Best idiot proof dip pen nib

[Rexluna]

Hi, I need to use legally permanent ink on documents, and must share my pen with people who have never used a fountain pen. 

 

While I could use an ISO rated ball point, I would prefer to use a dip pen and registrars ink as I feel that brings more "show to the party". 

 

What dip pen nibs are robust and idiot proof enough for this purpose? I have seen adverts for kakimori nibs, might one of those work? Or might there be a better solution? 

[PPPR]

As usual, my suggestions are for vintage items. "Dip-less" style pens would be ideal for this purpose.

 

Esterbrook, Sengbusch, Morriset, Gregory's Fount-O-Ink, and Sheaffer, among many others manufactured dip pens with nibs similar to fountain pens instead of standard, untipped, dip pens. Many of these were very stiff nibs, which should withstand ham-handed ballpoint users. Material, whether stainless steel or gold plated, shouldn't be of concern.

 

HTH

[Ron Z]

I agree - the  Esterbrook dip-less would be ideal.  You can have a nice smooth nib, and one dip would allow you to sign at least once.  A 9000 series nib would be more corrosion resistant too.  Some of the old steel nibs are awfully toothy, and could snag on the paper.

[AAAndrew]

As a huge advocate for dip pens, I have to agree with those above. An Esterbrook Dip-less would be the right solution. It will stand up to newbies quite well, the nib can be easily replaced with another renewpoint, and you can rinse and dry it after use, but it will hold quite enough ink. Unless you're using it multiple times every day, I would just go with a pen only, and a normal jar of ink. In other words, I wouldn't worry about a dipless ink well, like my beloved 444s. They will dry out and are made for regular use. If you ARE using it daily, then I'd restore one of the 444 ink wells. They're simple in design, easy to get working, and hold a ton of ink. 

[Chris1]

Some years ago I had to register a death. This was before UK registrars went digital and records were hand-written into ledgers or onto forms. The registrars used, not surprisingly, Registrars' Ink and I was handed a mid-range Parker pen to use. 

 

However, I am of the generation that was required to use fountain pens at school and so that presented no difficulties. 

 

Whether the change to digital record keeping was driven by the cost of replacing nibs ruined by people who can't use a proper pen I can't say 😉, but those hand-written records have proven extremely durable over many centuries.

[LandyVlad]

On 9/6/2024 at 8:54 PM, Chris1 said:

Whether the change to digital record keeping was driven by the cost of replacing nibs ruined by people who can't use a proper pen I can't say 😉, but those hand-written records have proven extremely durable over many centuries.

 

I really WANT this to be true  

[Chris1]

Indeed it is. We've had a series of programmes on TV where people trace their ancestry going back generations and it has been amazing how records from parish churches, registrars of births, deaths and marriages as well as farm records and formal. legal documents , council records, wills, land registers etc. are still legible after amazingly long times. Not all, of course, as some old documents were slowly destroyed by the acidity of some of the inks in use way back, but many remain.

 

An example is the Magna Carta which I saw in Salisbury cathedral a few years ago, signed in 1215 and perfectly legible! But I doubt the scribe used Registrar's ink. 

 

If ever you are in the UK (I was in Sydney last month), you must visit the British Library in London and view the documents they have - really lovely, and free!

 

[AAAndrew]

The Magna Carta was most likely written using some variation of iron gall ink: iron filings, soot black and some kind of acid, like tannic acid from oak galls. This type of ink reacts with paper and vellum to create a chemical bond. If the proportions are off, it can also react poorly and eat through paper. 

 

We also have an issue with a lot of pulp paper from the middle 60+ years of the 19th century when a new method for making pulp paper came into widespread use. This paper was cheaper, but it also was highly acidic and much of it is crumbling and falling apart. Back in the 90s I worked at a digitization project at a university to scan everything from that period before it was lost forever. 

 

So, paper does not guarantee longevity, but it tends to stack the odds more in favor of survival. But I could go on about digital archiving. It's a hot topic among archivists. The most common recommendation (Smithsonian, etc...) is 3, 2, 1. Keep 3 copies of your records, in at least 2 formats, and at least 1 copy off-site. 

[bsenn]

11 minutes ago, AAAndrew said:

The most common recommendation (Smithsonian, etc...) is 3, 2, 1. Keep 3 copies of your records, in at least 2 formats, and at least 1 copy off-site. 

 

Ha! I just made that comment earlier today while watching TV when the elves were seeing the single copy of their records burn (the LOTR Rings of Power series). I have always been of the save-early-save-often and back-it-up mindset, so I was not too sympathetic.