A rhetorical question - Lamy versus Montblanc. Ok that's unfair. Pelikan versus Montblanc - which is the better quality?
Before you pepper the place with your answers, let me tell you, there are only two ways to make a pen. If the medium you are using will hold a thread, manufacturers will generally cut threads directly into that medium and assemble the pen. It's the same approach you would take if you were making a so called kitless pen. That's method one.
Method two is if your medium will not hold a thread - you then drill out the centre and insert a tube, into which components are then pressed. All manufacturers employ both methods to make their pens, depending on the material they are making them from. What differs between manufacturers is the bit that makes it write - the nib or the refill.
So I ask again - Pelikan or Montblanc? Montblancs cost a fortune so they are bound to be the very best surely? Hmmm. I suggest that in a comparison like that, it is down to nothing more than perception. To all intents and purposes there is no difference in the quality between those two whatsoever, but Montblanc have maneuvered us into making us think theirs is better, simply by charging more and through canny marketing.
In other words, if you make pens and price them cheaply, they are perceived as being a poorer quality than the same pen being sold at a higher price. Given that we all make pens by hand, and that very fact is a large part of OUR marketing, why is it that many turners will allow potential customers to think they are not very well made, or poor quality, or not worth having, by undercharging for them. I'm not suggesting that we all start pricing along the same lines as Montblanc, but at the same time, I don't think that we should be pricing them along the same lines as Bic either.
And anyway, who is making more profit - the turner who sells 3 pens for £5 each, or the turner who sells 1 pen for £15? The person selling 3 pens might gloat that he's had the better result, but frankly, he's wrong.