Showing posts with label Moonman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moonman. Show all posts

29 June 2023

Moonman Again

Some months ago I analyzed the Moonman A1, the capless pen made by the Chinese company. The main conclusion in that text was that the Chinese copy was a good product for a very good price. But did it offer anything new with respect to the Pilot original? The answer, suggested by a commentator, was the existence of a clipless variation of the model.

Moonman, apparently, had paid close attention to what some enthusiasts had said in the Net: the clip in the Capless was a nuisance to many.

Following that strategy it was only normal for Moonman to try to replicate the popular and missed Pilot Capless FCN-500R (and variations)--the faceted model in the market between 1984 and 1998. And that attempt is the Moonman A2. But, how faithful is the replica?

The faceted Moonman A2.

Just a quick inspection of the A2 shows some clear differences with the Pilot model:

– The Moonman A2 is bigger than the Pilot FCN, as can be seen on the following  table:

.Pilot Capless FCN.

.Moonman A2.

.Moonman A1.
Length closed (mm) 132 141 142
Length open (mm) 133 139 139
Max diameter (mm) 11.8 12.2 12.9
Weight, dry (g) 17.6 20.8 33.7
Ink deposit (ml) 0.9 (cart)
0.5 (CON-40)
0.9 (cart)
0.4 (conv)
0.9 (cart)
0.4 (conv)

Pilot Capless FCN-500R (front) and Moonman A2 (back).

– The original Pilot FCN implements a very clean solution for the clip—it is made out of the same piece that conforms the nose of the pen. On the contrary, the A2's clip is closer in design to that of the regular Capless and of the Moonman A1: a separate part attached to the nose.

This is no small detail as the FCN's clip is often regarded as less intrusive and more comfortable than that of the current Capless model.

The clips. Pilot's on front, Moonman's on back.

– The previous table also shows that the A2 is slimmer and lighter than the A1. Moonman accomplished this removing the internal metallic thread in the A2. But this results in a metal-to-plastic thread in the A2—a weak point shared with the Pilot FCN. In fact, it is not uncommon to see cracks on the area of the plastic thread in the Pilot model.

Moonman S2. Metalic thread on the left, plastic thread on the right.

In any event, the parts of the A1 and A2 are fully interchangeable as these two models share their threads and internal dimensions. This is not the case with the equivalent Pilot models (the old FCN, and the current FC).

Moonman Frankenpens. But they work!

Therefore, the conclusion is that the A2 is little else than a A1 in different costume. Sure there are some changes –teh shape of the clip, the ansence of metallic thread in the upper body--, but the basic structure and internal dimensions are common to both models.

Then, is the Moonman A2 a copy –or a fair substitution-- of the Pilot FCN of 1984? in my opinion, less so than the A1 with respect to the current Pilot Capless FC.

Capless FCN (burgundy) and Moonman S2 (blue).
Capless FC (front) and Moonman A1 (back).

Other than this, A1 and A2 models use the same nib unit made of steel with only one nib point—a smooth nominal EF. And this unit is perfectly compatible with those made by Pilot.


Moonman A2 - Diamine Bilberry

Bruno Taut
June 28th, 2023
etiquetas: Moonman, Pilot, capless

28 December 2022

Moonman vs. Pilot

Over a year ago, Chinese pen maker Moonman released the model A1, also marketed as Majohn A1. In actual terms, this is a capless pen remarkably similar –being polite-- to the Pilot Capless. So, how do they compare? Or, more precisely, how does the A1 compare to the older original by Pilot?

Size-wise, their dimensions are very close. The Chinese capless is slightly longer and thinner, and is a couple of grams heavier.

Pilot vs. Moonman. A1 vs. Capless.

Externally, the main difference between them is the central ring—almost flat on the Moonman, two toroidal bands on the Pilot. In fact, this flat central ring in the Chinese pen explains its thinner girth.

These are the dimensions of these pens:

.Moonman A1.

.Pilot Capless.
Length closed (mm) 142 141
Length open (mm) 139 137
Max diameter (mm) 12.9 13.2
Weight, dry (g) 33.7 30.0
Ink deposit (ml) 0.9 (cart)
0.4 (conv)
0.9 (cart)
0.5 (CON-40)

The flat central ring in the Moonman A1.

Regarding the nibs, the Moonman comes only with a silver-color, stainless steel unit in EF. The Pilot, let us remember, can implement both steel and 18 K gold nibs with up to six different points –from EF to B, plus a stub— and three different finishes —golden, silver, and black— depending on the specific model. However, the most interesting feature is that Moonman made its nib units entirely compatible with those by Pilot: cartridges and converters are interchangeable between brands, and Moonman nibs can be used in Pilot pens, and the other way around.

The Moonman nib.

And all that at a fraction of the cost of the Pilot Capless. About EUR 30 for the Moonman, and between EUR 80 and EUR 140 for the Pilot. (Japan prices. EUR 140 is approximately the price of the matte black model (FC-18SR-BM). There are more expensive variations in the Pilot catalog).

Then, the question is whether the Moonman A1 is a copy of the Pilot Capless. I think it is, and the fact that the brand Moonman was clearly written on the nib and on the body does not really change anything. After all, nothing truly original can we see on this Chinese pen.

Now, is Moonman legitimized to manufacture this pen? Moonman is not the first company doing so. In Japan, about 100 years ago, Nobuo Ito's Swan was copying UK's Swan pens under the protection of Japanese laws and courts. After all, every industrial revolution –save the British- was made copying other's products. And then the idea of fairness depends on the side of the border we stand on.

The problem, then, is a different one. The current technological environment is very different from that at the heyday of fountain pens. In other words, fountain pens are no longer the essential tool they once were, and their market is not so driven by the necessity as by the craving. Not by the regular user but by the aficionado. And the Moonman A1 does not offer anything the Pilot didn't several years before... save an excellent price.

Is that enough? Regardless of the answer, Pilot –and others– should pay close attention to whatever might come out of China.


NOTE (Dec 30th): An anonymous commenter pointed out a detail I had overseen--there is a clipless version of the Moonman A1, and that caters the claims of a number of users of the Pilot model. This shows the attention Moonman --and other Chinese makers-- pay to the Net and what users and aficionados say in there. I reckon this Chinese clipless capless variation does offer something new, as Platinum did with the removable clip on its Curidas, and it can be an argument for some older users of the Pilot to choose it.

Thanks, anonymous commenter.


Moonman A1 - Montblanc Burgundy Red

Bruno Taut
December 28th, 2022
etiquetas: Moonman, Pilot, capless, mercado

15 July 2020

Chinese Fillings

A common complaint among stylophiles in the last years was the lack of interesting filling systems among Western (and Japanese) companies. The situation changed a bit in the last years mostly through a handful of new and small producers (Conid, Masahiro, Edison, to name just a few).

Now, paradoxically, it is the Chinese --the People's Republic of China's-- industry the one rocking the boat offering more pens with self-filling systems. It looks like the Chinese industry –or at least part of it-- had really paid attention to the requests and complaints of the Western pen community.

The results vary. Some of those filling systems are copies of other previously developed and some are entirely original. Some work, some don't.

Here I am showing a very limited selection of these (relatively) new pens, but they show five different filling systems.


Five Chinese pens with five different filling systems.



Wing Sung 3013.

The Wing Sung 3013 is clearly inspired in the Twsbi Vac 700. The filling system is a plunger—that system invented by Onoto in the beginning of the 20th century, although nowadays might be better known in the hands of Twsbi (the above-mentioned Vac 700), and Pilot (Custom 823). Its capacity is 2.0 ml when optimized.


The Wing Sung nib can be replaced with a Pilot nib. The writing experience improves.

The nib of the Wing Sung copies the geometry of some inexpensive Pilot pens (Prera, Kakuno, Cocoon, ...), and in fact it can be replaced by a Japanese unit. The detail makes the Wing Sung more attractive.



PenBBS 492. Too often you need some additional tools to make the piston move along the barrel. Not a reliable system.

The PenBBS 492 (2020 edition) uses a magnet (a Neodymium magnet) to move the piston up and down along the barrel. This system is clearly not mature for its commercial use. The magnet will lose strength with time (and heat) to the point of not being able to to drag the piston to fill the pen. Sure enough, the pen can always be filled as eyedropper, but then the whole magnet system becomes irrelevant. The ink capacity of this pen is 2.6 ml.



PenBBS 355. This second version does work, not like the first release, whose rod would have problems disengaging the piston.

The PenBBS 355 is the Chinese version of the Conid Bulkfiller system at a fraction of the price. In essence, this is a piston filler in which the manning bar goes through the seal when not in use. The result is a very large ink capacity –2.7 ml on this case-- due to the very limited volume used by the filling system.



PenBBS 500.

PenBBS 500 or Twsbi meets Conid (thanks, Fudefan!). This pen's filling system seems to be original, although it truly resembles the system used by the maker Astra in the 1940s. It is a piston filler operated by a collapsible bar with the help of an integrated spring. The result, 2.0 ml of ink capacity.


The filling system works, but there are some rough edges. The rod end could offer more grip to be able to release it with just a finger. Now it is too smooth and you might need some rubber band or similar to ink the pen.



PenBBS offers very few variations on its nib points.

The nibs on all these three PenBBS pens are the same save cosmetic changes—made of steel, very rigid, limited inkflow...


Moonman T2. This pen is remarkably similar to the Stipula Tocco Ferro, but with a different filling system. The Moonman uses the so-called “Elastic piston”--a syringe operated with the help of a spring. This system is bulkier of than those previously described, although it reaches the very respectable volume of 1.5 ml.


Moonman T2. More than 50g...

The main inconvenient of this pen is, however, its weight of over 50 g. Its nib and feed, though, are compatible with those by Bock, and that makes this pen more interesting.


From my point of view, the first weak point of these pens is the nibs. On most cases, they are just correct and boring, and the brands do not offer any variation save that of a bent/fude nib (“calligraphic nib” is the name used by Chinese brands). The result is that most pens –particularly if of a single brand-- write almost the same, without any special flavor.

Japanese companies were blamed for making very good nibs in many different points that were implemented in boring pens with very unimaginative filling systems, mostly cartridge/converters. Now, the Chinese industry is doing the opposite—exciting filling systems and terribly boring nibs.

However, some of these filling systems are clearly immature for the market. Either they are insufficiently tested or in need of further developments; and some of the pens are almost prototypes with problems to be solved. But they show an interesting path to explore in the difficult task to keep fountain pens alive in this world of computers, tactile screens, and Chinese virus.


Sailor Mini, 18 K (M) – Noodler's Beaver

Bruno Taut
Nakano, July 13th, 2020
etiquetas: China, mercado, PenBBS, Moonman, Wing Sung