Help: Century Vs Century 2

[Pravda]

Ladies and Gents,

 

I am in the market for a Cross and while doing some reading/viewing I got totally confused.

 

Which is the newer model? The Century Classic or the Century II?

 

Are they close in size? Or is the Century Classic considerably thinner?

 

Which do you like more or prefer?

 

And finally, I have noticed that not all retail boxes come with converters. Is this something I should be paying attention to?

 

Thanks!

[The Blue Knight]

Both are modern. I think the main difference from the user point of view is the classic doesn't take a converter. All cross pens don't come with a converter any more even there flagship Townsend.

[Pravda]

Both are modern. I think the main difference from the user point of view is the classic doesn't take a converter. All cross pens don't come with a converter any more even there flagship Townsend.

 

Thanks for your reply. So the classic doesn't take a converter at all?

 

I don't know why but based on looks alone, the classic seems to be a bit more appealing :/ But I just don't do cartridges

[domnortheast]

I have been very happy with my Century II. It is very pleasant to write with producing a smooth wet line, it is nicely weighted and slim (I prefer slimmer pens). I have a 'fine' nib in it which is, to my mind, still a quite fat medium...the medium it came with in the the shop was a fat blobby broad to my eye and I quickly asked them to swap it out.

 

Dom

 

Edit: my only issue is that, as with most modern pens at this price point, the nib is rock solid and offers no line variation.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Stanley Howler

[The Blue Knight]

 

Thanks for your reply. So the classic doesn't take a converter at all?

 

I don't know why but based on looks alone, the classic seems to be a bit more appealing :/ But I just don't do cartridges

 

 

The century II is a decent pen especially if you like slim pens. It is little thicker then a pencil at it's grip section.

[benbot517]

The Century Classic is very thin, but I find it surprisingly comfortable. I do wish it took a converter though.

[ac12]

Ladies and Gents,

 

I am in the market for a Cross and while doing some reading/viewing I got totally confused.

 

Which is the newer model? The Century Classic or the Century II?

 

Are they close in size? Or is the Century Classic considerably thinner?

 

Which do you like more or prefer?

 

And finally, I have noticed that not all retail boxes come with converters. Is this something I should be paying attention to?

 

Thanks!

 

First there is considerable name confusion with the Century series of Cross fountain pens.

• First there was the Century
• Then there was the larger and heavier Century II

  http://www.cross.com/writing-instruments/explore-collections/premium/century-ii.aspx

• And then the Classic Century, which is thinner than the original Century.

  http://www.cross.com/writing-instruments/explore-collections/premium/classic-century.aspx

There is no Century Classic.

I say this because people (including Cross) call the original Century the Classic Century or Century Classic, when in fact the alternate names are incorrect and confusing.

 

Cross currently list both the Century II and the Classic Century, as current models.

But the Classic Century is the latest model.

 

I think they call it Classic Century because it is about the same diameter as the original Century ball pens, which was thinner than the Century fountain pen.

Unfortunately Cross chose to NOT make a converter for their slim fountain pens which the Classic Century is one of. You would need to syringe fill the Cross slim cartridge. And that is something else to consider, the Cross slim cartridges are more difficult to find, so you probably will have to mail order them.

 

Personally I like the original Century best, followed by the Classic Century.

The Century II is too fat and heavy for my hand.

 

As for nib, better get used to nails. For a great many years FP manufacturers have stopped making flex nibs, because most people are ball pen users. As such, they would likely spring/damage a flex nib, and that would be a headache for warranty service. Flex writers are in the small minority, so the FP manufactures don't cater to them, they are going after the majority of the market.

Edited February 11, 2015 by ac12

[Biber]

Nails? I find the nib on the original century to be quite soft if not springy. Now that's one to seek out in my opinion.

[highlander1307]

Didn't know the new Classic Century does not use a converter. Strange. Different cartridge size? Again strange. Given that knowledge, would suggest you consider buying a vintage Century on eBay. I have several with different nibs. Have an additional Century II and it is great. The nib is a little fancier.

[highlander1307]

Both are modern. I think the main difference from the user point of view is the classic doesn't take a converter. All cross pens don't come with a converter any more even there flagship Townsend.

Good to know. Thank you.

[penrivers]

I have both, they look good, of course I prefer the first century classic out of its magnetism and legend. Of course I dont care about cartridges or any feeder system, my only concern is the always inefable lurking nightmare of a wobbling nib but I touch wood and it will never happen.

[Biber]

The Classic Century is, as far as I can tell, a rehash of the Spire (which in my opinion was very dip pennish in style) only in more affordable materials. Wasn't that originally offered with a special slim converter?

 

I've seen where carts have been rigged as eye droppers/bulb fillers by attaching a sac to a cut down cart. Any reason that couldn't be done?

[ac12]

Biber,

Yes, the Spire was the predecessor of the Classic Century.

They both use the same slim cartridge, but no the Spire did not have a converter included, nor was one available to buy. That was one thing that I had the store check into when I bought my Spire.

As far as looks, the Classic Century looks like the original Century ball pen.

 

No reason that you could not make a bulb filler out of a cartridge. The cartridge is almost the length of the body, so you would gain very little in capacity. But that sounds like an interesting project to do. Thanks for the idea.

[OcalaFlGuy]

I have both a Century I and II in 14k.

 

IMO the I is a bit thinner.

 

It is, again IMO, much cleaner and more classic looking than the II.

 

Both however are quality pens, though one should be aware of at least the potential for the Death Wobble in the nib

section of the I.

 

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

[Jerome Tarshis]

Yes, indeed, Bruce, the Century II is wider than the Century was. It was so advertised. Making a somewhat wider pen that resembled the Century came as a response to people's complaining that the Century was too thin. People still complained that the Century II was too thin, so when Cross designed the Townsend it had a somewhat wider barrel than the Century II. I like my Townsends very much, but in the matter of barrel width Cross couldn't win for losing: there are posts on pen boards complaining that although the Townsend is a terrific writer, the barrel is too thin.

 

The company has made some relatively bulbous pens since then, and for that matter the Solo/Radiance has proportions very like those of what people think of as a regular fountain pen. I am above that battle: I do just fine with really thin pens. That came as a surprise, but I've been set free to enjoy a lot of 70s-80s goodness.

 

As for the nib wobble, I haven't experienced it myself in any of my half dozen Century FPs. Writing with a Century II didn't get me out of the land of inherent vice, though. My first Century II had a common failing: the plastic sleeve over the section came loose. Cross replaced the nib unit, and the current one is holding together. I'd like to think Cross has corrected the problem, not that I've had a lucky break. Still, if it isn't one flaw, it can be another.

[atc729]

I currently have a Century I ball point and I was looking to getting the rest of the line (fountain, rollerball, and maybe even the pencil). I was unaware that there were not converters for it. That may change my mind on the situation. Thanks for all of the information everyone!

[Chris]

Do please re-read ac12's post carefully. He is correct.

 

The Classic does take a converter (I have two) but this is often misnamed the Century I to distinguish it from the Century II and, more confusingly, misnamed the Classic Century or Century Classic. It may have become a classic but it was never a Classic.

 

If you have an early Century (with the 'flat top' nib), they can and do take the green push-in converter as also used in the Townsend, but not the orange screw-in one. That one is for the Century II.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Chris

[harry015]

The "Death Wobble" on the original Century has me curious. I own one, using it as my go-to everyday pen. Mine is a black, made in USA model with the flat gold nib. It's an extremely good writer, smooth as silk, and still a fine looking pen. The nib has some wear, but it's obviously been gentle wear. I thought I had paid too much for it, but not any more. That's why this wobble surprises me.

 

Any tell tale signs of the approach of this?

[penrivers]

The centuries I and II easily combine with the ball point and the mechanical pencil. I think Cross wish to make a less thin fountain pen and made the II. The I was never made again. What you call now the classic nothing has to do with the first four.

Edited August 1, 2015 by penrivers

[harry015]

Nails? I find the nib on the original century to be quite soft if not springy. Now that's one to seek out in my opinion.

I agree with this. I use an original Century as an everyday writer, and it never fails, and always produces a nice line.

 

Of course, I use it with the converter, so I have the immense variety of inks to choose from, and to experiment with, which can provide some interesting results.

 

They are inexpensive at the moment. I prefer the black finish, as its less slippery, and still fine looking. Try one, I think you'll like it.