Today I will be reviewing a relative newcomer in the fountain pen world, the Pilot Metropolitan. Pilot is perhaps the most well known of the Japanese pen manufacturers (part of the big three that includes Sailor and Platinum), and is one of the few fountain pen companies well known to non-fountain pen users due to the fact that they make an entire range of rollerballs, ballpoints, and other writing instruments.

The Pilot Metropolitan is significant for it’s relatively low price and wide availability. First available in 2012, it goes up against other economical fountain pens such as the Lamy Safari, yet amazingly undercuts it in price while still offering similar features and performance.

My Review will be in the following format: 1. First impressions (10) 2. Quality and workmanship (20) 3. Nib performance (30) 4. Filling system (10) 5. Cost/value (20) 6. Everyday use (10) 7. Observations and conclusions,

The score is based on comparison to other fountain pens in the price range.

So lets get started!

Pilot Metropolitan, capped:

Size next to a Lamy Safari:



First impressions:

The Pilot Metropolitan was my first Pilot pen, but the company had a reputation for quality writing instruments that preceded it, and my expectations reflected that.

The aesthetics of the exterior design at first glance confused me somewhat. While appearing to attempt a simple design, the somewhat elegant outline is broken by a midsection with what appears to be a different texture (it appears to be a clear coat over the paint) I questioned this design decision, but I later found out that the barrel itself is brass, yet the mid piece where the section meets the barrel is plastic with a metal insert. Perhaps the paint adheres to the plastic different than the brass and thus necessitates the extra clear coat. The overall paint finish was completely flawless.

Inspecting the pen I was disappointed at the cheap appearing clip. The clip is a folded metal sheet that is inserted into the cap through tabs. It appears no different than a clip found on any number of inexpensive disposable pens.

Upon holding it, I was surprised at the weight of the pen (due to the brass barrel), what I also noticed was that the pen was very bottom heavy due to the very lightweight plastic section. When placed in a tripod grip the pen balance is acceptable, but the narrow section necessitated a tighter grip than I am used to using.

Metro narrow section:



Overall, the first impression was underwhelming. I am not a fan of the aesthetic design decisions, and while the weight was reassuring, it caused imbalance. The clip and narrow section do not make the pen stand out as anything more than inexpensive.

Metro clip:



Score: 3/10

Quality and Workmanship:

Close inspection in the pen revealed no flaws in workmanship. The paint is impressively applied, the threading on the section and barrel fit well, and the cap sets securely with an audible “click.” The clip, while appearing cheap, was tightly secured to the cap, and had no side to side play whatsoever.

Pilot is known for high quality, and despite the price point of this pen it is obvious that the workmanship followed that tradition.

Score: 17/20

Nib Performance

Metro nib:



The stainless steel nib on the Metro is similar to many other economy pilot nibs. Like many Japanese mediums, it is akin to a western fine (in fact, it is finer than some of my western fine points). It would be nice to offer a variety of nib choices, but it is understandable that to keep the pen simple to manufacture and distribute, they choose to only carry what would have likely been the most popular nib choice anyway.

The writing experience allowed by the nib is a real strong point in this pen. It takes any kind of ink I put in it and puts out a consistent, if not somewhat uninteresting, performance. The pen writes a narrow line with a lighter amount of wetness, yet it has never once skipped on me or hesitated to start. The nib floats along the page with very little tactile feedback or “scratchiness.” I prefer some tactile feedback to remind me that I am indeed using a fountain pen, but the smooth Metro’s nib allows itself to slip into the background and become invisible to the writing experience itself.

The nib itself is a nail and does not allow for much to any line variation. This is characteristic of the vast majority of stainless steel nibs.

Line variation:



While it will not amaze the nib connoisseur, the consistency and reliability of the nib’s performance is an achievement in itself. While I enjoy some more tactile feedback, it is a personal and not universal preference.

Score: 25/30

Filling System:

“Cleaning” converter:



“Cleaning” converter next to Con-50:



In this price range, I know of no other pen that comes with a converter. The Metro’s “cleaning” converter is functional yet holds a tiny amount of ink that is unlikely to get a moderate volume writer through the day without a refill. Upgrading to the Con-50 converter only mildly helps things, but has a tiny capacity as well (with the agitator it has been reported as 0.6 ml). I really don’t understand the point of taking an already small converter and inserting an agitator that further takes up space. I have never had any issues with an agitator-less converter.

Pilot deserves credit for providing a converter at all in this price point, but the converter itself or the alternative leave much to be desired.

Score: 4/10

Cost/Value:

I paid 18.50 + tax for the pen. I know of no other pen that comes close to providing a similar quality writing instrument at this price point. That I can get a pen that with normal use will likely last a lifetime for this price is amazing in itself.

Score: 20/20

Everyday Use:

I used this pen as my primary writer for approximately 2 months, and as a secondary writer for approximately 6 months. It never once had any issues with quality. The clip, while appearing cheap, never once failed to secure the pen to my pocket. There were never any leaks. The friction cap made taking a quick note or two mildly simpler than a twist cap. The low ink capacity was often an issue, requiring me to carry a 2nd pen with the same ink. The opaque converter does not allow one to see how much ink is left, so running out is often unexpected.

Despite the weight asymmetry, and small section, writing for long periods was not uncomfortable and fatiguing. Once I quickly adapted to writing with the pen, I did not notice these things any more.

I enjoyed my time using the Metro as a primary writer, and often use it as my “2nd pen” to whatever I am using as my primary writer at the time.

Score: 7/10

Observations and conclusions:

I would suggest that not only is the Metro a great pen for the beginner, but it makes a great 2nd pen for any fountain pen user. It would also be ideal for anyone needing a reliable fountain pen that would be easily replaceable if lost, damaged, or stolen. I would not (and do not) hesitate to bring my Metro and use it at work, however I would never bring and use the Metro as my only pen due to the tiny ink capacity. The Con-50 does allow one to see the amount of ink left, but the low capacity is still an issue. I find the pen to be somewhat more usable with the Con-50, and much closer to a pen that can be carried without a backup.

The Pilot Metro is quickly becoming, along with the Lamy Safari, the go to “first pen” recommendation for those interested in trying fountain pens. To mention it with the likes of the Safari is an achievement that Pilot should be proud of.

Total Score: 76/100 (Great)

Score System: (score is compared to other pens in the price range)

0-49 Varying levels of unacceptable, there are other better pens for the same price

50-59 Acceptable for everyday use, average

60-69 Good, many features are above average

70-89 Great, most features are above average

90-100 Amazing, class leading, iconic