Pelikan M1000 Compared To New Postal Senior Reservoir Pen

[Tumbleweedtoo]

Writing Review and Comparison:

 

Today, I spent a considerable amount of time writing with a Pelikan M1000 M nib using Pelikan Blue ink AND THEN writing with the New Postal Senior Reservoir Pen M nib with J. Herbin Bleu Nuit ink. I used the same paper with each pen, Staples eco-friendly sugarcane-based paper. The M1000 felt a little clumsy to write with (but not bad to write with), and I never really got over that clumsy feeling: it showed in my cursive penmanship, which also looked somewhat clumsy. I think the problem with the M1000 for me is that it is just ever so slightly too large in diameter for me. I actually ran the M1000 pen out of ink, have cleaned it, and plan to take it out of rotation for awhile (am thinking of inking the M800 to compare it with the New Postal Senior Reservoir Pen). In my experience today, and I have used both pens on other days too with these same consistent results, the New Postal Senior Reservoir was much easier to hold (actually a delight to hold). It seemed to fit my fingers perfectly, with just the right diameter. My cursive penmanship improved dramatically, and the steel nib was exceptionally smooth to write with, smoother than the gold M1000 nib, which also wrote smoothly. So, I do know by experience that some steel nibs can write as well or better than some gold nibs. I realize that the different inks might have made a difference. The J. Herbin ink might have been more wet than the Pelikan ink, and consequently might have made the New Postal Pen write more smoothly. However, overall, I plan to keep the New Postal Pen inked (and it will hold A LOT of ink!) and use it as a daily writer. I am very pleased with the size of the Senior and am glad I got it.

 

BTW: If anyone knows, what materials were used in making the barrel of the New Postal Pen? I got the impression that it was a celluloid pen, but I may be mistaken. I want to use ink that will not have an adverse effect on the pen.

 

All the Best,

T

[jandrese]

Interesting this new Postal pen, how about some photos? Where didi you get it?

[Tumbleweedtoo]

The pen came directly from Richard Binder and you can go directly to his pen advertisement here. At the bottom of the page, you can choose different pens to compare pictorially (and with dimensions given) that are far better than my photographs! :-) If you compare the New Postal with the M1000 on his page, the New Postal is longer and it does look wider. Hope that helps a little.

 

Well, I also think I answered my own question above. The pen is made from "modern acrylic resins" according to the Gate City Pen and Ink Company website.

 

All the Best,

T

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tumbleweedtoo

[Brian]

You might be right about the diameter. It might also be the length of the nib and distance from the point on paper to the section. It is a little long.

[Jerome Tarshis]

The above review doesn't tell us what filling mechanism the Postal Reservoir pen uses. The material on Richard Binder's site, for which we are offered a link, doesn't tell us what the filling mechanism is. The ad copy in the two-pen comparison does sort of assert that the New Postal etc etc is better than an eyedropper-filled pen. But it doesn't say how the pen fills.

 

I understand that if I applied myself to Google I could probably find out how the pen fills, but I also think maybe the manufacturer and the reviewer have been less informative on this subject than I'd prefer. Can someone leap in here with what Nashua may regard as superfluous information?

[jandrese]

The pen came directly from Richard Binder and you can go directly to his pen advertisement here. At the bottom of the page, you can choose different pens to compare pictorially (and with dimensions given) that are far better than my photographs! :-) If you compare the New Postal with the M1000 on his page, the New Postal is longer and it does look wider. Hope that helps a little.

 

Well, I also think I answered my own question above. The pen is made from "modern acrylic resins" according to the Gate City Pen and Ink Company website.

 

All the Best,

T

 

Ok, thanks. It is Richard Binder. At this point his site and his new Gate City site are a little circular. I think it is a good idea to bring back the Postal. How much was it and was the nib tuned by Richard?

[Richard]

The above review doesn't tell us what filling mechanism the Postal Reservoir pen uses. The material on Richard Binder's site, for which we are offered a link, doesn't tell us what the filling mechanism is. The ad copy in the two-pen comparison does sort of assert that the New Postal etc etc is better than an eyedropper-filled pen. But it doesn't say how the pen fills.

Oh, man, I'm really sorry. Jim and I were really excited about bringing back the Postal, and being vintage collectors we just assumed... Oopsie. The Postal was, and the New Postal is, a bulb filler. If you're not familiar with bulb fillers, here's the explanation from my site's reference section:

 

Design: Mechanical squeeze of bulb at end of barrel.

 

http://www.richardspens.com/images/ref/fillers/bulb.png

 

To fill: Remove blind cap. Immerse nib and part of section into ink. Squeeze and release bulb several times until no more bubbles appear, waiting three seconds after each squeeze. Remove pen from ink and clean. Replace blind cap. (On some pens, there is no blind cap as such. Instead, the barrel unscrews to reveal a clear reservoir with the bulb at its end.)

The pen does come with an instruction sheet with detailed filling instructions.

 

And, as with all our new pens, Jim or I will tune every New Postal that we sell.

[Tumbleweedtoo]

One reason I only did a writing comparison is because others here in the FPN had actually reviewed the pen very well. :-) Also, there are a lot of good comments along with that review and pictures too.

 

All the Best,

T

[jniforat]

The above review doesn't tell us what filling mechanism the Postal Reservoir pen uses. The material on Richard Binder's site, for which we are offered a link, doesn't tell us what the filling mechanism is. The ad copy in the two-pen comparison does sort of assert that the New Postal etc etc is better than an eyedropper-filled pen. But it doesn't say how the pen fills.

 

I understand that if I applied myself to Google I could probably find out how the pen fills, but I also think maybe the manufacturer and the reviewer have been less informative on this subject than I'd prefer. Can someone leap in here with what Nashua may regard as superfluous information?

 

i'm confused: in the link to Gate City Pens that was provided, it says that the pen is a bulb-filler:

One of the more interesting pen companies in the 1920s was the Postal Pen Company. Postal pens were bulb fillers, and they were sold only by mail.

 

Since the New Postal Pen is a REMAKE of the Postal Pen, it implies the new postal pen is a bulb filler.

 

also, the picture one sees comparing the new pen with the old pen on the link to Mr. Binder's site clearly shows that this pen is a bulb filler.

[razr]

Writing Review and Comparison:

 

I realize that the different inks might have made a difference. The J. Herbin ink might have been more wet than the Pelikan ink, and consequently might have made the New Postal Pen write more smoothly.

 

I think that using the same ink in both pens would have been a better (fairer) comparison. I've noticed that going from Pelikan to another ink (i.e. Montblanc) makes a world of difference in how smoothly the pen writes.

[ballboy]

I've noticed that going from Pelikan to another ink (i.e. Montblanc) makes a world of difference in how smoothly the pen writes.

What differences are there? Which one do you prefer?