As a new pocket calculator tribute demonstrates, the Tombow Mono eraser is a design icon. It is also a mighty fine eraser. And similar to other successful products, the Mono has several brand “extensions”.

Looking just at the traditional block format erasers, here are five variants:

PE-04A, the basic Tombow Mono.

EN-MN, the “Non Dust” version.

PE-LT, the “Light” version.

EL-KA and EN-MA, which don’t have English names.

The EL-KA is distinguished by a slight blue tone – the other four erasers are bright white.

Readers of this blog are probably aware that top modern erasers are all first rate. The Pilot Foam, the Mitsubishi Boxy, and many others are great erasers. Differentiating between their performance is often a matter of discerning slight variations.

So I’ll admit to some curiosity about what might make these five PVC erasers from Tombow different from one another.

First observation: all five are excellent, and share much in common.

The name of the Non-Dust confuses me, as it seems to produce the same residue as other erasers. Perhaps there is some specific type of particle that it isn’t emitting? It is denser than the Mono, but the results seem very similar to me.

The EN-MA is spongier and lighter, but it also produced a very similar result. I like the feel.

The Light is the first one that truly feels different. It feels exceptionally smooth on paper – it does feel “light”. You also experience something the photo partially reflects – it excels at attracting and absorbing graphite. I don’t love the design of the sleeve (versus the original), but it is definitely an eraser worth trying.

Finally, the bluish EL-KA seemed to produce a different residue type – finer particles. Yet, the performance was similar to the others.

Are all these variations worthwhile? I imagine that for certain specialty pencil/paper combinations, one of these erasers might just be perfect. But for most general pencil users, I’m not so sure.

Does anyone like one or more of the Tombow Mono variants? If so, what do you like about it?

From Kikkerland, we have the PVC free and Latex free peanut eraser.

An amusing novelty, but not so great as an eraser:

My thanks to Kent from PenciLog for sending me a MonAmi Gripix eraser and a HwaRang Dust-free eraser.

MonAmi is Korea’s largest stationer, and Gripix is one of their brands associated with mechanical pencils, leads, and erasers.

HwaRang is a long established rubber company.

I believe both firms do have some products for sale in North America, though they are not prominent in the stationery market.

Both erasers work well, but Kent reminds me that they contain phthalates, so they are probably not the best choice for children.

It seems like erasers made of vinyl or other synthetic ingredients are the norm today. Here is a traditional rubber eraser that I was surprised to find.

It seems relatively dense, and with a lot of particulate matter exuding from a new eraser. It does a good job on a Lumograph 100:

The paper in the photos is loose leaf 17 x 22cm Clairfontaine Séyès, an unusual sighting in Canada.

In the far corners of pencildom’s taxonomy we have two extremely interesting (and very retro looking!) woodcased ink erasers with brushes.

Both round, they feature ink eraser cores and crimped ferrules that grasp brushes. The blue bristles of the Mars match that pencil’s finish and have an additional appeal.

The crimped ferrules with brushes harken back to typewriter erasers.

The Staedtler pencils are marked:

Obverse: Made in Germany Staedtler Mars erasor

Reverse: [bar code] EAN 40 07817 530948 Art. Nr. 526 61

And the Faber-Castell:

Perfection 7058 Faber-Castell

The font and finish of this pencil suggests it may be one of those marginal offerings where the value of updating to the modern branding wasn’t seen as worthwhile. On the other hand, the Staedtler pencil could fit in (apart from not fitting in at all!) in a modern product lineup.

Though I can’t replace either of them, I decided to try them out, on an Exacompta Bloc Faf (shown) , and also a Rhodia pad.

Lamy ink (fountain pen):

Neither eraser seemed to have any effect!

Pencil (Castell 9000, HB):

The Faber-Castell eraser seemed to have an advantage.

Ballpoint (Bexley labelled, probably from Schmidt – no ordinary ballpoints could be found.)

Here is where these erasers become useful – The Staedtler did a slow but good job of removing the ballpoint ink on the Rhodia paper. On the thinner Exacompta paper, both seemed to spin their wheels.

If you write on thick paper with ballpoint, the Mars rasor seems potentially useful. And if you just want a very unusual stationery accessory, both are high recommended!

My thanks to Diane for kindly sending me some Black Pearl erasers in June.

Compared to the other black erasers we have looked at, which were all roughly block shape, the Black Pearl is distinguished by a flattened oval shape. Just for this alone, I like it. It is portable, easy to grip, and works well.

It seems harder, and a bit denser, than other black erasers. Perhaps this is a manufacturing requirement for a thin eraser.

Just how well does it work? I used the same Rhodia pad and Staedtler Mars pencil as in the previous review, and have added a Palomino pencil.

It erases not quite as well as the Papermate Exam eraser. The softer erasers seem to have an advantage with this particular graphite/paper combination.

See also: Black erasers

There was a question about how the PaperMate Exam Standard compared to other black erasers, so I thought I’d try a small side by side comparison.

As was done with previous eraser tests, the Staedtler Mars Lumograph 100 and a Rhodia pad were used as our reference pencil and paper.

I also added in Pentel Ain 2B 0.7mm mechanical pencil lead for comparison.

The erasers tested were:

Some black erasers I’m aware of that I don’t have are the Papermate Black Pearl, Carta Pura, and Stabilo Exam Grade.

So what is the raison d’être of these erasers? I don’t really know. The only one I’ve generally seen at retail in Canada is the Factis. I heard it suggested that charcoal erasure is the purpose of black erasers. How do they differ from a standard white vinyl eraser? Here, I know even less. It is entirely possible that they are just dyed standard erasers.

Basically, I thought they would be alike – but testing exposed some differences.

First, the polymer Ain lead erased better than the ceramic Staedler lead, which is consistent with previous findings.

Second – picking the winner was tougher than picking the loser. Two were notably worse at erasure – the Kesu Gomu and the Faber-Castell, the Faber-Castell being the worst.

The winner is, to my eye, the Boxy, though the Papermate and Factis also did extremely well.

My general impression is that the erasers are on the softer, gentler side.

A couple of notes about the erasers -

I don’t find the Exam Standard officially acknowledged on Papermate’s website. It shipped in a blister pack of three, and the erasers are wrapped in paper sleeves.

Factis is based in Girona, Spain. The eraser has a cellophane band, and is the only eraser with markings.

The Kesu Gomu is from Seed of Japan. It is a delightful eraser, and some great photos can be seen at Lexikaliker. I am not sure if it is meant to be a novelty eraser, but I am treating it as if meant for duty.

The Faber-Castell has rounded edges which are called a “comfort feature”. Interesting, as many erasers tout their sharp edges as a feature.

The Boxy has an unusual square cross-section.

I thought I was done, but decided on one more challenge – to investigate the charcoal erasure function.

I tried both a charcoal pencil and willow charcoal on a Fabriano journal. As one would expect, the natural charcoal erased much more easily than the compressed charcoal in the pencil. Yet, the charcoal marks don’t really erase.

If you’re going to have exam pencils, you might as well have exam erasers, right?

The Papermate Exam Standard Speederase appears to match the corresponding Papermate pencil, except that it was purchased at retail in Canada.

It comes in a very unusual black, and is labeled as being latex free, smudge resistant, and dust-free.

The eraser detritus forms a very interesting pattern.

Trying it out on Staedtler 168 exam pencil markings on a Handbook Journal Co. Quattro notepad, it does the job, though not perfectly.

I discovered the Uchida Proeraser some while ago while browsing the uncomfortable chair. It is a nicely-finished all-metal clutch holder for erasers. Most unusual.

The one I ordered came with an ink eraser.

As it takes an eraser of 3.8mm diameter, it occurred to me that it should be able to handle a 3.8mm lead. A less common size, Pilot, Koh-I-Noor, and Caran d’Ache all make leads and holders in this diameter.

The most accessible pencil in this category is probably the Pilot Croquis, available at many art supply stores.

I put a Pilot refill in the Uchida – and found I had a very usable and nice looking 3.8mm clutch leadholder.

Here are a couple of amazingly thin erasers.

The Tombow Mono zero is a 2.3mm diameter cyclindrical eraser, dispensed by clicking the cap. It really does seem like a mechanical pencil in both form and function.

I thought this eraser was probably a borderline novelty, but it worked quite well over a period of days. You wouldn’t use it to erase several lines of text, but it is great for smaller tasks such as changing a line fragment, digit or letter.

I like the portability as well.

The Pentel Clic Eraser Hyperaser is a rectangular metal housed eraser. It has a dispense mechanism similar to that of most stick erasers, such as the Staedtler 528 50. A clip as well!

This is an ink eraser. It seemed to work well on tests with ballpoint ink, and less well with fountain pen ink.

I wasn’t expecting much, but both seemed pretty good.

The main problem I see it that both require yet more proprietary refill types. The Mono zero in particular seems like it will require a replacement eraser soon enough.

My thanks to der Lexikaliker for the Pentel eraser.

Wow, perfection! Or, maybe not…

The Perfection 7056 is a woodcase pencil format eraser from Faber-Castell.

Unusual looking by pencil standards, it is a very lightly hued/pale (almost ash) woodcase pencil with a light pink eraser core. It walks and talks like a pencil – but acts like an eraser.

The format provides convenience and a familiar grip – if you can hold a pencil, you can hold this eraser. It also provides an always “clean” eraser surface for those who prefer or require this – just sharpen, and the eraser is like new.

As to the eraser itself – I am a bit confused. The photo shows marks from a Staedtler Ergosoft in HB on a Rhodia pad. The right side was erased by the Perfection, and for comparison, the left side was erased by a Staedler mars plastic eraser.

What a difference. The Perfection has several pluses, but as an eraser, it seems quite sub-standard compared to typical format quality rectangular erasers. One note: it did seem very gentle on paper – perhaps the forte is in a specialty area.

Do you use this eraser? What do you use it for?

KUM is a well known pencil sharpener manufacturer. Though inhabiting a very specialized market, they have an enviable reputation as a quality manufacturer with international distribution.

What may not be as well known is that KUM sells pencils – three by my count, all part of larger product offerings.

Today we’ll look at the KUM Blue Ocean. At first glance it appears to be a small barbell – perhaps a discreet exercise product for office workers.

Closer inspection reveals that this is a pencil – housed at one end by an eraser, and at the other by a plastic cap. We’ll look at each of the three devices in turn.

The eraser is gigantic for a pencil cap type eraser – a black mini-football marked with the KUM logo on two sides. It does erase quite well. It weighs in at 10.7g.

The cap is marked “KUM since 1919″. It is black grooved plastic, with the appearance somewhat clunky in my view. The top of the cap has a true “cap” – a small piece of attached plastic that can be removed to reveal a red plastic sharpener.

Typical of a KUM product, there is a screw on the blade, and I suspect that the blade is replaceable. It works as a sharpener, but it is challenging to get a proper grip.

The cap/sharpener weigh 6.7g.

The pencil itself is marked in silver on matte black, “KUM Blue Ocean KUM”. It is 125mm long, below standard length.

The cap is rounded but unfinished. The wood is very pale – basswood?

The lead is a surprise – a very dark 2B perhaps, good though not the smoothest.

So back to the barbell comparison – a typical modern pencil is 4g, and the Blue Ocean pencil is 3g. But this eraser is 10.7g and the cap 6.7g. So this is a lopsided barbell.

All aspects of the product have problems. The eraser is simply too heavy to be a pencil cap eraser. At triple to quadruple the weight of a woodcase pencil, a pencil falls backward out of one’s hand with this eraser attached.

Even with a tightened grip, the balance is all off. While perhaps KUM wanted to offer value, or the appearance of a substantial eraser, a 10.7g eraser is simply too heavy for a pencil cap eraser.

The cap/sharpener is awkward and clunky. It does not taper towards the pencil, and cannot be comfortably held.

KUM’s concept is not new to us. I think we have to give credit where it is due, and thank Faber-Castell for their Perfect Pencil line. However, unlike the Faber-Castell products, KUM’s Blue Ocean product is not practical, and barely usable.

I commend KUM for trying something new – but the execution leaves much to be desired.