Why did I originally buy the Leonardt 256? Looking back, it wasn't because I knew anything about it or had any expectations for it—I was simply "stamp collecting," so to speak. In short, during my beginner stage when I still knew little about vintage nibs, I tried to buy at least one of every modern nib I could get my hands on—mainly pointed nibs, of course; I didn't specifically venture into broad-edge nibs and the like—and by the time I got around to trying this one, its performance exceeded my expectations. In my direct impression, this nib looks somewhat long and sturdily built; its hairlines aren't especially fine, and a distinctive feature of its shape is the complete absence of shoulder cuts and side slits, while its flexibility is also on the low side. Yet in actual writing, the tip is still sharp. I later learned that with vintage nibs, even F or even M grade nibs can still be sharp, but the same can't necessarily be said of modern nibs. Moreover, it doesn't scratch the paper, and its flex curve and ink flow are both stable—one of my highest compliments for a nib is "stable and predictable."
So for a while this became one of my favorite nibs. I bought a dozen or so in all, and at one point thought I would be practicing with this nib long-term. But I soon discovered other models that were even better to use, and promptly had a change of heart and fell for something new. Still, to be fair, this really is a good, underrated nib. During the period when I liked it most, I searched all over the internet for information about it and found almost nothing—just comments from a few retailers, saying roughly that it's a drawing nib, suitable for writing on all sorts of surfaces, even porcelain, sturdy and durable, and so on. Plus a sparse handful of user reviews on calligraphy supply shops, mostly positive—and that was it. I suspect that apart from me, hardly anyone has ever written anything of any length about it.
All in all, with its low flexibility and unique overall design, this nib's design direction is destined to be unpopular in today's Western calligraphy community. But for me, it broadened my horizons: I discovered that a good nib doesn't necessarily have to be slender and highly flexible, nor does it have to be the famous Japanese "Big Three" G nibs or the Gillott 303, Hunt 101, Leonardt Principal EF, and the like. Don't let yourself be confined by the trendy, internet-famous models online—every calligraphy enthusiast or learner, based on their script of choice and personal preferences, has the right to choose a lesser-known model that suits them.
Later I also learned that this model is presumably a relic from the classical era, produced continuously from roughly a hundred years ago to the present day. Along the way its surface treatment and engraving may have changed, but the design hasn't, and its workmanship is unexpectedly good with decent consistency among modern Western pointed nibs, whose quality control is an enigma. On this point I'm somewhat puzzled: why is it that the same factory turns out some models with terrible workmanship that simply never get improved, while other models are steady and reliable? Is it because the Leonardardt 256 has a simple shape and thick material? But even the nib-slit cutting process, the step most prone to problems, hasn't gone wrong. How ironic—in this day and age, good workmanship and reliable quality actually leave me bewildered rather than feeling like a matter of course.
Looking at it now, this nib does have its limitations, but it was through this nib that I began to appreciate another type of nib design, and I subsequently discovered some vintage nibs that are just as slender and sturdy, yet several orders of magnitude higher in flexibility and sharpness. I think that unless a calligraphy learner is studying scripts like Engrosser's Script (ES) that rely on dramatic line contrast, if they can accept more restrained shading contrast, they can include this nib in their beginner-stage toolbox.
No comments:
Post a Comment