Montblanc Bordeaux, Written Review

[wimg]

Hi all,

This is an experiment for people with a slower connection. Please let me know if this is workable. I have downsized the scans even further, just hope that details are still quite visisble. THe individual pages are viewable in higher resolution by clicking on the page links. Just note that the individual pages range in size from 110 to 150 KB each. Text that follows is the same as in the review with the big scans. It follows now.

I promised to do another ink review, Bordeaux this time, on request , so here it is, on the 7th day of the week . I have chosen Montblanc Bordeaux for this review. Another Bordeaux will hopefully be up next week some time.

Page 1:


Page 2:


Page 3:


Page 4:


Page 5:


As I mentioned, the more I started using it, the more I liked it. However, it is clear that it is of little use in very fine nibs, and that it works best in wet writers. Furthermore, when rinsing out the pens an nibs, I found that it was an easy job compared to high density inks. All in all the rinsing and flushing took about 2 hours, over a period of 2 days, to get the pens thoroughly clean.

Enjoy!

Warm regards, Wim

P.S.: Please comment on the usability of this way of presenting the review. TIA!

Edited August 2, 2016 by lapis
fixed links

[Karin]

Hi Wim,

I have a highspeed connection and for my older eyes, I find the resolution a little tiny (when I click on the link)

However, in deference to my friends with slower connections, I can manage.

It's very thoughtful of you to provide this option.

And I got enough of the look of the ink to want to buy a bottle :bonk:

 

Fond regards,

Karin :bunny1:

[zxc]

I also have a broadband connection, but I don't mind this format at all. I know the layout of your reviews, and even though I can't see some of it clearly I can get a general overview of the ink by looking at the smaller versions. And If i want more info I can just click

[southpaw]

Wim,

I'm likely in the minority who are still stuck with dial-up, so I felt obligated to respond to your request for feedback. In all seriousness (I know, it's a rareityh and probably a shock), but your ink reviews are so well done and entertaining that they are worth waiting on them to load.

I looked at both - the 700kb and the 200kb versions, and even though I have relatively young eyes (36 yrs old), I prefer not to strain reading some of the smaller writing. Besides, the purpose of reading an ink review is to learn about the ink and the higher resolution is much more suited to that end.

I truly appreciate your kindness, thoughtful consideration, and the extra effort (not to mention the efforts of your standard reviews, comments, etc.). But to answer your question as to the merit of the lower resolution scans, IMHO, thank you, but it is not necessary and I prefer my ink reviews straight - not diluted (down-sized, etc.).

 

Sincerely,

southpaw

[Leslie J.]

I'm old dial-up too. <_< I also prefer your bigger scans. It takes a while to load, but it's easier to read. Thanks for offering the alternative and the choice though, that was so nice of you.

[Roger]

Though I prefer the previous set up, I can handle this if a consensus develops for it. In a couple of extra mouse clicks I can get it up to a more comfortable size. Then, of course the same extra clicks are necessary for each page.

 

But, being retar... er, retired, I have the time!

[wimg]

Hi Karin,

Hi Wim,

I have a highspeed connection and for my older eyes, I find the resolution a little tiny (when I click on the link)

Ok, you shouldn't get a lower resolution, you just should get the scans one-by-one, at least, that was the idea. I forgot they get resized automatically, when loading straight into the browser.

However, in deference to my friends with slower connections, I can manage.

It's very thoughtful of you to provide this option.

And I got enough of the look of the ink to want to buy a bottle :bonk:

 

Fond regards,

Karin :bunny1:

I just created the solution to the perceived resolution problem, just two minutes of work. Check a bit lower down in the message thread, and see what you think .

 

Warmest regards, Wim :bunny1: :bunny1:

[wimg]

I also have a broadband connection, but I don't mind this format at all. I know the layout of your reviews, and even though I can't see some of it clearly I can get a general overview of the ink by looking at the smaller versions. And If i want more info I can just click

Hi zxc,

 

Ok, thanks! See what you think of the thumbnails a bit further down, if you don't mind.

 

Warm regards, Wim

[wimg]

Hi Southpaw,

Wim,

  I'm likely in the minority who are still stuck with dial-up, so I felt obligated to respond to your request for feedback.  In all seriousness (I know, it's a rareityh and probably a shock), but your ink reviews are so well done and entertaining that they are worth waiting on them to load.

hmm, well, thanks!

  I looked at both - the 700kb and the 200kb versions, and even though I have relatively young eyes (36 yrs old), I prefer not to strain reading some of the smaller writing.  Besides, the purpose of reading an ink review is to learn about the ink and the higher resolution is much more suited to that end.

Ah, the idea was not to lower the resolution. The problem is that the browser resizes to fit the window, so I fixed that a little lower down. Just check that out too, please.

I truly appreciate your kindness, thoughtful consideration, and the extra effort (not to mention the efforts of your standard reviews, comments, etc.).  But to answer your question as to the merit of the lower resolution scans, IMHO, thank you, but it is not necessary and I prefer my ink reviews straight - not diluted (down-sized, etc.).

 

Sincerely,

southpaw

Thank you very much for your extremely kind remarks. You make me blush quite badly. But it is appreciated!

 

Warmest regards, Wim

[wimg]

I'm old dial-up too. <_< I also prefer your bigger scans. It takes a while to load, but it's easier to read. Thanks for offering the alternative and the choice though, that was so nice of you.

Hi Leslie,

 

Thank you for your kind words! As I am persistent, I have included another option further down.

 

Warmest regards, Wim

[wimg]

Though I prefer the previous set up, I can handle this if a consensus develops for it. In a couple of extra mouse clicks I can get it up to a more comfortable size. Then, of course the same extra clicks are necessary for each page.

 

But, being retar... er, retired, I have the time! 

Hi Roger,

 

It seems to be the consensus that most people prefer the old setup, but I still have a trick up my sleeve . So, please check what you think of that.

 

Warm regards, Wim

[Guest Denis Richard]

Karin,

 

when you click the link, the pic most likely is resized automatically to fit the browser window. If you are using FireFox, when you put the mouse over the pic, you'll see that the pointer becomes a magnifying glass. If you click, it will expand the pic to its original size. That could help.

 

Great review, once again Wim !

 

Denis.

Edited June 19, 2005 by Denis Richard

[wimg]

Hi all,

 

Sorry for the delay. I was called away to play taxi-driver for my daughter. Had to collect her from the airstrip (gliding is her hobby).

 

Anyway, here is the next trial. Each page is now even smaller, thumbnail size, and on top of that, in order to get the full page, I have made each individual page clickable.

This reduces the intial size even more, for people with a slow connection, and the pages can be called up indicvidually in a separate window this way, at normal size:

 

http://fp.vandebilt.net/exemplars/mbbss1-5.jpg http://fp.vandebilt.net/exemplars/mbbss2-5.jpg http://fp.vandebilt.net/exemplars/mbbss3-5.jpg http://fp.vandebilt.net/exemplars/mbbss4-5.jpg http://fp.vandebilt.net/exemplars/mbbss5-5.jpg

 

So, what do you think of this approach?

 

TIA, warm regards, Wim

 

edit: typos

Edited June 19, 2005 by wimg

[wimg]

Karin,

 

when you click the link, the pic most likely is resized automatically to fit the browser window. If you are using FireFox, when you put the mouse over the pic, you'll see that the pointer becomes a magnifying glass. If you click, it will expand the pic to its original size. That could help.

 

Great review, once again Wim !

 

Denis.

Thanks, Denis!

 

What do you think of the approach above this message? Here I embedded the scan in a little html-code, to show up properly the first time .

 

Warm regards, Wim

[Guest Denis Richard]

Karin,

 

when you click the link, the pic most likely is resized automatically to fit the browser window. If you are using FireFox, when you put the mouse over the pic, you'll see that the pointer becomes a magnifying glass. If you click, it will expand the pic to its original size. That could help.

 

Great review, once again Wim !

 

Denis.

Thanks, Denis!

 

What do you think of the approach above this message? Here I embedded the scan in a little html-code, to show up properly the first time .

 

Warm regards, Wim

I really like this last one Wim ! It's clean and nice in the post. I was wondering what trick you used to keep my browser from resizing... until I scrolled down to your explanation.

 

Cheers !

[Karin]

I really like this too Wim.

And thanks Denis, now I see that I do have the magnifying feature.

[Roger]

I still prefer the original. Your last go is certainly better that the first revision, but still requires clicking for each page. Your original was great for the fast connections since, bingo, there it was and all we had to do was use the scroll wheel and down we went!

 

But, as I said before...het maakt niets uit

[KCat]

i like the last one a lot, too. though either work for me, I like not having to scroll so much.

 

Both methods are still excellent and as others have noted, it's the reviews we enjoy so much.

[wimg]

I still prefer the original. Your last go is certainly better that the first revision, but still requires clicking for each page. Your original was great for the fast connections since, bingo, there it was and all we had to do was use the scroll wheel and down we went!

 

But, as I said before...het maakt niets uit 

Hi Roger,

 

I could always do both . Just that I would have to separate them for the broadband and dial-in users, as the latter will still get the full load if I would post 2 messages in the same thread, one for big pics, and one for links .

 

Wait, I've got the answer!

Try this, one click and scroll all:

 

All pages of review

 

What do you think?

 

Warm regards, Wim

[ElaineB]

I like the second set of thumbnails, and especially when you add the option to click to see all pages at once (since I have broadband and only a brief download time).

I also enjoyed the review very much. I have Montblanc Bordeaux and your findings are very similar to mine. I like the ink, even though it's got a slightly greyed tone that put me off at first. But I use it in wet writers and find the color both unusual and conservative at the same time -- unlike some of the other reds I use.

ElaineB