Reviews
Part of Real paper collection surveys teach lessons private collectors miss
Writing a dated record instead of a review: a method for pen and paper
A method page, not a set of reviewed products: how to date a record, state conditions and limits, run a drying test, and keep observations a review cannot check.
No products are reviewed here, and the argument of this page is that you should stop writing reviews too. A review is a verdict without a method. A record is a set of observations with the conditions attached, and it stays useful long after the product has been reformulated or discontinued.
The web address says case studies, so treat this as a method page, not a set of reviewed products. No collector is named, because a record you cannot check is not evidence.
What to take away
- State the conditions. A result without conditions cannot be compared to anything.
- Separate what you measured from what you felt. Both are useful, and they are not the same.
- Report limits. What you did not test is part of the finding.
- Date every record.
Review against record
| A review says | A record says |
|---|---|
| This paper is smooth | Fingernail test: no perceptible tooth. Medium nib skated on downstrokes |
| It dries fast | Finger drag clean at 12 seconds, medium nib, 21 degrees, dry room |
| Great value | Price per usable side, with date and where bought |
| Highly recommended | Suits a dry fine nib. Skipped with a wet broad on the same sheet |
| No bleed | No bleed with the two inks tested. Not tested with iron gall |
The right column is longer and duller, and it will still be true in five years.
Review wording vs record wording
A review says
- Surface
- This paper is smooth
- Drying
- It dries fast
- Value
- Great value
- Verdict
- Highly recommended
- Bleed
- No bleed
A record says
- Surface
- Fingernail test: no perceptible tooth
- Drying
- Finger drag clean at 12 seconds
- Value
- Price per usable side, with date
- Verdict
- Suits a dry fine nib
- Bleed
- No bleed with the two inks tested
Set up a control paper
A multi-analytical study of coated model papers examined nanolignin and methylcellulose coatings on deliberately prepared model sheets. The part worth copying is the prepared sample.
A controlled sample also supports the paper test that saves a purchase before it goes wrong.
Your control is one sheet you know: same paper, same pen, same ink, same room, stored flat and out of direct sun. Label it once with brand, weight and finish. Test every new item alongside it, one stroke per pen on each sheet.
Attach the conditions to the record permanently
Institutions keep the technical description with the object itself, which is why FADGI publishes guidance on embedded metadata covering the core information that should travel inside a file.
Header block for every record
- Date of the test
- Paper used
- Pen and nib width
- Ink tested
- Room conditions
- What you did not test
Your version is a header block at the top of every record: date, paper, pen, nib width, ink, room conditions, and what you did not test. Six lines, written before the observations rather than after them.
Why records outlast reviews
Products change quietly. A paper is reformulated, a mill changes supplier, a nib is reground at the factory, and the name on the package stays the same.
A verdict written against the old version is wrong afterward, with nothing in it to show that. A dated record stays true about one sheet on one day.
A record template
- Item, and where and when it was bought.
- Conditionspaper, pen, ink, nib, room temperature, date.
- Measurements: dry time in seconds, bleed, feathering, line width against the control.
- Impressions, clearly labeled as impressions rather than measurements.
- Limitswhat was not tested, and the reason it was not tested.
- A photograph of the test sheet, named by date and item.
Six lines of header, five of results. The whole record fits on one page of a notebook, which is the point: a template that needs two pages will be filled in for three items and then abandoned.
One record, filled in
Header:
- Date
- 4 October.
- Paper
- A5 notebook, 90 gsm, cream.
- Pen
- medium steel nib, cartridge converter.
- Ink
- blue-black, standard flow.
- Room
- 21 C, low humidity, no fan.
- Not tested
- iron gall, wet broad nibs.
Results:
- Dry time
- fingertip clean at 11 seconds, smudged at 8.
- Bleed
- none on the front, faint show-through on the back.
- Feathering
- none at arm's length.
- Line width
- 0.5 mm, the same as the control.
- Impression
- light tooth under a fine nib, pleasant for notes, less so with a wet broad.
Write it once and reuse the template. The setup that supports it is in setting up a record, and the reason honest limits matter is argued in what documented collections teach, where a stated gap is a finding.
How to run the drying test
Load the nib the same way every time. One dip, then two firm wipes on the bottle lip.
Draw one line, 10 cm long, at the pace you actually write. Start the timer when the nib leaves the paper.
Touch the line with a dry fingertip at 5 seconds, then every 5 seconds, on a fresh spot each time. The first touch that comes away clean is your figure.
Run three lines and keep the middle figure.
