Nakaya pens are prime example of Veblen good - luxury goods for which the quantity demanded increases as the price increases.
The old desire of building your identity around what you own instead of what you do is not going anywhere. Good for them picking up the extra money people have.
Of course Nakaya pens are good writing pens, but the quality of pen as a tool levels around $50-$70 price mark. Extra is just collecting expensive shit. I have Japanese fountain pen that costs $60 and any more expensive pen I have tested is no better, just different. Good nib and mechanism is not rocket science. https://www.twsbi.com
> The old desire of building your identity around what you own instead of what you do is not going anywhere. Good for them picking up the extra money people have.
That's really spot on. We could have an incredibly fulfilling life while living frugally. Writing books, making art, creating new software, doing research, etc. Creating and understanding yourself better can be healing. Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless. Some of the happiest peoples' lives are built around shared experiences.
>this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless.
I hope you can see the contradiction here. These pens are the result of skills honed over time by people who are masters of their craft. These aren't mass produced items, and they will tailor basically every aspect of the pen to the customer.
You're paying for the artistry, quality, and customization. These things are more expensive when not mass produced.
Would I buy one? Not unless I just had a bunch of money that I had nothing else to do with. But for someone who talks about making art being a fulfilling venture, it doesn't make sense to scorn something that many people consider art.
I don't think there's anything wrong about buying that pen; and I do think, yes, the artist has put a lot of effort into making a high-quality pen, so it is a beautiful expression of their creativity.
The point I actually wanted to drill down was: "building your identity around what you own instead of what you do". I could've omitted my sentence on the pen. Buying a pen or any piece of art isn't vain. But it's sad when someone centers the life and builds their identity around physical possessions.
>You're paying for the artistry, quality, and customization.
That's not how pricing works. The price of the product is what customers pay, not how much it costs to manufacture.
If you remove brand name and perception of luxury and rarity from these pens and say it's manufactured by some Vietnamese pop and son shop, the value drops into fraction what it was. It might cost $100 and be expensive pen but not hundreds or thousands like now.
I find such things horribly wasteful even if I had unlimited disposable income. Run out of reasonable purchases and you can always just donate the rest.
Remember, it's not expensive because that's what it costs to make it's expensive because that's what it takes to sell them.
You could say the same thing about most other art and decorative object, if you don't find them attractive. I would tend to value Warhols and Pollocks in terms of their kindling ability, myself.
I mostly agree, stuff is very low on my list of interesting things. But, a painting could be shown to thousands a pen is a rather more personal indulgence.
>We could have an incredibly fulfilling life while living frugally.
And we could also live frugally while appreciating things of beauty and craft like those pens. I know people who don't have a car (and aren't rich) but chose to spend $5000 on art, or such things.
>Writing books, making art, creating new software, doing research, etc.
Well, if you have the money -- even enough to live with--, what would be the need of this frenetic activity? Writing books, making art, doing research etc?
This seems vain too, in the "me, me, me, I should put my name out there, be known in the future, etc" sense. It's only that certain civilizations haven't been trained to recognize this as vein. What if you don't create anything? Who said people have to? Why not just enjoy life? Work if you have to, have fun with friends and family, have some nice food and drink, walk, etc.
You have a point. Doing research, writing books, making art, traveling around her world, etc., aren't necessarily a "better way to live". If we're calling it "better", we're passing moralistic judgement on how someone choses to live their life. We shouldn't look down on someone just because they've chosen to live a "basic life", enjoying the simple pleasures of life. Who are we to judge?
But I merely wanted to remark, that to me, personally (and I suspect to other people on HN), acts of creations (like writing, programming, art, etc) bring far more joy and pleasure than physical posessions, binge-watching Netflix shows, and in general consuming, etc. And I assume a lot of people on this site share a similar, "creator" mindset, and likely enjoy similar things. I've sometimes binge-watched TV shows, and regretted the time wasted. I remembered I would've been much happier doing something creative. Ironically, despite it bringing more happiness, it's easy to occasionally slip into doing less-satisfying stuff. That quote in the article was a good reminder.
The point is that the desire to climb the status ladder by purchasing conspicuously expensive, useless commodities is generated by a pretty deformed set of social relations. It is a product of a very shallow capitalist culture, and has the effect of wasting productive capacity that could in the counter-factual be used to help people who need it.
It's also philosophy 101: self-realisation is who you are and not what you own. Go read Marcus Auerelius, Erich Fromm, etc.
>The point is that the desire to climb the status ladder by purchasing conspicuously expensive, useless commodities is generated by a pretty deformed set of social relations. It is a product of a very shallow capitalist culture
I disagree. People liked rare and expensive things in all cultures since forever -- from ancient Egypt and Greece, to African tribes to Polynesian island nations.
What's unique in modern capitalist culture is the commercialization of everything and anything and the constant consumption -- not the appreciation of finely crafted / expensive stuff. In some ways a Lamborghini is a great achievement of engineering and art, for example.
I also don't think people buying those pens are doing so because of a "desire to climb the status ladder". That might be true for those buying a $1000 suit or $300 shoes, but those paying $3000 for a fountain pen have already climbed it.
Attempting to climb the status ladder with a Nakaya or Namiki Maki-e (http://www.pilot-namiki.com/en/) would probably be counter productive. It generally helps if the people you are trying to impress recognize what you're carrying.
I cycle, and I like Rapha Brevette jerseys. Yes they are expensive, but I like the way they fit and some specific features. I know I could get 99% of the functionality for 40% of the price.
Appreciation and status are not mutually exclusive, in fact they rarely are. I certainly do appreciate all my expensive cycling stuff, but I have long identified it as the outlet where I seem tochannel all my status purchase needs. When everybody around me is riding Shimano, I want Campag and the powermeter to go with that should better be Italian as well. I consider this to be deep in status-land, in fact it is the only part of my buying habits where the status component is so strong that I am aware of it (which I guess is universally rare, everybody has their rationalizations). The Castelli I wear on the bike has certainly been more expensive than the H&M (from the aughts, some of that stiff actually lasts!) I wear to the office.
Indeed, the only reason anyone would get Campag is status ;) (Di2 all the way here...)
Regarding Castelli though.. The Perfecto and Gabba are so much (technically) better for cold/wet weather than anything else I'm not sure that status matters.
There is nothing wrong with physical possession like this pen. It just depends on what you make of them.
There are guys who are just pen enthusiasts, and own these pens because it's their passion. They are often very interesting guys, like living encyclopedia of pens.
They are some who like to own something precious as an extension of themselves. It's their pen, they have memories associated with it. Maybe they bought it when they finished their studies, or it was given by someone dear, or maybe it was carefully chosen because it matches ones personality. Pulling out this pen gives them feelings that a disposable BIC doesn't.
Or maybe this pen was bought as a form of support. Because the owner maybe thinks that he should reward companies that do things by hands, or use certain materials or design, reasoning that if they don't buy, on one will, and this way of doing things will disappear.
And this physical possession is not just a meaningless lump of material. More often then not, it is the result of hard work. I am often amazed at the engineering and craftsmanship behind everyday items. Even good marketing is worthy of respect.
Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless.
Have you thought this through, to the point where you have a cut-off?
Is it the cheapest? Is a 12-cent biro vain, because there's a 10-cent biro?
Is it a $10 fountain pen, because you could have bought a cheap BIC? Is a $30 fountain pen OK, but a $50 fountain pen is shallow and meaningless? Where do you draw the line?
It's a personal thing. I have two pens that where ~$200 each. I do not think I would ever spend more. Another item like this would be a watch. I love watches, but I will never buy the one I really want (it's not over the top at around $8k) because I cannot justify to myself morally that number. I would always look at it and think what that money could do if I gave it to charity (my wife and I setup a charity fund after my last startup hit). Walking into the schools in Menlo Park and PA where they bus kids over from East PA and finding the cards on the tree at Christmas where a kid just wants a pair of shoes is always a reality check for this bubble we live in called Silcon Valley. For us, we always make sure that there are no cards on tree by Christmas. I guess that is my cut-off.
That being said, these pens are a work of art and as such I have a great deal of apprication for them and their creators.
There is no cut-off line because symbolic capital is not something that has a mathematical formula. The ways in which people express status varies from social group to group, and from situation to situation. The idea that a claim is only valid if it is a closed proposition that applies under all circumstances is a bad one. You need to undertake an ethnography, sociological study, etc., to understand how commodities function in cultural hierarchies in any particular case.
The ways in which people express status varies from social group to group
So does this notion only apply to people who demonstrate this status? Does it apply to someone who buys an expensive fountain pen, keeps it in their desk drawer, and uses it to write, but doesn't talk/boast about it?
It seems a bit of a sweeping statement to claim that owning a pen is vain, and could use a bit more clarification/justification to show the basis for making a claim like that. If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociological studies, then wouldn't it be appropriate to cite those when making such a claim?
Without that, such a claim could justifiably be described as reverse snobbery.
I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'. I said that one can only understand its cultural significance through careful sociological reflection. That is a truism to me.
"If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociological studies, then wouldn't it be appropriate to cite those when making such a claim?"
I think you might have wrong end of the stick. I have no idea if there are any studies on the cultural capital of pens. The point is a general methodological one - we can only understand the 'status' that any given commodity is supposed to possess by first investigating the particular ways in which it functions in a definite social group.
"So does this notion only apply to people who demonstrate this status?"
Everyone is always 'demonstrating status' all of the time so I hardly think this is enough to condemn someone.
But to get to the point: obviously buying a $4000 pen is a conspicuous symbol of status by which to differentiate yourself from other people. IMO it is utterly grotesque: in a world based on radical inequality where billions of people live miserable, indigent lives, buying a pen for that amount suggests that you care more about appearing to be rich that about helping anyone. It is a farcical, individualist act of petty self-congratulation.
My comment referred to the GP's statement: Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless.
When I ask "Where is the cut-off", it's to prompt thought, to draw out an answer to the question: where is that cut-off?
"obviously buying a $4000 pen…is utterly grotesque"
So where should the cut-off be? Is it $3500? $350? Where does the price of a pen become grotesque? If $4000 is obviously grotesque, where does that value statement become less obvious? Isn't that worth thinking about?
Another aspect to that debate are those who didn't buy the pen. For example, those gifted it in a will, or who win it as a prize. Or even of those who do buy it, perhaps an aspiring writer, who spends the entirety of their advance on this pen - not to signify or demonstrate their wealth - but as relief that they've finally been signed, as proof to themselves that they're not an imposter. Sure, it might not be the most practical use of their money, but does it justify the ad hominem of "grotesque"?
Yes, there is vast inequality in the world, and $4000 would be an enormous amount of money to a vast number of people. But if that's the argument, it doesn't matter whether it's a pen, a car, a house, a painting, an antiquity, a rare MtG card; the argument simply becomes: is it grotesque to spend $X when there's a cheaper alternative?
OK, there's two things here. First, the symbolic capital of a pen. Second, its role in political economy.
IMO both are relevant to the evaluation of anybody who buys the $4000 pen. There is a distributional element (the money is better spent on those who actually need it), an ideological element (you live in a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities), a cultural element (you are playing a status game in which useless things are feted), and a character element (the third & to some extent first of these things suggests that those who buy $4000 pen's are terrible, vain people)
I already addressed why I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. But clearly (in my mind, anyway) in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque.
the symbolic capital of a pen…
(a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities)…
(a status game in which useless things are feted).
To me, a pen is utilitarian, not useless. I can see how the additional usefulness of a $4000 pen Vs a $400 pen could theoretically be questioned, but having no experience of using either, I wouldn't like to argue that case.
I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual.
The reason I'm specifically questioning this is that your responses seem to demonstrate an axiomatic answer: $4000. That figure (and presumably any amount above $4000) is, in your words, "obviously utterly grotesque", but there's no indication how you came to that figure.
in the global political, economic and cultural conditions
in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque
Are you saying that for everyone, the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque? That context does not matter once the sum reaches $4000? I appreciate there may be shades of gray, but is there a range where you would start to challenge this? Say, 10 times the median price for a pen in that particular location? What's justifying that figure of $4000, other than "it's obvious"?
When it comes to challenging behaviour, and especially describing certain behaviour as "grotesque", it feels like there might be a better way to separate them.
The numbers matter when it comes to discussing (and influencing/lobbying) policy. The world's richest 8 people have the same wealth as 50% of the world's population [1]. Is that grotesque? Bill Gates uses some of that wealth to help some of the poorest people in the world. Does that offset his grotesque wealth? Does that justify it?
In the USA, a CEO earns 2,617 times the average salary for American workers [2]. Is that grotesque?
In the UK, the average FTSE100 CEO earns 129 times their average employee. 20 years ago, that figure was only 45 times, or roughly a third of the current inequality [2]. Which is fairer? What could be done to make things more fair?
These questions and discussions are important, because they can inform policy. For example, tax rates and bands - such as 90% tax rate on earnings over $X (which has been done in the past, but seems to be politically untenable at the moment). If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure.
I am not formulating policy, so I need not act as such.
Pen's are not useless. But the clear implicature of what I said is that the functional difference between an ordinary pen and a $4000 pen is negligible such that the $4000 pen is useless given that fact (i.e. one might as well go ahead and use a normal pen).
That is not an axiomatic answer, it's my answer under the present state of things (I was explicit on that point).
I don't really understand the point of this pedantry? I think all of the things you list are fairly grotesque. But I don't have any great interest in wandering from a discussion about conspicuous consumption to one about tax policy. To be frank: I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly.
"If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure."
I have already given you a rationale. To claim otherwise is supercilious. You may not like it; but there is one.
Since youre frank:
>I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly.
It would be prudent to articulate the specifics in order to deliteate alternatives to capitalism. This would be "formulating policy", or "pedantry". You can't have it both ways. If you just want your argument to be heard and not discuss the specifics then say just that: "I don't care about the specifics, I know how i feel about it already."
The amount of gibberish you just produced is astonishing.
You're absolutely unable to give a rationale despite your claims. So reading your posts, I'm still unsure if we should we all get the cheapest option we can get for anything because money can be "better spent helping others" or not. Is buying a car that is not the cheapest one available also a "farcical, individualist act of petty self-congratulation." ? Is it impossible to fulfill altruistic as well as personal goals ?
Also, why would money be better spent on "those who actually need it" (no definition is provided, from your stance and hate of wealth I'd guess people that can't afford 4000$ pens) than on elite craftmanship ? Do these craftsman, who produce something you're actively interested in (creating some kind of bond) not deserve money for their art ? Better give it away to something you have no emotional bound to ?
>To be frank: I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly.
Oh, really ? What a surprise ! A sadly common trait amongst hateful and judgemental people who show blatant inconsistencies coupled with a compulsive need to press reply.
If you think anything I said was gibberish then demonstrate it; don't hand-wave at it.
I have given a rationale. It was not especially complicated but, then, this is a thread on hacker, and not a manifesto. I don't see why identifying a paradigm case of conspicuous consumption requires that I offer either a comprehensive program of public policy, or a normative philosophy of what one should and should not buy. I can perfectly well defend the proposition that people who buy $4000 pens are doing something terrible on its own terms. Which I have been doing.
My position is straightforward: there are reasons based on cultural capital, and on political economy, for the proposition that those who buy these pens are worthy of contempt. I broke these down as follows above:
1. Distributional: in that the $4000 pen is functionally useless relative to a pen 1/100th its price, and that we live in a world of palpable inequality where billions of people live in misery, to buy the pen is to suggest that you think very little about other human beings
2. Ideological: This is a little more complicated. I have the view that capitalism is a system that has an inherent drive to inculcate the desire for commodities, whether or not they are especially useful or not. This is a kind of genetic argument (you have the desire because and only because of the economic conditions in which you live), and an ideological argument (that desire is created by and supports capitalism; it helps to perpetuate a very unjust set of relations by giving you highly distorted preferences).
3. Cultural: these kinds of items are part of a cultural game of symbolic capital played among the super-rich, by virtue of the fact that they have everything (and more) than anyone could possibly need, and need to find some other way of differentiating themselves from others. It has much the same function as buying branded clothes - the desired property is not the clothing, but the status that comes with it.
4. The above 1-3 suggest that whoever buys a $4000 pen is a shallow person who doesn't care about other humans, and who is unduly concerned with their social status within a sub-culture of similarly noxious people.
"Oh, really ? What a surprise ! A sadly common trait amongst hateful and judgemental people who show blatant inconsistencies coupled with a compulsive need to press reply."
Again, if you think that I am somehow inconsistent then demonstrate it. Don't just allege it. I don't really see what the word 'judgmental' is doing here. Yes, I have an evaluative take on conspicuous consumption - this seems like a fairly standard kind of evaluative thought. Do you not evaluate the social world? The allegation that I have a 'compulsive need to press reply' is also rather strange. I have replied once to each reply to me.
I am not hateful. We just live in a very unjust world.
> So where should the cut-off be? Is it $3500? $350?
This kind of debate tactic always puzzles me, forcing a binary state on an opinion. The quoted bit even implies a spectrum, given the adjective 'utterly'.
I can't imagine you saying the same to a friend who said "I went for a very long drive last weekend" > "What's the cutoff for long? 50 miles? 100 miles?"
Shades are OK too. For example: "$4000 is grotesque, $400 is sketchy, anything above $100 could potentially be justified, and below $100 is safe territory".
It doesn't have to be binary, but when someone states a certain figure - "$4000 is obviously grotesque" - then a binary state has already been established. $4000 and above is grotesque, below is, well, possibly grotesque, possibly not. Uncertain, clearly. That seems a sensible starting point for a discussion, to understand what makes $4000 grotesque, and does it also apply to $3000, $2000 - to understand the rationale for such a statement.
I can't imagine you saying the same to a friend who said
"I went for a very long drive last weekend"
> "What's the cutoff for long? 50 miles? 100 miles?"
I can imagine asking "So how long is long?"
I grew up in mid Cornwall, where a trip to Plymouth (55 miles) was generally considered a long drive. These days, I consider driving to Chamonix (780 miles) a long-ish drive, and to Istanbul a properly long drive. So knowing that my idea of a "long drive" has changed over time, and knowing my notion could easily differ from theirs, yes, I'd easily ask what they considered a long drive.
When you buy something, part of the money you forfeit is used to pay for the resources used (including labor) and the rest is profit. Only the first part is actually negative for the world, the second is merely an accounting line, a delegation of some of your power to someone else. As these pens are likely to have a huge profit margin, the actual negative impact is small, and most of the money remains, ready to be used for the alleviation of the indigent.
By the way, I never bought a product for showing off in my life. Wait, I lie: I bought a $30 tshirt because it had a cool version of the Debian logo. But otherwise, I don't have anything to rationalize :)
I meant that using up those resources to make an ornate pen is the negative for the world. The use of the word "paying" is just because the person is buying it, not making it themselves.
I should make it concrete with an example. Say someone buys a $4000 pen, which has a 75% profit margin. Those $3000 were not wasted, they just moved from the buyer's bank account to the company owner's bank account, which could use them for anything, including helping the poor.
Meanwhile, the $1000 went to pay for actual resources that were used up, and so in the POV that these pens are useless compared to helping the poor, that's the actual waste.
I'm not sure about this. What is 'attractive' about the pen is that it involves highly valued scarce resources (so much so that, we are told, they have to import more from China). And it involves skilled labour. That doesn't seem a small cost. Lots of prized luxury goods - e.g. sports cars - take up highly skilled labour that, in the counter-factual, could do a lot of good. Also, the type of people who own these companies generally use the money to re-invest, or to purchase useless things for themselves.
In your hypothetical, there's an (arguably) beautiful pen in the world, now, which wasn't there before. Surely that must have some value?
Otherwise, all forms of human endeavor are kind of pointless and a net negative for the world, right? If we only count the costs and ignore the product of the work?
The person who was saying it was negative was Emma_Goldman above, who decried the purchase of a $4000 pen in a world where billions of people live miserable, indigent lives.
What I'm saying is, it's not so bad, because of those $4000, most of it was just moved to someone else's bank account, the actual use of resources was small. Effectively, the buyer just delegated the power of alleviating poverty with that money to someone else.
I don't know, I'm writing books, do science for a living, make music (2 albums out), and write software, but I also enjoy researching, buying and owning good and sometimes rare products such as waterproof socks, mechanical keyboards, notebooks with numbered pages, fountain pens, semi-expensive watches, special bags, etc. -- within my financial limits, of course.
You don't have to choose one or the other, that would be a false dichotomy.
TWSBI is Taiwanese (or perhaps Chinese), and have a certain reputation for structural failures particularly involving the section. Of course, I have a Vac700 because, hey, vacuum filler.
It's hard to beat a Pilot Metropolitan at ~$15 (which is a Japanese pen), although many higher-end pens are prettier (and I tend to prefer lighter pens). But the Parker Vacuumatic is the best looking pen ever made.
Pilot 78g beats Pilot Metro in weight and nib quality, in my opinion, though metros are prettier on the whole. I'm particularly fond of the B and BB variations.
I think wanting and having Nakaya is totally legit. Like you, I am happy with my TWSBI's, Lamy's and WingSung's as of late. Pilot does have special place in my heart (vanishing point).
I see fountain pens and notebooks as inexpensive hobby and fascination that I really enjoy. So yeah, go TWSBI you can't go wrong.
Not entirely, and that doesn't account for the rise in sales. Paradoxically, the destruction of handwriting by computers may have benefited some fountain pen makers. As most everyday writing tasks are now computerised, writing by hand is increasingly becoming an activity for special, often personal occasions such as writing a journal entry. Now that the task has become rarefied, it occupies a different part of the mind which attaches a higher and perhaps more ritualised value to its tools. The experience is now done for pleasure not utility, and so the implements should be as joyful to use as possible. The emotional attachment to the activity justifies the disproportionate money and time spent on it (as is typical of recreational activities).
Oh my, this brings back memories that still impact me today. Growing up, finding that perfect pen was sort of a hobby and artform. I suppose part of it was growing up in the 90s, trying to do Pen & Ink drawing, calligraphy, and writing all day. The current analog is searching for the perfect keyboard. While wasteful on first blush, it truly is the most utilitarian decision you can make when measured for optimizing tools.
There really is something horrible about cheap pens, and nothing is worse than a pen that looks expensive yet writes cheaply... for those who don't know what I'm talking about, when lines matter, little things like skipping, shaking, and uneven lines become massive aggravations, no matter how minute they seem to a casual observer.
With all that said, I'm not so into writing implements that I'd want to drop hundreds or thousands of dollars on a pen. I'd need a lot more convincing to believe that extra money is worth it.
I don't think it's a "growing up in the '90s thing" per se. I did exactly the same thing in 2012, when I was 15. My penmanship never got all that good, but certainly it got better than the awful state it was in before. I also started studying Japanese, which gave me thousands of discrete reasons to use the my penmanship.
I never got too obsessed with the equipment though, decent paper (the stuff that doesn't gunk up on the nib) and a Lamy Safari (EF nib) were perfectly adequate.
"The current analog is searching for the perfect keyboard."
Sounds like we have been on a similar journey (typing this on a Corsair K95). I still enjoy finding a really good pen, but they rarely cost more than 10-20 usd and I mostly use them for sketching UI. If only there was a keyboard equivalent to The Pilot G2 0.7.
I used to write with Cello Maxriters but at some point they became too thin and uncomfortable for me. Then I discovered G2 0.7 – and for the next 8 years (2 in high school and 6 in the uni) I refused to write with anything but them. When I couldn't find refills I just bought new pens (plural). Eventually, they started to miss from the local shops but at the same time, I started to write less with a pen and more with a keyboard.
I still have packs of red, black and even green refills in a box somewhere in my house.
I've never understood why people like G2s. They always feel a bit scratchy to me. I prefer 207 0.38s, which are about as scratchy as G2 0.7s, but with a much thinner tip (207 0.7s are much smoother than both 207 0.38s and G2 0.7s).
The thing with 'cheap pens' is that they work and aren't messy. They can sit in drawers for years and with a little coaxing will write once again.
They might not be 'pleasant' to write with, but writing is such a passive task to people they don't notice or care.
I've gifted people starter fountain pens on occasion, if there job involves lots of writing. Very few actually got into it, and just stuck to cheap Bics, since they always worked with no issue. And the only Montblancs I've ever seen in the wild were Roller Balls, though I suppose Doctor's scratch the tool doesn't matter.
-
The keyboard analogy is nice. Since people often hunt for vintage fountain pens like old Model M's. And I suppose a keyboard's just a modern pen.
Having inked in mechanical drawings, even with good Rapidograph pens, it sucked.
There's a reason that AutoCAD was incredibly successful in the 1980s. Any CAD system was at least an order of magnitude faster than pen and ink drafting.
If you are interested in an inexpensive practical fountain pen, you should look into the Lamy Safari. It is easy to maintain, writes smoothly, and feels good in the hand. It is my every day pen.
Quick drying "document" inks are also good for everyday use. They don't fade or smear.
I can't believe that Lamy Safari is still on market. I used mine up to Abitur (German A-levels) and must have bought it almost 20 years ago. By the end of grammar school I found Online Rollerball, which is a ballpoint pen with standard ink and ink cartridges. I still buy the latter from time to time.
As for ballpoint pens, during stays in Japan I accumulated a small collection of multi-color ballpoint pens with extra thin tips, most of them from Mitsubishi. Small sketches and notes tend to look a bit tidier and the thin Japanese pens made for kanji writing are superior for this. Also changing colors is quite nice for note-taking.
+1 for the Lamy Safari. It's an excellent writer, and if you lose one (an everyday hazard with an everyday pen), it's going to have cost you about 20 USD.
See also Sailor and TWSBI for good everyday fountain pens.
Question for the Lamy and TWSBI users: Does it work as an "in-your-pocket" pen? In other words, can I use it on the go, or is it meant to be kept at a desk?
In short, yes. Both are very dry with extra fine nib i.e. less ink on paper and dry very fast, both are affordable and you won't mind having on scratch on.
I might want to consider Pilot metropolitan too.
The importance of paper quality depends on which ink you're using. I like Noodler's Black, because it writes well even on cheap paper. It starts reliably and it doesn't feather (spread horizontally) or bleed through the paper easily. I've tried many other inks, trading samples with other fountain pen users, and I never found anything else so trouble-free.
Ink spread and feathering on cheap paper is unfortunate and frustrating. I would also add pretty much any pigment or iron gall-based ink to your suggestion. Unlike dye-based inks, i.e. the vast majority of your vibrant colors on the market, these contain tiny particles that are (with a little bit of oversimplification) permanently trapped in the cellulose fibers of paper as you write. The end results is that these inks are waterproof and don't show the dreaded feathering/bleeding on cheaper paper. I recommend the Rohrer and Klingner Salix and Scabiosa, two inexpensive iron gall inks (blue-black and purple-gray), Sailor Kiwa Guro and Sei Boku (pigmented black and blue) and the Platinum pigmented inks (available in blue, red and black IIRC). The Salix and Sei Boku have worked wonderfully for me on copier paper with no clogging/cleaning issues so far.
I have a Mont Blanc fountain pen, which I want to use as my main pen but cannot due to the ink spreading and bleeding through cheap notebook paper. Thank you for the ink suggestion.
I should point out that I use a Lamy Safari, which has moderate ink flow. If your Mont Blanc is an exceptionally wet writer, and you don't want to get the nib adjusted, you might want to try Noodler's X Feather, which is a version of Noodler's Black with even lower feathering (at the cost of longer drying time). But I suspect the drying time could be annoying, because Noodler's Black is already somewhat slow drying.
I enjoy writing with my fountain pens (I own a Lamy Safari and a Pilot Metro). But, there are some real-word gotchas:
If you travel, large increases in elevation will make the pen burp up some ink. So I always pack mine in a separate baggie wrapped in some tissue paper.
If you run out of ink, refilling it on the go is a royal pain in the ass. Once a fountain pen becomes your daily writer, you need to have a spare pen on hand. The Lamy has a convenient window to indicate the ink level, but it isn't 100% reliable. Personally I just use a nice gel pen that is wet enough for my taste as my backup.
Lamy cartridges are expensive. Expensive enough that I've switched my Lamy over to piston fill with a so-called "converter" to use a bottle of ink that should last years. OTOH, Pilot/Namiki cartridges are very inexpensive and I still use those in my Pilot Metro.
As an in-your-pocket pen I'd recommend a Kaweco Sport pen [1]. They are smaller than standard fountain pens and some of them come in metal with a cap that can be screwed on. I wouldn't recommend the tiny converter (aka refiller) for them, however, they are hard to use without getting ink on your hands. Cartridges are better.
This story caused me to re-activate mine and a few other fountain pens I haven't used in a while.
A bit more expensive ($30), but the TWSBI Eco is excellent and highly recommended by the fountain pen community. I traded up from a Pilot Metropolitan recently and use it daily now. Lamy Safari is generally recommended as well.
Used to use Parkers and Watermans (Watermen?), got a Safari a few years ago and upgraded to a 2000 (rather more expensive piston-filler). Now I've got 3 (in a mix of nibs and stainless steel/Macrolan).
And if you want to move up toward the top of the heap without totally breaking the bank a Lamy 2000 is worth checking out. Great nib out of the box, but can be tuned to perfection for a bit more $$.
For real inexpensive, try a Jinhao x750. I have one with a Fine nib and with that single pen I can get every width represented in a set of Micron technical pens. Currently using a bottle of Parker Quink from my local Staples. Addictive hobby!
What other quality pen could one recommend if I would like to get one and not spend a fortune on ones like these? By no means they look and feel probably great, but I'm simply not in their target market. However, from my young years I remember owning few Parker pens, few Pelikan and one or two Waterman. I remember enjoying ones with a 'buttery smooth' writing feeling most (don't really know how to describe it other way) and hating scraping pointy ones. I don't care about gold finish at all, but solid wood or not-cheap plastic would be great.
Lamy Safari [1] is generally considered a good "starter" pen. I love them and they aren't too expensive. It is big enough that it is hard to lose, so if you keep it for like a year or two+, it'll end up being cheaper than ballpoints.
You might want to look at different nibs though, to find the right amount of fineness you want.
I've been using disposable Pilot Varsity fountain pens. They're perfectly decent, medium nib pens that write smoothly. I've never had one leak or stain my fingers, and you don't have to mess with refills.
I had given up on fountain pens, as I always had problems with them clogging or leaking or just not being able to find refills. The Varsity has me using fountain pens again.
At about $2/per, there's no reason not to give them a try to see if you like them.
I'd suggest trying out the Pilot Metropolitan, in a Medium nib.
It's not an _Amazing_ pen, but it's got a nice solid brass body, the quality control is very consistent), it's a nice consistent writer, and they sell on Amazon for ~$12.
If you don't think it's amazing I'd really appreciate your recommendations for my "next level" pen, because I got the Metropolitan and _love_ it. I've bought three already; it's also one of the first I've found flows beautifully even though I'm left-handed. (I prefer the fine nib, that said)
Its harder to recommend a second step pen, as it depends more on personal taste. There's two facets to what you get as you step up the price ranges - fancier nibs, and fancier bodies.
Fancier bodies is almost entirely a style thing - if you want a certain look, you can pay for it.
Nibs is a trickier thing. The "solid gold nib" thing isn't just marketing, there's actual advantages to it - mostly an opportunity to make the nib "softer" as it bends and flexes slightly as you write. This is very much a taste thing as well, but a much more difficult one to judge online! Different brands will generally have house "feels" - Lamy is a popular entry brand, and tends to make all their nibs super stiff, with almost no flex. Pilot or Sailors stlye tends to run softer.
It's also worth mentioning that Japanese brands almost all run one size "finer", so if you're looking for a nib from a European company like Lamy or Pelican that's around the size of the pilot fine, order an extra fine.
All that said, possibly my favorite nib is the pilot vanishing point, which is ~$120. I don't think there's much in the < $100 range that's significantly better than the metropolitan. I'm also a big fan of Sailor and Visconti's fancier nibs, but that's up a considerable price band.
For me, I've tried a few pricier ones, and didn't like any more than the Metropolitan. But YMMV. What may work for you:
TWSBI Eco. People talk about how smooth it is but I found mine to be scratchy (which may not bother you because you like the Metro Fine and I found it scratchy as well). Be warned, you cannot fill it using a syringe.
Another option is the Jinhao X450, but use a Goulet nib instead of the Jinhao nib.
The next level for me is a Pilot Falcon. The nib has a ton of smooth flex that allows for beautiful line width variation. It is spendy, and the extra fines are hard to come by in the states.
I'll second the Pilot Metropolitan. Of all the pens I've liked, it is the cheapest and the best experience.
Also, definitely do get the Medium nib. The Fine will feel scratchy. And keep in mind the Pilot Medium is almost the same as a Fine in the US/Europe.
Your bigger challenge is finding suitable paper to write on. It affects whether you get feathering or bleeding. To a smaller extent it that will affect smoothness. My favorite is the Figurare notebooks. Clairefontaine is also decent. In general, I don't see a correlation between price of notebook and fountain pen friendliness. I've bought decent cheap notebooks from Office Depot, but the exact same "model", in larger size paper, was crap.
Lamy make pretty nice fountain pens. I have a Lamy 2000 (my go to fountain pen) and a Lamy Dialog (I think; the one with the retractable nib, which is a neat trick).
Check Goulet Pens (https://www.gouletpens.com/) --- there should be a fair amount of information around there and they have a great series of YouTube videos.
Recent Parker fountain pens are pretty meh, in my opinion. Pelican has a good line, as do a number of Japanese makers (Pilot and Sailor are two). And here's my ad for my favorite current American maker, Franklin-Christoph (http://www.franklin-christoph.com/). If you have a pen show nearby, they'll probably have a big booth where you can try all of their pens, all of their nibs, and get one tuned by their tame nibmeister, Mike Masuyama. Not terribly expensive, either.
Then there's a world of Chinese and Indian manufacturers. Whoo. Let's not go there.
You will find very few good pens involving wood---it's not a great material---in fact, none, except for kits from new wood turners. Those are cheap brass pens with an expensive decorative wooden tube glued on.
I have a Nakaya. I bought it to celebrate a promotion at work. It is far and away my most expensive fountain pen. I have pens ranging from $1 to $750. I use the Nakaya daily and enjoy it.
I used to write with a fountain pen a lot, they're really nice to write with. Most of my writing now is math though, and I've found that fountain pens aren't the best for that. I really like the Sakura Pigma Micron pens though. I think that they're made for artists, but I've found them really nice as a general pen. I specifically get the 05.
Which angle can you still use to reliably write with an 05 Sakura Pigma Micron? I had one and had to hold it almost upright, otherwise started to skip and scratch.
Copic Multiliner SP range didn't have this issue. Maybe I just had a defective/dried up Micron.
I've never had issues with writing. I've doodled with one occasionally, and have run into issues then. Checking it now, it seems fine at a 45d angle. It does require more pressure at smaller angles, but my normal writing pressure feels fine. I normally write at a 70d angle for reference.
I didn't know Copic made pens. I've heard really good things about their markers so I'll have to try one out.
I'm surprised there's no mention of Hero fountain pens. They were cheap and really good workhorses. I used them for a long until switching to gel ink pens when I started college.
I have a Montblonc fountain pen that was my father's and made in West Germany :). It's neat to write with, but extremely messy (I'm a lefty). I wrote a few sentences with it about 20 years ago and haven't used it since.
Honestly, I'd like to try a feather and inkwell just to see how people wrote way back when, but haven't ever gotten around to it.
Everybody should learn to write using either fountain pen or at least good gel ink pen (like 3-5€ Pilot G-2 gel ink pen). Using standard ballpoint pen makes you hate handwriting.
The idea of fountain pen is to put the pen down on the paper and move it around without the need to press the pen against the paper. Invention of ballpoint pen was move backwards in ergonomy and most people don't realize that this happened, they just hate writing in general.
Thank you, I had to scroll down to this comment to realize why people cared about fountain pens. I think I have without knowing it preferred pencils, and the use/availability ratio of pens in my home/workplace is so low that I have never thought of buying one.
German here. The second we were allowed to use ballpoint pens, I stopped using fountain pens. The same goes for writing in cursive. As a result my cursive looks like a fourth-grader's.
I stopped with pencils as soon as I learned to type on a mechanical typewriter in school. Well, as much as I was allowed to, teachers were much happier when they were able to read whar I wrote :)
I bought a pack of fountain pens last year. Plastic, so cheap feel in many ways. Though, it has been a long time since I used a pen that wasn't plastic. The few gimmick wooden ones actually feel more cheap.
A "plus" for these, they are easily refillable and use the same ink as the "parallel" pens that are fun for calligraphy.
Maybe try to get a Lamy Safari, <20€/$28.
Takes both prefilled cartridges or fill it by yourself with a converter Z24/Z28. Plastic body feels solid, especially the matte variants (like Charcoal Black).
There's your problem right there. You can get very high quality fountain pens for a LOT less than the $5k that a Nakaya pen costs. But they aren't sold in packs.
Apologies for not making it clear, the pens I have are quite nice to write with. I recommend them quite heavily for anyone that does not care for standard pens you get most anywhere else.
Are there easy to get high quality pens elsewise? Probably. But these really are good entry level pens that give me delight to use.
I expect there are a lot of craftsmen anticipating the [anachronism] renaissance at this very moment. Most of them will be wrong and I guess we'll write about the ones who guessed right.
I don't see how this company is an example of anything but survival bias. Hindsight makes them geniuses.
In other news, it's been shown that in a world rising income inequality, selling bespoke goods to the rich is still a viable way to make a profit. Helps to include a lot of words explaining the provenance of the bits and pieces.
Veblen goods are types of luxury goods for which the quantity demanded increases as the price increases, an apparent contradiction of the law of demand.
The old desire of building your identity around what you own instead of what you do is not going anywhere. Good for them picking up the extra money people have.
Of course Nakaya pens are good writing pens, but the quality of pen as a tool levels around $50-$70 price mark. Extra is just collecting expensive shit. I have Japanese fountain pen that costs $60 and any more expensive pen I have tested is no better, just different. Good nib and mechanism is not rocket science. https://www.twsbi.com