As I said before, I haven’t read the book, but I guess there’s not, since most stationery companies don’t adopt the same mode as Lamy when developing new products, other similar books I have read do not take this approach either
However, information about the main designer can sometimes be found in patents. For example, we know that Mechanica, PGx series, and Multi8 were designed by 関口友三, and he was also the main designer of pn3015. While Qx and Orenznero were designed by 安孫子大慶. (But for a product, I guess there are other people in the team to help with exterior design or the material processing and so on)
Thank you for that. 関口友三 translates to Yuzo Sekiguchi. 安孫子大慶 translates to Abiko Daikei. From what I understand, culturally in Japan, large companies tend not to honor their product designers publicly. So, it’s very hard to find out who they were (or are).
What a revelation! Abiko Daikei designed the QX05 PN305? And then designed the Orenz Nero? There are some body design cues of the QX05 reflected in the Orenz Nero. It would be so fascinating to see an interview of Mr. Daikei, to find out his thoughts on the QX05 and if he’d tried to lobby Pentel to make it once more (but had to settle for a redesign in the Orenz Nero).
Indeed the relationship between QX and Orenznero are very visible. I didn’t expect the same designer because of the timespan. The product and design story of Orenznero would really exciting, but we will probably never hear it …
Not sure it’s still up – nor if i remember correctly – but i have the vague notion that when it launched the jp orenznero microsite had some sort of genealogy of the pencil, along with texts or infos on the designers…
This is exactly the website, yeah, I almost forgot to mention it, the developer of Orenznero are 安孫子大慶 and 伊藤好和, and there are other people who are responsible for the exterior design and the arrangement of the whole project and so on. (Take a look at these two people’s age, it gives me a sense of ‘the old training the young’, and the patent on Orenz AT shows the inventor is 伊藤好和)
In addition, when the 0.5mm version Orenznero was released, they also published an interview with the designer here:
(This is an official account run by Pentel, you can also find some other interesting articles here, like the following one, is also related to designers and Orenznero)
Another article related to the Orenznero’s launch event
Considering that Orenznero was originally released as a 0.2or0.3mm pencil, my guess is that they simplified the complex features of the past out of compromise for stability. On the other hand, (I heard that) for some push-matic type pencils, because of the existence of that function, when you use semi-auto mode to write, the resistance will be too much and not comfortable)
The resistance comes from the friction between pipe and paper, and the strong spring force inside the tip (as a part of push-matic mechanism) .According to advertise about Orenznero, they have optimized both aspects, and from my actual experience, this is the most comfortable semi-auto pencil I have ever used (I bought a 0.3mm model)
The reason I say this is, imagine, from the perspective of an average user, will an optimized semi-auto pencil be more attractive than a push-matic one?
One has continuous friction with the paper, but the resistance is optimized to be as small as possible, and no other operations are required to keep writing;
Another will not rub with paper, but every once in a while you need to stop writing and press the tip of the pen
Btw, orenznero is a very special semi-aurto pencil in deed, that with modification, it can have the push-matic function:
I’ll make a new post and talk more about this some time later
That has been my thinking, where the QX05 PN305 project was deemed too expensive an endeavor for Pentel. It sure would be nice to know more about the total production numbers, where they were sold by country/region, and the actual product start/end dates. Given how the packaging had a lot of English writing on it, I imagine the QX05 was intended for export. But given how so few of them show up on the used market, it certainly looks like not many were made.
Xiao has one and did a pretty good deep dive about the mechanism. It’s an engineering marvel, perhaps over-engineered… and one could say that this either made production too expensive for reasonable profit margins expected by Pentel or it would ultimately incur much higher costs for repair if something went wrong.
A prime example of fragility caused by too much complexity is the Staedtler Micromatic 777. From all I’ve heard (I don’t own one), the mechanism is a ticking timebomb. There are enough plastic bits in the componentry that have discovered to ultimately fail. And it doesn’t require a lot of use. Just basic plastic degradation. Perhaps at the time, they didn’t have more advanced polymers that would be much more resistant to decay?
The QX05 is not nearly as fragile… but if something were to go wrong, not only is servicing very complex, but having a sufficient assortment of parts on hand is another difficulty.
Ultimately, I’m seeing the sensibility of what the Orenz Nero team achieved. Yes, it’s not quite the glorious mechanism of the QX PN305, but it’s still a great feat of engineering that has a more sustainable and reliable superiority.
The idea of just loading up lead and using it continuously, stick after stick until exhausted without a single push of the rear button, is certainly impressive. But given how often you go through one lead in a single session… is all of that effort worth it, just to avoid one button push?
Do you own a Faber Castell 9725L TK-matic? If so, what is your impression of the auto-feed mechanism in comparison to the one in the Orenz Nero? I do have an Orenz Nero, but just the 0.5 mm. And my own comparison didn’t have me feeling one was more superior than the other. They both do the job very well. I lean more towards the TK-matic simply because it’s a little more substantial and I’m partial to the all metal design.
I do not have an 0.2 or 0.3 mm Orenz Nero, but I do plan to eventually get the 0.3 mm. I’d heard too many testimonies of the 0.2 mm being quite scratchy and forcing a more perpendicular to the paper orientation to avoid it… which then also defeats the auto-feed mechanism, because the lead tube needs to make contact with the paper.
One after-thought :
How cumbersome is it to manually advance lead? Well, it varies a lot by design. This is why I really don’t like the Quicker Clicker. It’s a single button on the side that ends up moving constantly with pencil rotation. The coincidence of the button being right at your forefinger when lead advancement is needed is not as common as it being askew. It’s a real annoyance for me. A rear clicker is of course so common, that most of us who use pencils are used to it. I think it’s preferable to a side-knock. But for other mechanisms of advancing, I see two as really the superior:
Finger flick – a small cowling at the front of the pencil where the forefinger has easy access to just pull up with minimal effort and release. This advances the lead easily.
Body knock – a gentle easy squeeze and release of the hand (thumb pushing slightly inward) causes the body to flex and cause lead to advance. Probably even easier than the finger flick, because there’s even less finger movement.
Shaker – a very short “jab” motion of the hand causes an internal mechanism to push lead forward by one increment. This is also seriously easy to do and does not change finger or hand position. The only caveat is some models are a bit noisy. Some are nicely quiet.
While I don’t consider it the most elegant design… something about the body of the pen “bending” seems almost comical. But the body-knock is really the most conservative in terms of movement. No finger positions change. Your rotational orientation for optimal lead use (avoiding chisel point) is uninterrupted. There have been a number of makers who’ve produced this design, but I’ve found KOKUYO has probably made the best mechanism, with their PS-10x line. It’s butter smooth and quiet. Of course, the only real drawbacks of this mechanism are that the whole pencil needs to be disassembled to refill the reservoir (versus just a rear eraser cap), and the reservoir space is just about average, while other pencils offer more lead capacity.
Naturally the mechanisms are simpler here. More reliable. But from all I’ve seen, the Orenz Nero is an amazing achievement that potentially unseats all manual forms of lead advancement.
^ BTW, sorry for the really long post. I probably should’ve broken it up into 2 of them.
Regarding the Pentel Orenz Nero links, one of them has a nice group shot of 3 engineers/designers who worked on the Nero, plus the product designer / manager. There are two others who couldn’t “fit” under the pencil, but should also be noted. Mr. Wakai - Orenz Nero 0.5 development team manager, and Mr. Mizuguchi - Pentel Sharp marketing dept. manager.
The Pentel website has been a bit frustrating, as I wanted to see the name and dept. associations for each person. I took some time to compile that data and annotate the image. These men deserve the honor, respect, and recognition for their achievement that took over 2 years to complete!
While each member of the team gave essential and important contributions, it should be noted that Mr. Abiko is the expert in the ball chuck mechanism, which is the heart of Oren’s Nero’s “continuous writing” (automatic centering) feature. He is most widely quoted on the Pentel Orenz Nero site, page one. He joined Pentel in 1980 and has over 35 years of technical experience in sharp engineering, having been in charge of numerous Pentel sharp products.
If you ever do get a copy, I’m hopeful you’ll inform us vintage PILOT enthusiasts here on Knockology. . By the way… it’s fascinating how the 100th Anniversary produced for the JDM only cited 1970 as the release year of the H-2005 (HH-200K-05). Was the HHP-300S (H-3005) listed as well? My thought would be that it would have been released the same year or not long after. But wait over 20 years to release, as suggested by PILOT USA? That doesn’t seem right to me.
Did I miss anything? It looks like I didn’t get your reply notification until two days ago. I did get the book and I’ve uploaded it in this thread: Supply - Books on Company History
file name, パイロット100年の航跡
I heard back from my contact at PILOT USA, who in turn got another response back from PILOT Japan.
Q: When did the HH-200K-05 (パイロットホルダー05) and HH-200K-03 (パイロットホルダー03) models launch?
→ HH-200K-05 launched in August 1970.
→ HH-200K-03 launched in December 1970.
Q: When were the HH-200K-05 (パイロットホルダー05) and HH-200K-03 (パイロットホルダー03) models discontinued?
→ Both models were discontinued in 1996.
I have checked the real catalog from 2012 and I could not find those items in there.
I have no idea why his screenshots said like that, but the fact is HH-200K-05/03 has been discontinued since 1996.
So it’s good to see confirmation of the original release date. And it looks like the presence of those listings on the PILOT Japan website for the H-2003/H-2005 into the 2000’s is simply wrong. It would make sense as even examples often found with stickers don’t show any modern stickers–all older from 1990’s and earlier.
The other thing that remains is the curious dates around the HHP-300S (H-3003/H-3005).
→ Launched in 1992.
→ Discontinued in 2006.
This may be another case of one model replacing a previous one. And for a brief period of 4 years, there was overlap. It would be interesting to see if there’s a stickered example of an H-3003/05 that has a sticker design that can be identified as coming from 2000~2006.
Of course, when you end up with a contact at a big company who can provide some useful information about products, especially discontinued ones, you want to be careful not to abuse it. I’ve been able to get a little info thus far from mine at PILOT USA, who has asked some questions from PILOT Japan on my behalf, as noted above.
I put in one more request, for just 1 model. We don’t really know much at all about the back story of the Protecs (or “ProTex”). I’m assuming it had a release date either late 1980’s or sometime in the 1990’s. Unfortunately there was no companion ballpoint pen… while it would’ve been a fantastic thing to see and so doable, given the natural fit of a twist mechanism. I got a response back that it’s no trouble and she’ll see about making the inquiry soon. I provided some images to help with identification, including the model number (it’s HHK-300S). Notice it’s just 1 letter away from the H-3005
(HHP-300S).
1, A quick note of what we know so far about holder series:
(my guesswork is marked by ‘?’)
a, H-100x 71’07~06(?)
b, H-200x 70’08(05)~96; 70’12(03)~96
c, H-300x 92~06
d, H-210x 92(?)~06(?)
2,
Of course. I don’t think we care about the reply time, even if we wait a month, as long as the information is accurate. And it would be nice if you can provide them with rough date range
3, Some of the information that I think people are most concerned about could be, the launch and discontinued year of:
H-5005(HAT-500M, オートマチック)
Automatic(HAT-300S-S, オートマティック)(and 03! HAT-300S-S-03)
(05 model, launched in 83’12)
Automac E(HAE-250R, オートマック-E)
(launched in 88’11)
Automac E500(HAE-500M, オートマックE500)
(I heard it was released in '90)
4,
What displayed on archive webpage is H-300x series, in detail, 100x,210x,300x can all be found in archive 2006, and from 07 to 12, only 300x is still there. So, combined with reply from Pilot JP, I guess these three are all discontinued at 06, while what we see during 07~12 is just due to carelessness
What about assuming that content from the catalog is completely credible? since they are revised and printed every year(As long as Pilot staff didn’t miss anything when looking up them)
Thanks! It’ll be interesting to see if we get confirmation back from PILOT Japan about 1983.
I also wonder… if the absence of a model from the catalog doesn’t necessarily mean it was discontinued at that point. Perhaps there is a catalog listing limit… and a newer model may bump an older model out, but it could still be in production.
You’re welcome. Hopefully more useful info will be forthcoming.
About that listing, is there a release date indication on the HAT-300S and HAT-500M? Amazing that the E500 (HAE-500M) was priced at ¥5,000… same as the titanium H-5005!
. By the way… it’s fascinating how the 100th Anniversary produced for the JDM only cited 1970 as the release year of the H-2005 (HH-200K-05). Was the HHP-300S (H-3005) listed as well? My thought would be that it would have been released the same year or not long after. But wait over 20 years to release, as suggested by PILOT USA? That doesn’t seem right to me.
