Eberhard Faber went to great lengths to improve the quality of their pencils. Two advancements in particular come to mind: the “complastic lead” used in the Mongol series, and the “microtomic graphite” used in the Van Dyke series.
When the microtomic process was introduced, it was indicated on the Van Dyke pencil and packaging. By the mid- to late-1950s and early 1960s, the name “Van Dyke” disappeared, giving way to the Microtomic pencil, including leadholders.
The “-tomic” ending is in line with the science and culture of the 1950s. Though there was a sense of dread and foreboding once the world entered the atomic age, it was coupled with championing the advancements and benefits that atomic science could bring to everyday living, which carried with it acute levels of accuracy as a subtext.
“…freedom from smudge.”
Eberhard Faber made many different kinds of pencils, and one wonders if they all received the benefits of the “microtomic process”, including the Blackwing. I’m especially curious since the Blackwing (#602) is nestled between the Van Dyke (#601) and the Microtomic (#603). Outside of the Van Dyke and the Microtomic itself, I’ve never seen the “microtomic process” mentioned for any other pencil.
Many thanks to Lexikaliker and Herbert R. for their generosity in facilitating these scans.
Graphite in particles of near-atomic minuteness? That does sound a bit like Graphene – just 50 years earlier…
Thanks for these great, old scans! They are a pleasure to read.
LikeLike
I think this article is in line with the same kind of thinking we saw in Gunther’s post regarding Eagle’s pencils and how they are “proven” to be smoother by way of machinery. In other words, both quantifying and qualifying the aesthetic experience of pencils. If you make pencils, what else can you do if you want to sell more pencils but “prove” they provide a better writing experience? 🙂
LikeLike
Interesting that the Microtomic with the metal end-cap was the 600, and the version with the crimped ferrule the 603. They both had, I think, the same lead.
LikeLike
I really like the metal end-caps. No matter how good the pencil, if it just has a cap-less end, it almost seems like the pencil is “broken” to me. This probably has to do with the fact that in the U.S., pencils with erasers are the norm, at least the kind you use when you’re growing up. I have an old Castell 9000 that Michael Leddy kindly sent to me, and I’ve put an old Faber eraser cap on the end. I’ll try to upload a picture of it.
Here is the 9000:
You can see a larger version here:
LikeLike
I have both versions of the microtomic and it seems the metal end-cap ones I have are slightly harder grade than my crimped ferrule ones (Both HB grades). But maybe I’m just overly sensitive…..does seem slightly different though.
LikeLike
It’s funny how we’ll notice these slight differences, but I wonder to what degree it has to do with an actual change in the lead formula vs. variations that might have occurred from batch to batch. Or, if it’s all in our heads. 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: Eberhard Faber “Van Dyke” | Contrapuntalism
Good point….since Faber certainly has kept the quality up over their many years (which you can’t say for….umm…DIXON? ). I immediately noticed the difference in Dixon’s pencil leads as soon as the lost the ‘made in USA” stamp! Scratchy and many already broken in the wood case!
I have to say, my favorites now a days are the: Faber Microtomics(HB-2B…I have my stash…), Castell 9000 (B), General’s Cedar Pointe(2HB) and suprisingly, C.H Hanson Sure-Point Finish Pencil (really nice lead).
LikeLike