While I was disassembling and cleaning the nib units of my M800 and M900 models. While doing so, I noticed something, so I decided to briefly summarize the evolution of the M800 18 carat gold nib over the past 40 years.

When introduced in 1987, the M800 had a bicolor rhodium-plated 14 carat gold nib for the domestic market. A bicolor rhodium-plated 18 carat gold nib was also available for the export market by 1988 at the latest. Based on the fountain pens I own, the 18 carat gold nibs of the M800 (and M900) can be roughly divided into four versions depending on their geometry and logos (Fig.1) (of course, I’m only calling them “versions” just for convenience). However, even nibs of the same version may have slight differences in their engravings or the shape of the iridium tip. I’ll explain that in more detail later.

The earliest 18 carat gold nibs (Ver.1) was characterized by “EN” or “PF” engravings, and compared to later versions, its shape had a slightly narrower “waist.” Regarding the engravings, Ver.1 nibs was further divided into three types (Fig.2). My primary source is the Pelikan M800 parts transition table (this table may also need some corrections). The table indicates that during the “W-Germany” era, nibs with the “EN” engraving and a hallmark were produced first. Next, nibs with the “PF” engraving and a hallmark were produced. For explanations of “EN” and “PF,” please refer to Pelikan’s Perch. After the release of the M800 commemorating the unification of East and West Germany in 1990, which featured a 20 carat gold nib, the “Germany” era began. the nibs with the “PF” engraving nibs abolished the hallmark. On the other hand, nibs with the “EN” engraving and a hallmark appear to have been used without change, until 1994, during the "Germany" era (pelikan-collectibles, 凡人の逸品 万年筆から珈琲まで). After that, only nibs with the “PF” engraving and no hallmark were used for the M800.

However, what also caught my attention was the back of the nib: a significant portion of the area in contact with the feed was rhodium-plated (the same applies to 14 carat nibs) (Fig.1). At least in Japan, it is widely believed that rhodium plating a nib improves ink flow (万年筆評価の部屋), and there are even examples of people who have personally rhodium-plated the back of their nibs and felt a tangible improvement in flow (文房具の虫). I believed this as well, and wrote as such in my M800 article. I will discuss this later.

Now, returning to the evolution of the M800 nib, Pelikan outsourced nib manufacturing to Bock (Peter Bock AG, currently Peter Bock GmbH)  in 1997. As for how long the Ver.1 nibs with the “PF” engraving were produced, I had assumed it was until 1997, when nib production was outsourced to Bock. However, according to the Pelikan M800 parts transition table, this does not seem to be the case; it appears that Bock continued to produce Ver.1 “PF” nibs for some time. In fact, the nibs on the M1000, which debuted in 1997, also bore the “PF” engraving and had a narrower “waist.”

I don’t know exactly when, but, some time had passed since 1997, the transition to Ver.2 nibs occurred (Fig.1). While the Bock nibs bore the same logo, “PF” engraving disappeared from the nibs, and the distinctive “waist” curve became less pronounced. and the side lines became almost straight. This apparently altered the writing feel. Reactions to this change were mixed, but I think there were more negative opinions than positive ones. The PF stamping was removed probably because there was no longer a need for it, but, it is unclear why the narrow waist of the nib was removed in Ver.2. Personally, I believe that Pelikan introduced a more rigid nib to make it easier to use for people who are accustomed to writing with ballpoint pens and tend to apply slightly more pressure. Of course, the real reason remains unknown. Even today, some Japanese collectors still highly value Ver.1 nibs that have “EN” or “PF” engravings from over 30 years ago.

Also, in Ver.2 nibs, perhaps to cut costs, the area of the rhodium plating was significantly reduced, limited to only the lower edge of the nib. It’s unclear exactly when this happened, but I suspect it was around the same time as the introduction of Ver.2, or perhaps even earlier⁽¹⁾. About the reduction of the rhodium plating area, I was thinking that this doesn't make sense if the rhodium plating is for ink flow. This is because the lower part of the nib likely has little to do with ink flow. One day, while attempting to reassemble the nib unit, I noticed something. When I placed the Ver.2 nib on top of the feed and pinched them both firmly with my fingers, the nib shifted out of place. The same happened with Ver.3 and 4. However, Ver.1 nib didn’t shift at all. That’s when it dawned on me: perhaps the rhodium plating is there to prevent the nib from slipping off the feed even when strong force is applied. If that’s the case, it explains why, even though the area of rhodium plating was reduced to cut costs, the plating was left on the lower edge including even the area where ink doesn't get in touch. The area where the rhodium plating has been applied corresponds exactly to where the nib and feed are secured by a collar. There was no rhodium plating where I pinched it with my fingers. Consequently, I have come to believe that the rhodium plating on the lower end of the nib is there to provide sufficient holding power to prevent the nib from shifting during normal writing, as long as excessive force is not applied. In fact, there is a reports that nibs from Ver.2 onward are prone to coming loose (万年筆評価の部屋).

 

This is a slight digression from the topic of the M800’s nib evolution, but since I found this interesting, I decided to examine the nibs on other Souverän pens I have.

• First, what about the M400, the very first model in the Souverän series? The earliest friction-fit nib, released in 1982, did not have a rhodium plating. I also own an M415 Tortoiseshell Brown Special Edition released in 2009 and checked it, but its nib similarly lacked rhodium plating.

• What about the M600? The very first M600 nibs, released in 1985, had rhodium plating only on the lower edge. Since the M600 nibs are made of 18 carat gold and the M600 is a pen one tier above the M400, I wondered if this was done to differentiate it from the M400. The two-tone 14 carat nib on my other M600, which is Bock-made nib after 1997, also had rhodium plating applied to the lower edge.

• As for the M1000, I have only one I purchased 4 or 5 years after the M1000 was released in 1997. The nib was made by Bock. It has “PF” engraving and a narrower “waist.” But, looking at the nib, I noticed that only the lower edge of the nib was rhodium-plated⁽¹⁾. So, this matches in part the characteristics of the M800 Ver.1 nib, and it may support the information that Bock continued to produce Ver.1 nibs for some time.

• Finally, the M300, released in 1998. I have M300 and M350. Both are Bock nibs, and featured a slightly narrower “waist, moreover, extensive rhodium plating (Fig.3). This also matches in part the characteristics of the M800 Ver.1 nib, and again, may support the information that Bock continued to produce Ver.1 nibs for some time.

To summarize, when the Souverän series was first introduced with the M400, the back of the nib was not rhodium-plated. However, when the higher-end M600 was introduced—perhaps to differentiate it—rhodium plating was applied for the first time to the lower edge of the back of the nib. When the even higher-end M800 was introduced, rhodium plating was applied to a wider area of the back of the nib, likely for the same reason of differentiation. However, sometime after nib production was outsourced to Bock, likely for cost-cutting reasons—it is believed that the rhodium plating on the M800’s nib was reverted to covering only the lower edge, similar to the M600. This is merely my speculation, though. I cannot say for certain regarding the M1000 or M300 due to a lack of information. In the end, I was never able to determine exactly when the area of rhodium plating was significantly reduced to only the lower edge of the nib.

​

I’ve written quite a lot here, but my observations regarding rhodium plating may require corrections or additions. If anyone has further information, please let me know. Also, while I mentioned cost-cutting in Ver.2 nibs, there may actually have been other reasons. Even if it was cost-cutting, it remains a corporate effort with good reasons. In any case, what I want to emphasize is that Pelikan continued its commitment to differentiating even the smallest details—such as the back of the nib—to match the pen’s grade and provide features commensurate with its price.

Now, in 2003, Pelikan’s cap top logo was changed to the “one chick” design (Pelikan’s Perch) (Fig.4b). However, the nib logo was not changed to the single chick design: the Ver.2 nib with the two chick logo continued to be used (Fig.4b). It is unclear why the logos were not standardized. Was it because they wanted to avoid the increased costs associated with changing the nib logo? So, for many years, the number of chicks in the logo differed between the cap and the pen tip (Fig.4b). Looking back now, I think those were more laid-back times.

After that, Pelikan resumed in-house production of nibs. I don’t know the exact date, but it seems to have started around 2006 (I remember reading this in an article on Fountain Pen Network). Furthermore, the transition back to in-house production wasn’t done all at once but rather gradually; the M1000 nib was the last to return to in-house production, reportedly in 2008 (Fountain Pen Network, Fountain Pen Network).

Subsequently, a more significant change occurred. Around the spring of 2009, Japanese Pelikan fans began discussing a change in the shape of nibs (万年筆を買いに). They claimed that the way the iridium tip was ground had changed from “角研ぎ”(Fig. 5a) to “丸研ぎ” (Fig. 5b). “角研ぎ” and “丸研ぎ” are, of course, Japanese terms. With “角研ぎ” (if literally translated, square (or angled ) grinding), the iridium had a shape close to a rectangular cuboid. With the new “丸研ぎ” (literally, round grinding), the iridium has shape closer to a hemisphere (and therefore cannot be called a “Kugel”), and become rounder than before when viewed from above or from the side. It was also reported that the iridium has become slightly larger (万年筆評価の部屋). Since Pelikan fountain pens are manufactured, imported to Japan, and then inspected by the Japanese distributor before entering the market, considering the time lag involved, the change above likely dates back to 2008. It’s possible that Pelikan changed the shape of iridium when they resumed in-house nib production. If anyone is familiar with the details of this change, please let me know. It seems many people in Japan felt that this switch to a new nib made the line width relatively thicker and improved writing comfort (万年筆を買いに). I suspect this is because the new nib features an iridium tip closer to that of a ballpoint pen than before, which enables ink can get in touch with the paper at any angles of a nib against a paper —in other words, it allows for a greater range of pen-holding positions. I suspect Pelikan aimed to create a nib that would be easy to use even for modern people accustomed to writing with ballpoint pens, in response to the demands of the times (of course, this is purely my speculation). Previously, depending on the angle between the paper and the nib, it was possible to experience skipping, scratching, or, in the worst cases, being unable to write at all (especially for fountain pen beginners, or with wider nibs)(店主のペン語り),(ambler; you can see clearer, more typical images of square grinding here, though it is from the M1000. I think this will help you understand the reasons mentioned above). On the other hand, however, the traditional “角研ぎ”(square grinding) nib was believed in Japan to make it easier to produce a variety of line styles and allows for a more “fountain pen-like” writing experience. Consequently, support for “角研ぎ”(square grinding) nib remains strong, particularly among hard-core fountain pen enthusiasts, and there was even a trend of stocking up on “角研ぎ”(square grinding) nibs while they were still available. I wonder how fountain pen enthusiasts outside of Japan reacted to the change in the iridium grinding method during this period.

Additionally, while this is separate from the shape of the iridium, there have been a report (万年筆評価の部屋) that shortly after Pelikan resumed in-house nib production, issues such as Off-center slit, misaligned tines, and uneven iridium grinding were noticeable, suggesting problems with quality control. These issues appear to have been gradually resolved. 

​

The change to the nib featuring a single chick logo (Ver.3)(Fig.1) likely occurred around the time the Pelikan switched to in-house nib production, or shortly thereafter (see the Pelikan M800 parts transition table). Since this coincides with the period when the shape of the iridium tip was changed as stated above (万年筆評価の部屋), it was probably around 2008 to 2009.

 

I knew that shortly after the M800’s nib was redesigned to Ver.3, a so-called “cost-cutting holes” had been made in the part of the nib that hides inside the collar, but I didn’t actually see one until I disassembled the nib unit of an M900 I recently purchased. While every fountain pen manufacturer announces price increases, I’ve never heard one announce cost-cutting measures (especially in areas like this that aren’t visible to the eye). When did Pelikan introduce the cost-cutting holes in the M800 nib? According to this blog, it is estimated to have been around 2011 (Ver.4) (万年筆評価の部屋)(Fig.1). Do any of you know exactly when this happened? Incidentally, it seems difficult to distinguish between Ver.3 and Ver.4 nibs just by looking at them.

 

Pelikan has likely made several specification changes over the years, likely for cost-cutting or to streamline the manufacturing process. As far as I know, these include the elimination of the turning knob disc (Fig.6) and a reduction in the amount of rhodium plating on the nib. The change to the cap top might also fall into this category. Additionally, on the M900 Toledo and some limited-edition M900-based models, machine engraving and laser engraving (Fig.7) have been introduced in addition to hand engraving. But I remember feeling a bit disappointed when I learned that Pelikan was cutting costs even on the nib itself—I thought, “Et tu, Brute?” (Shakespeare “Julius Caesar”). However, upon looking into it later, I discovered that Montblanc, Parker, and Pilot had already introduced cost-cutting holes in their flagship models—such as the Meisterstück 149 (Fig.8) the Duofold Centennial (Fig.9), and the Custom 67—as early as the 1980s (万年筆評価の部屋, スティロ プリュム). Compared to that, I realized that Pelikan was actually quite late in adopting cost-cutting holes. While cost-cutting is unavoidable, the problem with adding these cost-cutting holes is that they reduce the contact area between the nib and the feed—particularly the area secured by the collar—which can make the nib more prone to wobbling. For this reason, Parker and Montblanc have slightly modified their feed designs so that a protrusion on the feed fits into the cost-cut section of the nib (万年筆評価の部屋). This not only secures the nib but also ensures that the nib’s positional relationship with the feed is fixed, making assembly easier and resulting in consistent writing performance and ink flow without individual variations. Around the same time as Pelikan, Platinum replaced its conventional 3776 with the 3776 Century. However, rather than making cost-cutting holes in the nib, Platinum cut costs by shortening the entire nib and adding a notch. They designed the feed’s protrusion to fit into this notch (Fig.10) (Pilot, on the other hand, bends the sides of the cost-cutting holes vertically so that they fit precisely into the feed’s notches (Fig.11); this appears to date from around 2021)(X).

 

That said, it’s fascinating to closely examine the nibs and observe the ingenuity of each manufacturer. The nib of the Montblanc Meisterstück 149, like that of the Pelikan M800, is rhodium-plated only at the base (万年筆評価の部屋)(Fig.8a). As discussed above, it’s natural to assume that this rhodium plating is primarily intended to prevent the nib from shifting on the feed. On the other hand, the nib of the Duofold Centennial is rhodium-plated across its entire underside (Fig.9a), suggesting that Parker likely intended this to serve both to secure the nib and to improve ink flow (I don’t believe previous Parker models featured rhodium plating). This clearly shows how much effort Parker put into this new flagship fountain pen.

 

Now, back to the Pelikan nibs: even when the cost-cutting hole was introduced, no changes were made to the feed at all. The hole was intended solely for cost reduction and serves no other function. Presumably, there were no functional issues, such as with the stability of the nib. It appears that, aside from the cost-cutting hole, there were no fundamental changes in Ver.4. Ver.4 has been in use for 15 years now, making it the longest-running of the four versions.

​

I had assumed there hadn't been any changes to Ver.4 for a long time, but, recently, there was an interesting post on Fountain Pen Network. According to the poster (@The Rob), he recently acquired a freshly produced EF nib for M1000. This nib (produced in January 2026) turned out to be much finer than his M1005 EF. Upon contacting Pelikan about this, he got the following information:

Previously, there have been differences in nib grinds, namely nibs for the Asian market being finer than the same nominal nib in any other market.
In 2025, the CEO of Hamelin (which purchased Pelikan in 2023) personally ordered that:

1. All nibs on all markets shall get the same grind.

2. All nibs will get the "Asian grind", because the nibs should be the size that's written on them.

​

I found the post very interesting. I wasn’t familiar with the term “Asian grind,” but I recall reading somewhere that nibs intended for the Asian market are ground slightly finer than those for the Western market. This is an extreme example, but, in Japan, we have to write “憂鬱” to express “melancholy”. Also, in Japan, children learn Kanji characters like “議” and “護” in elementary school. That’s why it’s difficult to write with a fountain pen when the nib width is too wide (although elementary school students in Japan don’t usually use fountain pens).

 

I purchased an M900 Toledo around 2023 and an M800 Black Matte in 2025, and both came with EF nibs. In my feeling, the EF nib on the M900 Toledo was too thick to really be called an EF nib, but that didn’t particularly surprise me. I was already aware that the way the nibs are ground had changed, resulting in a slightly wider line width. However, contrary to my expectations, I found that the EF nib on the M800 Black Matte writes just as fine and smoothly as Japanese EF nibs. I examined the M900 Toledo EF nib and the M800 Black Matt EF nib under a magnifying glass and found that the shapes of their iridium tips differed significantly; the iridium tip on the M800 Black Matt EF nib was clearly ground to be finer (Fig.12)​⁽³⁾. I believe this supports the CEO’s instructions mentioned above.

 

I’m not sure if this will be helpful, but please take a look at my handwriting samples from the M900 Toledo EF nib, M800 Black Matte’s EF nib and the Platinum UEF to M nibs⁽²⁾. You can see that the thickness of the M800 Black Matte’s EF nib is close to that of the Platinum F nib (Fig.12c).

 

This concludes my overview of the 40-year evolution of the M800 nib. To be honest, I initially considered using the term “transition” rather than “evolution” for the title. I felt that “evolution” might be a bit of an exaggeration, and given the cost-cutting measures, I wondered if it could be described as a one-sided evolution. However, after reconsidering, I decided to stick with “evolution.” Some people may feel nostalgic for the nibs from before cost-cutting measures were made. However, since every manufacturer is working to reduce costs. Moreover, the “PF” nib may not be all that significant to those unfamiliar with Pelikan’s history. Ultimately, what Pelikan has done over the past 40 years is to adapt its nibs to meet the needs of the times (though, of course, there were likely some aspects where changes were reluctantly necessary), and in that sense, I believe it’s appropriate to view this as “evolution” (of course, this doesn’t imply that the nibs were inferior in the past or that quality control was poor). Pelikan has never been a manufacturer fixated on past glories (though they do occasionally release reissues); rather, it has been a company that has gradually adapted to the needs of the times (although there were cases that did not succeed, as was the case with the P1). That is precisely why I believe they have managed to survive to this day without being swept away by the onslaught of ballpoint pens or the wave of digitization. Furthermore, considering that the M800 is manufactured as a mass-produced item, quality control must have improved (though it seems the situation wasn’t ideal immediately after switching from Bock to in-house production) (万年筆評価の部屋). I don’t know exactly what user demographic Pelikan targets with its fountain pens, but if you were to give a current M800 and an older one both in the factory default conditions someone using a fountain pen for the first time and have them compare the writing experience, I think many would find the current nib easier to write with than the one from almost 40 years ago (this is purely my personal opinion, though). Incidentally, the Montblanc Meisterstück 149 is also a long-selling model, and vintage versions command incredible prices*, but in terms of functionality and quality as a writing instrument, the current models are probably the best (*partly because older models are less likely to remain in perfect condition due to material degradation and design flaws).

 

Personally, I find it a bit disappointing that the Souverän series has been around for over 40 years and no new series has emerged to replace it, but perhaps Pelikan believes the Souverän series is the ultimate form of the fountain pen and sees no need to launch a new series.

 

I’ve written quite a long post here, but this is just my personal opinion based on my own experiences and information I’ve gathered mainly in Japan. Your opinions may differ from mine, and some of the content may be incorrect. There are likely dozens of experts here on this forum alone, so please feel free to post any additions or corrections. However, even in this age of highly developed web technology and an abundance of information, details regarding Pelikan fountain pens from as recently as 40 years ago have become vague, so I wrote this as a personal memo. Also, what I’ve written has been discussed many times before on Fountain Pen Network, so there may be some overlap. However, just as new Pelikan fountain pen users emerge every day, I believe there are newcomers who visit this forum daily seeking information about Pelikan (though I don’t know if such people actually need my information), so I posted this despite knowing there might be some repetition.

 

By the way, this has nothing to do with fountain pens, but I’d been wondering if the recent trend toward see-through case backs—especially in luxury watches—might stem from watchmakers’ attempts to cut costs by saving on gold. However, upon looking into it, I found that making a watch see-through actually increases the number of production steps and the amount of finishing required, and since it also necessitates new sapphire crystal, it might actually end up driving up costs (Komehyo). See-through casebacks seem to have drawbacks such as reduced water resistance and anti-magnetic properties, as well as decreased case strength. Rolex had been cautious about adopting see-through casebacks for this reason, but in 2023, they decided to go ahead with them. Conversely, Panerai appointed a new CEO in 2018, and Panerai reduced the use of see-through casebacks for mid-range models with since 2020 (Youtube). Reportedly, Panerai downgraded its movement, likely to cut costs (Perezcope), and the brand reduced the use of see-through casebacks to make the downgrade less noticeable. The article on Perezcope points out that Panerai's movement in discussion was a devolution rather than a evolution.

 

As can be seen from the instruction above, the new CEO seems to be a very rational and highly motivated individual; the cost-cutting measures aside, I hope that Pelikan’s quality will not decline under his leadership.

Note;⁽¹⁾The fact that some M1000 nibs bearing the “PF” engraving exhibit reduced rhodium plating suggests that this process was carried out before the transition from Ver.1 to Ver.2.
⁽²⁾As an aside, the Platinum UEF is exceptionally fine, yet it writes smoothly. I wonder, though, if anyone actually uses this UEF nib on a daily basis?

​⁽³⁾It appears that similar changes were made to the M1000 nib around the same time (Fountain Pen Network).