Favourite nibs

[AAAndrew]

+1 for the Esterbrook A1... it really is an A1 nib! The prices for these are climbing though..

I saw a box of 120 of these nibs just went for $344. Woah!

[tiffany.c.a]

About the Esterbrook A1, love 'em. I started with that nib before I knew any better. My first calligraphy teacher was an older gentleman who taught a beginner's course at a community school. He gave us an A1 nib to use. I guess he saw I was taking a liking to pointed pen so (thank goodness) he gave me a couple extra. I had no idea then that they were vintage.

Now that I know, I try to take good care of them and am almost afraid to use them too much! I really like how they write.
I think I remember him saying that he had a lot of them, but that was in 2004. Wish I had bought some from him.

[andy277]

The other day I came across some Hunt 101.. vintage ones? I am not familiar with their history, but it's not the Hunt Imperial 101 you get these days.. these ones are marked Hunt 101 but it has a small silver cross grinding strip across it, which is how I know it must be vintage. But they are amazing! Very snappy and flexible, and delightful to use. I would never have expected it from a 'Hunt' name.

Actually, they may well have been current production. The 101s are still made today with cross-grinding. I imagine it’s automated but each nib is individually ground. They redesigned the 101 sometime over the last couple of years and it’s not as easy to see the grinding as it was on the previous model but it’s there. It’s the only nib I know of that still has this, though having said that I personally don’t think it’s better than stamping grooves. (Stamping is obviously going to be more consistent and the cross-grinding experiments I’ve carried out haven’t shown it to have any pronounced effect on a nib’s flexibility.) The 101 was a good nib before and the redesign has made it a great nib. Unfortunately, it’s not a really fine nib, so you won’t get the hairlines of a Gillott 303, but it’s got great flexibility (easily as flexible as a Principality, if not more so), so it’s a perfect nib for those really heavy Madarasz-style shades. This nib is a perfect counter to those who claim that they don’t make nibs as good as they used to.

[Sheehan1]

. This nib is a perfect counter to those who claim that they don’t make nibs as good as they used to.
[/quote]

Can anyone tell me which nib besides Hunt that are still being produced. Also I would appreciate some advice as to any that may have fine hairlines and flexibility.

[andy277]

There are lots of nibs in current production – just go to John Neal and look at their listings. if you want the finest hairlines, nothing beats a modern Gillott 303. It’s flexible but not super flexible and is perfect for Spencerian and copperplate. As I noted above, the Hunt 101 is the nib to buy if you want to do really big shades. The Leonardt EF Principal is another well liked modern fine and flexible nib. I used to use that nib all the time but I’ve gone over to the 303 and the 101 now. It’s more flexible than the 303 but not as sharp (and a lot more expensive).

[AndyT]

The 303's unassuming kid sister, the 170, is good value too.  The hairlines aren't as fine as with a 303 (which is about as good as it's going to get unless you fancy messing about with crowquills or litho pens), but it's a nice flexible pen which is more tolerant of less than fantastic paper.  My choice for cheap envelopes.

[AnasaziWrites]

The 303's unassuming kid sister, the 170, is good value too.  The hairlines aren't as fine as with a 303 (which is about as good as it's going to get unless you fancy messing about with crowquills or litho pens), but it's a nice flexible pen which is more tolerant of less than fantastic paper.  My choice for cheap envelopes.

I guess you're speaking of modern nibs here.
Just for info's sake, regarding the oldest (and best) 303's and 170's, the one's that were hand ground, the 170 is the finer and both are hands down much superior nibs to their modern counterparts.

Here are some pictures of the vintage 303 (left) and 170 (right), with a principality at the top for comparison. The ground points were followed by points with stamped grooves--still very good, and then the modern ones (made for at least 35 years) which are not so hot. If you see 170's in a box like the one below, that's what holds the best ones.

[AndyT]

I guess you're speaking of modern nibs here.

Yes.  Of course I agree that the quality of the vintage versions is much better, but we'd got onto the subject of current production.  The modern 170 is a clearer cut case than the 303 in my experience since it's more tractable.  I've yet to get a new one which didn't behave itself, and as fine highly elastic nibs go, it puts the competition to shame at the price.  So it's a useful nib at an affordable price, and nowadays I prefer it to the Principal.  A box of old ones would be awfully nice, don't get me wrong, but prices are getting a little out of hand and I can work with what Gillott produces at the moment.

It's more difficult to call with the 303.  I do incline to andy277's view that the modern product is unrivalled for super-fine hairlines, except by the second vintage version and certain other so-called "dream nibs" which market forces have snatched beyond my reach.  Or to be more accurate, have placed such a premium on that I'd feel like a mug to pay the asking price.  I am not going there, full stop.  A box of the super fine, super flexible vintage 303s though ... conceivably that might come my way at a tolerable price, and if so that would that would definitely make my day.  I'm not holding my breath, however.  As it is, I have two of them, (and Schin to thank for those), and a pretty fair stock of the stiffer original version.  On the whole I'd prefer to put up with the modern point, for all its variability and downright contrariness if it gives me those hairlines at a price I can justify.

We all have to come to a compromise with this issue: you trade off quality and lifespan against availability and price.  I'm a lucky fella to have a stock of nice vintage nibs (somewhere ... don't ask, it's a long story), but these things are going to become more and more of a specialist commodity.  I don't subscribe to the notion that a bad tradesman blames his tools - whoever coined that phrase was no tradesman - and agree wholeheartedly that modern versions of old nib designs are pale imitations.  However, if the luxury version is beyond your means, you just have to get good with what you can afford.  Get me onto cabinetmakers' smoothing planes sometime - I'll bore you to sleep. 

[andy277]

Just for info's sake, regarding the oldest (and best) 303's and 170's, the one's that were hand ground, the 170 is the finer and both are hands down much superior nibs to their modern counterparts.

This is where I disagree; I have many vintage nibs and I see no loss of quality with a well-made modern nib. I do think there was better quality control in the old days, even if only because the nibs went through many more hands back then (which gave more chances for dud nibs to be weeded out), but in my experience the best of the nibs today are as good as the best of the nibs back then. However, we certainly don’t have the range of nibs that they did and the design of specific nibs has changed over time. Today’s 170, for example, is nowhere near as fine as the example you posted, but the 303 is. And the 303 has gone through several iterations (more than are listed in the Hurford article), but the current nib is a brilliant balance of extra fine and flexible.

As for cross-grinding, as I mentioned above, I’m not that convinced that it adds much to a nib. It didn’t affect the point (they were formed by the cutting out of the nib, not by individual hand grinding) and an examination shows that only a very small amount of steel was removed by this process. I’ve experimented doing my own cross-grinding and I can’t perceive any difference in performance as a result. Stamping grooves is much more consistent as well, so it may be that they changed not just because of efficiency but because it gave a more predictable result.

I truly believe that if the modern 303 had been made 100 years ago, people would be selling it for ridiculous prices and describing it as a ‘dream nib’. People rave about the Esterbrook 357, but I think the present Hunt 101 is a much better nib, and the Musselman Perfection and the Spencerian 1 can’t hold a candle to the modern 303 in my opinion. (In fact, I’ve long thought that the reason the Musselman is on the list of ‘dream nibs’ is simply because it’s the nib used by the originator of the list, not because it’s a particularly sought-after or great nib in its own right!)

[AnasaziWrites]

This is where I disagree; I have many vintage nibs and I see no loss of quality with a well-made modern nib. I do think there was better quality control in the old days, even if only because the nibs went through many more hands back then (which gave more chances for dud nibs to be weeded out), but in my experience the best of the nibs today are as good as the best of the nibs back then. However, we certainly don’t have the range of nibs that they did and the design of specific nibs has changed over time. Today’s 170, for example, is nowhere near as fine as the example you posted, but the 303 is.

I'm certainly happy to see some disagreement over what is a good/better/best nib. What's good for one may be not so good for another, so we're not all chasing the same nib. And as you mention, there are variations over time of the same nib, so one must be careful in reviewing a given nib to allude to what variation is under discussion. Below is a photo of the modern 303 on the left, and the pre-WW1 303 on the right (which is much finer).

I truly believe that if the modern 303 had been made 100 years ago, people would be selling it for ridiculous prices and describing it as a ‘dream nib’. People rave about the Esterbrook 357, but I think the present Hunt 101 is a much better nib, and the Musselman Perfection and the Spencerian 1 can’t hold a candle to the modern 303 in my opinion. (In fact, I’ve long thought that the reason the Musselman is on the list of ‘dream nibs’ is simply because it’s the nib used by the originator of the list, not because it’s a particularly sought-after or great nib in its own right!)

Again, great to see differing opinions.
In the interest of improving your nib collection  , if you should happen to run across a box or two of the Musselman's or early Spencerian 1's, I'll trade you an equal number of modern 303's for them.

[schin]

I thought I would chime in with some personal observations regarding modern and vintage nibs.

As mentioned, each nib writes differently. I find that personally, sometimes a nib forces me to write a certain way. A stiff nib forces me to slow down and use a more controlled movement, a flexy nib forces me to speed up and use a lighter hand. This affects my writing style especially if I did not have exposure to different kinds of nibs. Not sure if this is true for anyone else. I use a certain flexy nib for engrossers, a stiff nib for copperplate, a super flexy one for big lettering, and a tiny one for small writing, etc.

Therefore it is hard to quantify what makes a 'good' nib. If I had used nikko Gs all my life and developed a very controlled style, I would dismiss a brause rose right away because it doesn't suit my hand. I have a collection of many modern and vintage nibs, and have dismissed many of them as 'bad.' But over time I would try them again with new knowledge and realized they were actually pretty good, I was just using them in a way that doesn't suit that particular nib.

I don't think it is fair to call a nib good just by its ability to create a fine (thin) line. Both modern and vintage nibs have the ability to create thin lines, it's just a matter of a light hand. What does matter to me, and what causes me to call a nib GOOD is a nib's ability to create a quality line: smooth, snappy and responsive tines and the quality of the metal and pleasure in writing. I can probably write well with a low quality nib, but I wouldn't enjoy it, the metal would be scratchy, unresponsive, and a nightmare to get a good line out of. A good quality nib will be a pleasure to write with and add to my ability to coax good writing out of it.

It is true that vintage nibs go through higher quality control than modern nibs. I don't know what cross-grinding does to a nib, but it is an indication that this nib is probably much better quality than its modern counterparts, due to how much attention was given to its production. Which is why I tend to call vintage nibs good, as they are much more likely to be using good steel and quality control. However there are some modern nibs which are also very good quality, and even be comparable to vintage nibs. But some (if not most) of modern nibs are terrible quality indeed.

I find it hard to explain why some of us are so obsessive about vintage nibs. I find it is quite personal, similar to a search for good wine. To most, a regular bottle of wine from any shelf will suffice for a party (that is perfectly fine). But in our obsessive context, it is also about how the wine will pair with food, what region it is from, how rainy it was the year it was harvested, how it was stored, the age of the barrel used etc. Obsessive, but very personal and hard to explain, and comes from years of accumulated experience! Just because a connoisseur prefers a certain wine from 1910 doesn't mean it will appeal to everybody's palate (script).

Alas, a layman hears about the connoiseur's obsession with the 1910 wine and think, it must be good! And so the hunt begins for these rare items and prices go up whether or not the buyer appreciates it. Like a snowball effect, the notoriety and rarity spreads and one starts to develop an unusually high expectation, when in fact it is simply just one person's opinion and liking for the wine. Personally, I love and use vintage nibs as they are pleasurable to write with, but modern nibs are perfectly acceptable! Some amazing calligraphers today use modern nibs exclusively and create astounding work with them.

However, I thoroughly agree that Musselmans are terrible and not worth its box. If you ever come across a box of it I would like to offer you TWO boxes of modern 303s in exchange for those rubbish nibs!

[AndyT]

Modern spring steel will have a far more consistent analysis and heat treatment - that isn't the problem.  It's what you do with it.  Given skilled tool makers and machine setters, and decent quality control, there's no reason why a modern nib shouldn't be a better product than the vintage item, but unfortunately those are the costliest parts of the manufacturing process so they get targeted for corner-cutting.  With the kind of price escalation we're seeing now, the simple fact is that many of us are going to have to do our best with shoddy modern goods and put up with occasional duds.  This is part of the reason for my recent interest in quills: you get to do your own quality control.

[andy277]

I don't think it is fair to call a nib good just by its ability to create a fine (thin) line. Both modern and vintage nibs have the ability to create thin lines, it's just a matter of a light hand.

I don’t think anybody suggested that a good nib was simply one that created a fine line. But, while it’s true that modern and vintage nibs can create thin lines, the finest hairlines are not simply a matter of a light hand: the fineness of the point definitely comes into play here. For me, I concentrate on Spencerian and I prefer the style exemplified by penmen such as E A Lupfer, where exceptionally thin hairlines were contrasted with moderate shades. A good nib for me for Spencerian is therefore one that enables me to produce as fine lines and wide shades as these. The modern 303 does this. The Musselman Perfection and Spencerian 1 do not (they are demonstrably not as flexible nor as sharp).

I don't know what cross-grinding does to a nib, but it is an indication that this nib is probably much better quality than its modern counterparts, due to how much attention was given to its production.

In my opinion, the two don’t necessarily follow. Grinding was simply one of many steps in the production of nibs and doesn’t say anything about the care taken in the other steps. That said, the top-of-the-line nibs (like the Principality) may have had decorative grinding added for effect.

Which is why I tend to call vintage nibs good, as they are much more likely to be using good steel and quality control.

To my knowledge, despite it often being claimed that vintage nibs used better steel than modern nibs, nobody has ever offered any actual proof of this and it simply doesn’t pass the common sense test in my opinion. If anything, steel production is better than it was 100 years ago, and the high-carbon steel used for nibs is already a cheap steel, so there is no financial reason to replace it with something inferior. Furthermore, in The Steel Pen Trade (which covered nib production up to 1980), the author noted ‘The type of steel used in the manufacture of steel pens has not materially altered since the days of its invention’. Until someone produces evidence that modern nibs use inferior steel to vintage nibs, it remains a canard.

However, I thoroughly agree that Musselmans are terrible and not worth its box. If you ever come across a box of it I would like to offer you TWO boxes of modern 303s in exchange for those rubbish nibs!

If I had a box of them I would happily sell them to the highest bidder and replace them with modern 303s with no regrets whatsoever.

[AnasaziWrites]

I thought I would chime in with some personal observations regarding modern and vintage nibs.

This, my friends, is a quality post. Agree or disagree, this is why I love this forum.

[AndyT]

Until someone produces evidence that modern nibs use inferior steel to vintage nibs, it remains a canard.

Modern spring steel is fairly simple stuff, typically with just a small percentage of manganese, sulphur, silicon and phosphorous added.  Not enough to make any perceptible difference in a nib, I'd have thought.  There is, however, a lot of truth in the notion that old high carbon steel for cutting edges is superior, but that's a completely different story and has a lot to do with some obsolete manufacturing processes like repeated forging to modify the grain structure and quenching in baths of arsenic salts, for instance.  None of that is relevant here.