My old boss said to always use a 0.5mm lead for my architectural details, and he was dead on.

I was doing a big set of elevation drawings for a custom home job in Austin last year. I used a 0.7mm lead because I thought it was faster and wouldn't break as much. The lead architect came back and said all my fine lines for brickwork and window mullions looked muddy and lost definition. I switched to the 0.5mm like my boss said years ago, and the next review passed with zero comments on line quality. Has anyone else had a specific lead size make or break a drawing set?

2 comments

2 Comments

fiona50225d ago

The thing that gets me is how it changes with scale. I was doing a huge site plan on a D-size sheet, and the 0.5mm looked like a spiderweb, totally useless. Switched to a 0.7 for the main property lines and it held up. But then on the same sheet, the building footprint details needed the 0.5 again or it turned into a blob. It's not just the lead, it's the lead plus the scale you're plotting at. Makes you keep a whole set of pencils on hand.

pipera5025d ago

Totally get that. Read an old drafting book that said the line weight should match the drawing's purpose, not just the pencil size. They had this example of a topographic map where the contour lines were 0.3mm but the road was 0.8, even at the same scale. It's about making some things recede and other things pop forward visually. Your property line needs to be seen first from across the room, so it gets the thicker lead. The detail stuff is for close looking. Makes perfect sense why you'd need the whole range right there.