Does Size Make A Difference?

While browsing through a local Office Depot the other day I happened to see some Faber-Castell PITT Artist Pens. My eye fell upon the words on one of the packages: "Superfine Nib". Well that's all it took (for me to ask my lovely wife if I could spend the $2.00 asking price). Even before I got home I had the pen out of it's blister pack and was trying it out. It looked "Superfine" in the car but once I arrive home I immediately began to compare it to my other technical and non-technical porous point pens. That's when I discovered that "Superfine" wasn't as fine as I'd thought.

I was curious as to the actual line width of the pen so I hauled out all my other technical pens along with a few other porous point pens and started to do write with them all in an effort to determine the actual line width of the Faber Castell PITT. I was able to find out that it laid down a line similar to the Alvin TechLiner #03, The Sakura Pigma Micron #03, and the Pilot DR #03. The problem is the Alvin claims it makes a 0.3mm line, the Sakura claims it makes a 0.35mm line and the Pilot claims no line width at all. So which is it? Or am I splitting hairs? No matter. I drug out my trusty dial calipers and did some measuring.

I measured the diameter of the plastic coated fibrous tip in an effort to see what the relationship between shaft diameter and line width was. My results were surprising to say the least. It seems that in the world of porous point pens size is relative!

I measured 17 different pens and the
results are posted below. The pens tested were the Sakura Pigma Micron (SPM), the Pilot DR Drawing Pen (PDR), the Mitsubishi unipin Fine Line (MUP), the Kuretake Zig Millennium (KZM), the Alvin TechLiner Technical Drawing Pen (ATL), the Faber Castell PITT Artist Pen (FCP), the Saford Sharpie Pen (SSP), the Pilot V Razor (PVR) and the Sanford Liquid Expresso (SLE). Other abbreviations used, Line Width (LW), Tip Diameter (TD), Not Given (NG), Superfine (SF), Fine (F) and Extra Fine, (EF).


SPM #005, LW = 0.20mm, TD = 0.33mm. PDR #005, LW = NG, TD = 0.33mm. MUP #005, LW = NG, TD = 0.43mm. SPM #01, LW = 0.25mm, TD = 0.57mm. PDR #01, LW = NG, TD = 0.48mm. KZM #01, LW = NG, TD = 0.53mm. ATL #01, LW = 0.1mm, TD = 0.53mm. SPM #02, LW = 0.30mm, TD = 0.71mm. PDR #02, LW = NG, TD = 0.61mm. ATL #02, LW = 0.20mm, TD = 0.64mm. SPM #03, LW = 0.35mm, TD = 0.79mm. PDR #03, LW = NG, TD = 0.79mm. ATL #03, LW = 0.30mm, TD = 0.79mm. FCP SF, LW = NG, TD = 0.76mm. SSP F, LW = NG, TD = 0.79mm. PVR EF, LW = NG, TD = 0.76mm. SLE EF, LW = NG, TD = 0.76mm.

It appears that there is not much of a correlation between tip diameter and the size of the line the tip makes except that in general the greater the tip diameter the wider the line. With the notable exceptions of the #03 technical pens and the two Extra Fine non-technical pens none of the groups with the same reported size have the same tip diameter. The unipin, which has the finest line of the #005 pens has the largest diameter tip! In the #01 and #02 pens the Microns seem to have the largest diameter tip but lay down a line at least as equal in width as the others, if not finer.

As for the non-technical pens the Razor and the Expresso seem to make the same width line, while the Sharpie makes a slightly finer line. Yet the Sharpie has the larger diameter tip. There just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the size of the tip and the width of the line, at least in general. But tip width is only part of the story. It's the shape of the end of the tip that has a lot to do with the line width.

Two pens the same designated size can be and often are of different tip diameters yet they lay down the same width line, as we've seen. The reason for this is that the nose of the smaller diameter tip is blunter than the larger diameter tip, yet they booth have the same size opening in the plastic sheath that allows them to have the same line width. The advantage one design has over the other is debatable. One could argue that the larger diameter tip affords the tip greater strength yet the shaper nose is more easily crushed while the nose of the smaller diameter tip may be more crush resistant the smaller diameter tip is weaker over all. But in the long run, does it really matter? It might, as seen under the eye loupe some of the tips were considerably shorter than the others. This also has a factor in the over all strength of the tips.

So, does it really matter to you, the end user, if the tip on your porous point pen is larger in diameter than another of the same size? Or shorter? As long as they lay down the same width line then it shouldn't. But without a greater standardization of size designations I am afraid that we will be faced with slight variations in line width among the same size designation of pens for some time to come.

Sakura Pigma Micron vs Pilot DR Drawing Pen

Recently I was able to purchase a few technical pens. Namely four Sakura Pigma Micros and four Pilot DR Drawing Pens. The Microns I obtained locally but the DRs I bought from JetPens, though JetPens also sells the Microns. I purchased only the smallest 4 nibs available: #005 (0.20mm), #01 (0.25mm), #02 (0.30mm) and #03 (0.35mm). I have no use or desire for the larger sizes.

Both pens are of the plastic covered pourous material type, commenly called "felt tiped" pens. Both have a long metel tips that measure approximately 5mm long. The long tips are so the pens can ride up next to drafting instruments such as sliding squares and triangles as the primary use for these pens is mechanical drawing and drafting. However I, and many others, use them mainly for writing, drawing with them is secondary. I rather like technical pens for writing for they are generally smoother writing than any rollerball/gel pens. The porour tips are a bit more fragile than the metal ball of a of a gel pen or a rollerball but as long as they are treated right they should last the life of the pen.

For this test I used what has now become my standard pen test. I write a short line with it, in order to get the "feel" of the pen. I then draw a short line, later to be used for the water test, then I lightly hold the pen to the paper for 10 seconds for the bleed test. The water test consists of me placing a single drop of water from an eye dropper on each line. I do not smear the ink, I simply allow the water to soak into the paper to see if the ink will run, or "feather". After the paper had dried I scanned it and posted the results here.

The results pretty much speak for themselves. The lines produced by each pen of the same point size are relatively the same width. The second #03 pen test for line width was because the Sakura seemed to have been wider than the Pilot so I wanted to be sure. The subsequent test proved the widths to be the same. The water test showed that the ink from both pens is waterproof, which is to be expected since both inks are pigmented. There was no feathering or running of the ink iwith either pen. They are also light fast and at least the Pigma Micron is acid-free. The bleed test showed that all the pens bled through to the second page with only the #03 DR bleeding through to the third page but you had to look carefully in order to see the mark. The DRs were scratchier, in every point size, than the Microns, especially the #005 point size. The ink from both appears to be dark, not watery. The DRs are just slightly longer than the Microns and weigh about the same but I like the feel of the Microns better than the DRs.

Both pens are available from JetPens.com, the Microns for $2.00 each and the DRs for $2.50 each. As far as I am concerned my money is on the Sakura Pigma Microns.

Many thanks to JetPens for the use of the pen photos.