricio has to say.

 

Two '52's that I eventually horse swapped with Mauricio for....are my other two 'wet noodles'.

 

Do get your self a regular flex pen...or Japanese 'soft'. With out it, my system can not work for you.

 

[txomsy]

6 hours ago, DiveDr said:

Terms like calligraphy level, heavy hand, starter level, etc. are all qualitative.  How is a scale, a definitive standard of measure in difference of specific properties delineated absent quantitative measurements with specific reference ranges?  From the description and examples given this is a subjective scale.  As with all subjective scales there is dependency on individual interpretation as determined by a multitude of variables and lack of controlled environment.  Point in fact, how then is this different than "feels good to me"?

Let me repeat:

 

There are scales and scales, references and references. That something is not easily measurable does not mean that a reference cannot be defined. If something is entirely subjective then it may only come by convention (like Arts, and yet most can tell music from noise --barring very rare exceptions), but that is not the case.

 

We know we can measure relatively easily tine spread, we can measure pressure, snap back... The problem lies in the combination, precision and values.

 

If you think of it, no existing scale is exact. Not even measure of time with an atomic clock: at some point quantum fluctuations make it imprecise. All scales have an error margin. A meter when measured is subject to length changes due to temperature and these are different for different materials.

 

It is all a matter of defining the allowed margins of error.

 

What I say is that since a non-negligible confounding component is subjective, one needs not define "flex is when tines spread 3.500 times the thinnest line with a pressure of 1.375 kPa in 0.125 s", specially because then one would have to add "flex is when the tines spread 3.500 times (- 1.5 ..  +7 times) the thinnest line width (which should be between 0.1 and 0.5mm) with a pressure of 1.375 kPa (+/- 1 kPa) in 0.125s (- 0.1 s .. + 0.5 s)", which would be silly. Or provide a formula to give the "flexibility factor". Whereas one can say, given a not so exacting measuring system, this nib is closer to this or to that category. It may be on one or the other side, but help. And still be better than nothing.

 

Just as we can have a belt system; amateur, advanced, professional and elite sport categories; sketch, drawing, artwork, genius paintings; low, middle or high noise, etc... we can have a loosely approximate flex reference. As long as overlap between categories is less than distance between categories, it will be useful. We will all know there is overlap (like between a poor and average music performer), but except in the overlap zone, we will be able to tell apart a slow from a fast runner

 

This is becoming easier every day as technical gadgets become more affordable. Not so long ago deciding if tine spread was 1x, 2x, 3x... was subjective, now it can be measured with a close-up digital picture, and a digital microscope is almost a commodity. Not so long ago pressure was subjective, now  precise digital balances are pervasive. Etc.

 

To summarize, what you propose is an exact, continuous classification, what I propose is a set of reference hallmarks to say which is closer to a given nib behavior. A "continuous" reference will be at most interval-based due to measuring errors, and defines thresholds to cross. A "reference" system defines anchor points and allows definition by indicating to which points a given observation is closer.

 

I mean, in a "continuous/interval" reference a nib would be flex, say if it spreads (say) > 3.0 times. In a "reference" reference, a nib would be flex if it is closer to 3.0x than to the other values (whether above or below).

 

Added: and I know, mathematically there is no difference, but it is all about the levels of fuzzyness considered and the second leads to a different psychological evaluation which naturally encourages fuzzyness, while the first emphasizes precision.

[A Smug Dill]

9 hours ago, txomsy said:

Let us take another example. I think you mentioned some time elsewhere an interest in martial arts. The belt system allows one to grade students. However, there is no totally objective way to grant it. It is not absolutely subjective either:

 

I don't see how that is at all relevant to the discussion or the utility of designating nibs on a ‘scale’ for either intrinsic (or material) or performance qualities.

 

The ‘belt system’ is a ranking mechanism for 1. proven achievement (that need not be either repeated or repeatable), against a 2. locally and narrowly defined assessment criteria, and 3. tells you nothing about the response you would get from an individual of/with a particular rank, given a situation and/or set of stimuli.

 

Never mind what a red belt designates, when the meaning is so completely different in various schools and disciplines. Almost every ‘belt system’ will have the black belt rank as graduation from student to practitioner.

 

A black belt in karate will not have demonstrated the same knowledge, capabilities, and proficiencies expected of a black belt in aikido. A black belt in Shotokan karate does not mean one qualified for a black belt in Goju-ryu karate. A black belt from a Japanese school of Shotokan would have been assessed quite differently from a black belt from a Shotokan karate school or club in France.

 

Even within the same school, let's say one of the tasks that has to be completed for successful attainment of a black belt is breaking three planks of wood with a punch. A candidate may break his hand in the process (with or without detection), while successfully executing the task at his black belt grading, yet never be able to do so again because of his injury; having attained a black belt says nothing about repeatability. Likewise, a 70-year-old who can no longer execute the preset techniques, due to loss of flexibility, arthritis, osteoporosis, etc. will still retain her black belt rank earned in her twenties.

 

If you're looking to employ someone for a particular job/role/task, the candidate's attainment of a black belt from some school once upon a time means nothing. Alternatively, if you're planning to engage someone in hand-to-hand combat, knowing that he ‘holds’ a black belt in Shotokan karate is not going to inform you what he will do or can do in the situation.

 

A ‘belt system’ does not tell someone anything about either future performance, or repeatable and expected stimulus-response behaviour. What good is a scale, or frame of reference (with discrete waypoints), of that nature in designation or discussion of flexible nibs, especially for those who are looking to acquire a flexible nib in order to get particular user outcomes from it?

 

[txomsy]

It is the same: a gradation.

 

I agree gradations are very easy to misinterpret. But one may expect that (in general) someone with a higher grade has demonstrated higher skills than someone with a lower grade, or has devoted more time or whatever the ranking measures.

 

It will not tell me how a person will fight. Nor will any grading system tell me that a given nib will produce a more beautiful writing. Just like I know a cell phone is not same as a pocket camera, a bridge camera or a reflex, each has different properties, but none of them will make me a better photographer.

 

Such an approximate scale will give me an idea of what can be achieved -approximately- though.  Whether I later can profit of it or not is unrelated, just as the fighting abilities of a black belt. Or for that sake, of the academic grading system.

 

That one is a doctor does not mean one has outstanding intellectual skills over an illiterate one. Both may have great ideas and the illiterate may surpass the PhD in performance.

 

Still, we all know that some scales (Celsius/Farenheit, for instance) are capable of higher accuracy, but we do not demand the same from all scales. And though academy, arts, military, and so many others are imprecise and won't tell me the actual performance of any person, they still tell me a lot of useful (though fuzzy) information.

 

I may expect a general to be (likely) more proficient at managing a large contingent of people than a private. I may expect a Zebra G to give me more flex than most FP nibs.

 

I will always know there are exceptions and subjectivity.

 

A Noodler's Flex may give an excellent response to ham-fisted or BP-used writers, it can yield as much as many a wet noodle with enough pressure and slow writing. But overall, I can expect it to be tiresome to most writers.

 

An FPR UltraFlex will work nicely for many a beginner, may give as much variation as a wet noodle, and require moderate pressure, but its snap back will be slow, so it may be good enough for slow writing, but not for advanced users. And so on.

 

Having a scale that tells me the rough position of a nib in a, say, 3D coordinate system (line variation, snap back, pressure) will give me roughly the idea of how much pressure I will need (in a rough scale, low, mid, high), how fast can I write (in a rough scale) and how much line variation I may safely expect (again, ditto).

 

It will NOT tell me how will my writing look (that's exclusively on me), but will give me an approximate idea of what to expect when buying a nib/pen and what it will require to use it.

 

I do not know your background or if you have done any risk management.

 

I know some disciplines (e.g. Chemistry) allow for very precise risk assessment. But Biomedicine, like Economics, Computing, Social or Human sciences doesn't. And it is precisely these that we have the higher interest in doing risk management for they affect us directly. And the only way to do it is with approximate scales and very rough probability-impact decision matrices. And experience shows that when several independent estimates are averaged the result tends to be pretty good.

 

We want to minimize risks when buying a nib. We cannot use -yet- a precise scale. That does not mean we cannot use imprecise scales and still get a pretty decent (if not excellent) estimate to guide our decision making process when evaluating a nib.

 

I am talking from my own experience (which is certainly biased): I have used very rough decision matrices commonly and with great success in many disciplines, like Health, Epidemiology, Microbiology, Biology, Biological War, Computing, and see no reason to despise these "imprecise" methodologies that have proven their utility since pre-scientific times. I understand not everyone sees it this way, but, in my own experience, they have worked.

 

So, why do I not go out and do it?

 

I am not a collector, I do not have many different nibs, I do have a box with about 100 calligraphy dip pen nibs to use, and with two sons in University I do not have resources to even buy a new cheap pen for now. And since I do have enough flex nibs, dip pen holders, fountain pens, paper and ink for a while, I cannot justify the expense (nor afford it).

 

But thinking is free and I do not mind sharing my ideas for free in case others may benefit from them. That, I know, is another cultural barrier for many. Personally, I think I may not try and benefit from my ideas directly, but if someone else can, then, in the end I will indirectly benefit too. What goes around comes around.

[Bo Bo Olson]

2 hours ago, txomsy said:

A Noodler's Flex may give an excellent response to ham-fisted or BP-used writers, it can yield as much as many a wet noodle with enough pressure and slow writing. But overall, I can expect it to be tiresome to most writers.

My Ahab was indeed a hard semi-flex rate to make it flex well. However when the Pilot/Ahab mod...two half moons are ground out of the nib shoulder, it becomes a joyful Easy Full Flex....two ratings lighter than unmodified.

 

2 hours ago, txomsy said:

An FPR UltraFlex will work nicely for many a beginner, may give as much variation as a wet noodle, and require moderate pressure, but its snap back will be slow, so it may be good enough for slow writing, but not for advanced users. And so on.

I really don't know about this, in it snuck in in the last 5 years, well after I was well set in superflex...though it strikes me as a good place to start, in it's morally more ethical to ruin one of them than an irreplaceable antique superflex, be that an Easy or Wet Noodle. 

 

Snapback comes in after the 'got a fat letter' stage of learning...for folks that actually write and want the quick thin line....not fatter than hell letters.

Yep...I've been threatening to learn how to write for well more than a decade. I still just scribble along.

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

5 hours ago, txomsy said:

An FPR UltraFlex will work nicely for many a beginner, may give as much variation as a wet noodle, and require moderate pressure, but its snap back will be slow, so it may be good enough for slow writing, but not for advanced users. And so on.

 The FPR Ultra Flex is an awesome choice for people starting out cause it lets them try out flex and see if it's something they like. IMO the issue with it is not just the snapback, the "EF" ultraflex nib they sell is more like a generous medium leaning into broad. Flex is almost as much about the initial line width as it is about the softness, you're going to see a lot less line variation if your initial line width is already very wide.

[DiveDr]

9 hours ago, txomsy said:

It is the same: a gradation.

 

I agree gradations are very easy to misinterpret. But one may expect that (in general) someone with a higher grade has demonstrated higher skills than someone with a lower grade, or has devoted more time or whatever the ranking measures.

 

It will not tell me how a person will fight. Nor will any grading system tell me that a given nib will produce a more beautiful writing. Just like I know a cell phone is not same as a pocket camera, a bridge camera or a reflex, each has different properties, but none of them will make me a better photographer.

 

Such an approximate scale will give me an idea of what can be achieved -approximately- though.  Whether I later can profit of it or not is unrelated, just as the fighting abilities of a black belt. Or for that sake, of the academic grading system.

 

That one is a doctor does not mean one has outstanding intellectual skills over an illiterate one. Both may have great ideas and the illiterate may surpass the PhD in performance.

 

Still, we all know that some scales (Celsius/Farenheit, for instance) are capable of higher accuracy, but we do not demand the same from all scales. And though academy, arts, military, and so many others are imprecise and won't tell me the actual performance of any person, they still tell me a lot of useful (though fuzzy) information.

 

I may expect a general to be (likely) more proficient at managing a large contingent of people than a private. I may expect a Zebra G to give me more flex than most FP nibs.

 

I will always know there are exceptions and subjectivity.

 

A Noodler's Flex may give an excellent response to ham-fisted or BP-used writers, it can yield as much as many a wet noodle with enough pressure and slow writing. But overall, I can expect it to be tiresome to most writers.

 

An FPR UltraFlex will work nicely for many a beginner, may give as much variation as a wet noodle, and require moderate pressure, but its snap back will be slow, so it may be good enough for slow writing, but not for advanced users. And so on.

 

Having a scale that tells me the rough position of a nib in a, say, 3D coordinate system (line variation, snap back, pressure) will give me roughly the idea of how much pressure I will need (in a rough scale, low, mid, high), how fast can I write (in a rough scale) and how much line variation I may safely expect (again, ditto).

 

It will NOT tell me how will my writing look (that's exclusively on me), but will give me an approximate idea of what to expect when buying a nib/pen and what it will require to use it.

 

I do not know your background or if you have done any risk management.

 

I know some disciplines (e.g. Chemistry) allow for very precise risk assessment. But Biomedicine, like Economics, Computing, Social or Human sciences doesn't. And it is precisely these that we have the higher interest in doing risk management for they affect us directly. And the only way to do it is with approximate scales and very rough probability-impact decision matrices. And experience shows that when several independent estimates are averaged the result tends to be pretty good.

 

We want to minimize risks when buying a nib. We cannot use -yet- a precise scale. That does not mean we cannot use imprecise scales and still get a pretty decent (if not excellent) estimate to guide our decision making process when evaluating a nib.

 

I am talking from my own experience (which is certainly biased): I have used very rough decision matrices commonly and with great success in many disciplines, like Health, Epidemiology, Microbiology, Biology, Biological War, Computing, and see no reason to despise these "imprecise" methodologies that have proven their utility since pre-scientific times. I understand not everyone sees it this way, but, in my own experience, they have worked.

 

So, why do I not go out and do it?

 

I am not a collector, I do not have many different nibs, I do have a box with about 100 calligraphy dip pen nibs to use, and with two sons in University I do not have resources to even buy a new cheap pen for now. And since I do have enough flex nibs, dip pen holders, fountain pens, paper and ink for a while, I cannot justify the expense (nor afford it).

 

But thinking is free and I do not mind sharing my ideas for free in case others may benefit from them. That, I know, is another cultural barrier for many. Personally, I think I may not try and benefit from my ideas directly, but if someone else can, then, in the end I will indirectly benefit too. What goes around comes around.

Long and short, around the pole and back, this all boils down to one very simple thing. Qualitative versus quantitative analysis. Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Writing and the description of the feel of a fountain pen, a purely subjective and circumstantially dependent experience, will vary one person to another or even for the same person from one interval time period to the next.  Friends, the art of real flex nib making such as the masterwork of those who forged and honed Waterman, Wahl-Eversharp, Mabie Todd and the like are, quite sadly, long gone.  Modern flex is an interesting game and perhaps in some cases more of a thought experiment.  As for a practical, formal or in any way meaningful grading system for flex nib pens, well, I'm afraid, point in fact, much ado about nothing...😁

 

Merry Christmas all!🎄🎅 🎄

[Aether]

I don't believe that the method of making flexible gold nibs is lost.  More likely it's just not worth the tooling up to satisfy a very tiny market.

[DiveDr]

3 hours ago, Aether said:

I don't believe that the method of making flexible gold nibs is lost.  More likely it's just not worth the tooling up to satisfy a very tiny market.

The golden era of flexible nibs began in the late 1800s and ran through the mid 1940s. During that time a great number of flexible gold nibs were made. Thank the Lord there are still quite a few in very fine condition available.

The craftsmanship and pride these nib meisters poured into their work is evident today. Many of these jewels write as well now as they did the day they were made.

If we are talking flexible nibs nothing made today can hold a candle to a proper vintage nib from the golden age. Mind you, the best were not made in Germany, nor were they French, Italian or Swiss, no, the best were made in the USA with England and Canada placing a distant second and third. It took over 72 distinct steps to create one of these works of art and in the day most all the work was done by hand. To successfully craft a flexible gold nib required an involved process.  It was a marriage of art, metallurgy and precision.  Metallurgy, now that was where the magic started, in the gold forges.  For some reason this conjures up an image of a Tolkenesque dwarf deep in a mine hammering out a nib while wearing an oil lamp lighted helmet and a loupe.

Now a bit about workmanship and quality control.  When the nib crafters finished they passed the product to the fountain pen assemblers.  After they were set in a pen, the tuners began the task of inspecting precisely adjusting the feed, tines, tipping, flow and smoothness of the pen.  Before shipping off to the market they underwent a final inspection and if they passed, were boxed up. So goes the genesis story of a high end vintage flex nib pen.  Considering all this, do we really believe we could even somewhat faithfully reproduce the fabrication process of yesteryear with today's inflationary economy and prevailing work ethic?

Those days are long gone and even if the secrets are still known, the chances of their resurrection are slim to none and Slim just left town.  For those so inclined and appropriately resourced, tinkering with nibs and tines to produce something which in some way approximates a Waterman 56 flex or a period Wahl Decoband, can be fun.  If it is the grail you seek, buy a good vintage flex nib pen and call it a day!

 

[DiveDr]

Another thought, there is a scale for cooking meat.

• 130° F - 135° F = rare
• 140° F - 145°F = medium rare
• 150° F - 155° F = medium well
• 160° F - 165° F = well done

Whenever I host and prepare meat dishes I ask guests their preference.  To my surprise, very often, when served at the range of temperature requested guests would comment, "wow that's raw" or "hey that's well done" and a whole host of in betweens.  At first it was frustrating trying to serve people food cooked the way they asked for it only to find in point of fact they did not understand what that was.  It wasn't until a guest asked his table mate to the right to swap steaks, his being medium well and his neighbors being rare.  She had asked for rare and he medium well but neither really wanted their steaks that way.  They were delighted to swap, she looked at him and said, "are you really going to eat raw meat", he responded "its cooked enough for me".  Then it dawned on me, even with reasonably precise scales people are subjective in their interpretation of what they mean.  In the end it boils down to flexible enough for me and I like it or not and I don't...

 

[txomsy]

I think the problem here lies in your interpretation of the scale.

 

Much like writing, cooking is an art, and for similar reasons.

 

If you want the meat to be raw, cooked, whatever, you need to play with a  number of factors. Simplifying, there three are at major play: cut thickness, temperature and time.

 

If (say) one uses a 'single level' BBQ/oven, then one has to play with time and temperature once the product is cut. You can increase temperature or time.

 

Assuming you want to play with temperature, one has to consider cut thickness: cuts will need higher/lower temperature (even within the same range). Same if you play with time. In any case a quick sealing at high temperature at the beginning will give you more control. But even so, it is an art because one needs to guesstimate the cut quality and thickness.

 

Pretending that only temperature be enough is oversimplifying.

 

Personally, I prefer an open BBQ where I can simultaneously play with temperature (height) and time, but that is a matter of taste.

 

Much like nibs: pretending that only line width is enough is oversimplifying. One needs to play as well with snap back (time) and whatever the nib is, one will need to guesstimate the ink and paper quality.

 

Ink, paper (like a cut quality/thickness) does not depend on the nib (or BBQ). That is why these are arts and not science, and why trying to make a fully accurate scale is doomed to fail. But one may have rough guidelines (as with cooking temperatures) and then learn to master the tool.

 

 

[DiveDr]

2 hours ago, txomsy said:

I think the problem here lies in your interpretation of the scale.

 

Much like writing, cooking is an art, and for similar reasons.

 

If you want the meat to be raw, cooked, whatever, you need to play with a  number of factors. Simplifying, there three are at major play: cut thickness, temperature and time.

 

If (say) one uses a 'single level' BBQ/oven, then one has to play with time and temperature once the product is cut. You can increase temperature or time.

 

Assuming you want to play with temperature, one has to consider cut thickness: cuts will need higher/lower temperature (even within the same range). Same if you play with time. In any case a quick sealing at high temperature at the beginning will give you more control. But even so, it is an art because one needs to guesstimate the cut quality and thickness.

 

Pretending that only temperature be enough is oversimplifying.

 

Personally, I prefer an open BBQ where I can simultaneously play with temperature (height) and time, but that is a matter of taste.

 

Much like nibs: pretending that only line width is enough is oversimplifying. One needs to play as well with snap back (time) and whatever the nib is, one will need to guesstimate the ink and paper quality.

 

Ink, paper (like a cut quality/thickness) does not depend on the nib (or BBQ). That is why these are arts and not science, and why trying to make a fully accurate scale is doomed to fail. But one may have rough guidelines (as with cooking temperatures) and then learn to master the tool.

 

 

Although cooking id for sure an art, temperature and time are the determinants of wellness in cooking meats, poultry and fish.  Regardless of thickness seasoning or other preparation, temperature and time determine wellness.  There is no other magic to it.

[Bo Bo Olson]

As a number of fine posters said, it's the definition.

 

Some can't or won't define......like back in the bad days of 'flexi'.....which was so wide a term, some could have put semi-nail into that term. When well mashed the tines did spread a tiny bit and bend..............not much, but once an idea is set in concrete it remains the same, instead of re-defining.

 

Believe it or not we have come a long way from the standard 'flexi' definition of 15 years ago.

Up to reading this thread, I'd thought we were making progress.

[DiveDr]

1 hour ago, Bo Bo Olson said:

As a number of fine posters said, it's the definition.

 

Some can't or won't define......like back in the bad days of 'flexi'.....which was so wide a term, some could have put semi-nail into that term. When well mashed the tines did spread a tiny bit and bend..............not much, but once an idea is set in concrete it remains the same, instead of re-defining.

 

Believe it or not we have come a long way from the standard 'flexi' definition of 15 years ago.

Up to reading this thread, I'd thought we were making progress.

LOL and well said.  In order to understand where we are, we need to know where we have been or, in other words, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  There was a time when things like following the scientific method and peer review of literature actually meant something, had worth and were respected.  We live now in the "everybody gets a trophy" era and have grown accustomed to instant gratification with mass acceptance of unproven data sources which are favored over truth because they reinforced how we feel and that trumps reality.  When challenged the first response out of the gate is usually "well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion".  While that may be true in some ways, nobody is entitled to their own set of facts. 😁

[shane27]

On 12/12/2022 at 8:31 AM, Sailor Kenshin said:

Just for curiosity's sake, I looked for the video, couldn't find it.  The man who filmed it was or is a member here, and there was no fifteen minutes of his face on-camera wasting time.  Just the hand, and the pen.

 

I see what you mean about the modern videos.  Yuck.  And a modern pen isn't really flex either, unless you are Thor.

I remember this! Is this the guy? His name was Turnero on here, the calligrapher Peter Unbehauen. 

 

Here he is with a Montblanc 234 1/2. Let me know

 

[WestLothian]

 

There is no denying that the swells in this relatively modern video are entirely from flex and recovery of the tines. It is not a fountain pen, but the technique still applies.