Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#111

Post by hessammehr »

mrob wrote: post #54
ijonas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve got both and they’re both excellent workhorses. I use Lamy mostly with Twsbi as alternatives for different inks. Paper is a bigger issue with fountain pens. Avoid Moleskine, choose Rhodia.

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.

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#112

Post by enord »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #88
manarth wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 '…

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…

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."

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#113

Post by myrandomcomment »

manarth wrote: post #41
winter_blue wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#114

Post by doctorstupid »

nabla9 wrote: post #19

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 collect…

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).

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#115

Post by pluma »

seszett wrote: post #79
Moru wrote: post #36

I believe kids in Germany are still learning to write with fountain-pens.

In France as well, though less often than in the past. Most pupils stop using them later on once they are allowed to use roller pens, though.

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.

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#116

Post by hycaria »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #88
manarth wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 '…

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…

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.

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#117

Post by Emma_Goldman »

hycaria wrote: post #116
Emma_Goldman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#118

Post by Retric »

mcguire wrote: post #97
Retric wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: A Japanese Pen Maker Anticipated the Fountain-Pen Renaissance

#120

Post by usrusr »

nl wrote: post #108
Emma_Goldman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

Not all non-required consumption is about status. Some people just like things. 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.
Post reply on HN