Dear all,
aside from wondering about the price of the things I have been researching Pelkan types and sizes just in case I should happen to aquire a pile of disposable dosh. <_<

So yes the M1000 is the "big" one that many have described as "oversized". But the M1000 is lss than 5.5 inches n'est pas? That's not big - is it? so thst would make th M200 tiny!
From what I understand by the measurements would that make the M1000 similar to the Waterman Expert II. For me that is standard/average size.
Now for me my Laban Mentos are big pens! Even a Lamy Al-Star would be bigger than a M1000 from the measurements I saw on sellers sites. But again I find that a very useful size even though for a man I have small hands.

In the USA do folk generally prefer for find "small" pens more comfortable to write with?

Please explain. I'd be very grateful for any feedback. This is important for me as size is something people talk about on reviews so I'll need to take into account the preference many seem to have for particular size pens.


Armchop

And on top of that, some of the numbers do not make any sense if it is to indicate where the pen fits in the size chart.

I do know that the girth/width of the M800/M1000 works better for me then the smaller pens. In fact I am very fond of the M800 and could write with it all day.

It can be confusing and I think the folks at MT should pay a visit to Germany and get this corrected. :ph34r:

I am a big guy with big hands and a wide large pen is a must.

I cannot vouch for its accuracy, though it is a well-respected site from what I understand. This might help you:

http://www.nibs.com/Pelikan%20Souveran%20Series.htm

According to this, the M1000 is 5.75 inches (146mm), not less than 5.5 inches.

M1000 is much larger in barrel width than my Lamy Safari (same size as Al-Star). It is also much, much heavier. I do not consider the Lamy Safari to be a small pen, and I love it, but it has more to do with comfort than size.

I have an M620, which is slightly smaller, and I consider it to be mid-sized. I love this pen, and it is probably my favorite (except for my favorite vintage Pelikan, the 100n).

I also have Pelikans the same size as M200 (mine are vintage 140), and these are not "tiny" to me. Rather, the M300 size is the tiny one, as well as the M150. The M200 size is comfortable for me, especially due to their light weight and portability (I am a petite woman in the USA, by the way).

(edited for clarity)

There are a few size guides around, but I think Richard has the best one. The M200 is bigger than the others, because it's not part of the 'Souveran' range. Different plastic, and steel nibs, I think, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. A couple of retailers will sell them with swapped out gold nibs, too, and Richard does some amazing custom ground nibs for them.

The 200, 215 and 400 are the same size pens...
The difference between a 200 and 215 is that the 215 has a brass barrel and weighs a bit more...
The 400 is in the Souveran series and sports a gold nib.
The 250 is the same pen as the 200 but sporting a gold nib.

As for writing comfort, I own two 200s, one 250 and a 400 and all are very comfortable pens for me... I have rather wide hand and fat fingers and am comfortable with these pens..
I owned a 605 for a while and I liked the pen a lot, but it just did not make it into my rotation enough to keep it. It was a bit longer than the 400 and the same diameter.

IMO, the measurements just don't tell the story of how big the 1000 is. Richard's image with the pens posted helps a lot as I think the biggest factor is how high on the end of the pen the 1000 posts. I have big hands and the 800 is about perfect for me. Even so, the 1000 seems very big when using it posted.
Here are a couple images:

The range of sizes:


The 800 and the 1000 posted:


Best regards, greg

here is a link to a side by side comparison of modern Pelikan Souveran pens.


Cajun Pens size chart

For me anything smaller than an 800 doesn't feel right in my hand.

I...um....wow...


Those are some beautiful Pelikans!

Comparing Pelikan to an imaginary average of other pens:
- The 600 is normal size
- The 200 and the 400 are just on the small side of normal, and they are *exactly* the same size as each other
- The 300 is tiny, appropriate for carrying in small spaces and/or for small hands
- The 800 is a big pen but not outrageous
- The 1000 is oversize

Hi,

If you were wondering, the M300 was supposed to cost more than the M400. The retail price is higher and the price we dealers get it at is higher too.

David, you got it quite right I think.

Dillon

Thanks folks.
The posted images and comments explain a lot. I can especially see the difference between even the 1000 and 800. On sellers pics the relative sizes in product images are not representative at all.

Armchop

I've always understood the m200/400 group to be normal sized pens. Hint, put a Parker Jotter up next to it.

The m600 on are oversized fountain pens.

Since people have gotten bigger, do to better nutrition, since the 1930s, I would guess that the description "normal" has lost all meaning.

The only relevant use I've found for the description is that pens larger than the m200/400 get a little iffy for carring in a shirt pocket.

As always, YMMV

Guys, can someone please confirm this? I was thinking about buying the M200, but since I have two 140's, I might as well stay with them? So, how's the M200 compared to the 140? Size, weight, built...

thanx,
Nenad

Well, you probably wanted someone other than me to verify this to you, but I will note that I did own an M215 until recently, and my friend has an M200. I bought the 140 based on other comments I read on FPN that the 140 and the M200 were comparable in size and weight. That is, if you're comfortable with one, you'd likely be comfortable with the other. I found this to be true in my experience. As far as size, the 140 and M200 are basically the same size, with minor (to me) differences in length if you prefer not to post the cap while writing. As far as weight, they are also very close. In comparison, the M215 model is the same size, but it is noticeably "heavier"--it's still a light pen, but not quite as light as the 140 or M200.

If you're looking for a bigger pen, the M200 is NOT it. If you like the same size but wish it were heftier, you might like the M215. If you want a bigger pen with a bit more heft but still staying on the light side, try the versions of the M6xx series that do not have a metal cap. I have an Athens M620 pen, and it's a bit bigger than the 140 and M2xx, and it seems to me the same heft as the M215. But it's still not what I'd call a large pen or a heavy pen. For instance, it's noticeably lighter and more comfortable in girth to me than my friend's M800.

You might find this helpful to you, too:

http://www.vintagepens.com/pendata.pdf

Search the Adobe document for "Pelikan" and you'll find information on the author's measurements and weights for each pen's separate components.

blueiris, thanx for the comparison. I love my 140, the color, piston action, the nib and all, but it's way too small for my hands. I was hoping that the M200 would be bigger, and inexpensive addition to my Pelikans. But since they are the same size, I think I'll skip the M200...

thanx again,

cheers,
Nenad

Well I've gone and done it now.

I went to my local penshop (my only penshop ) and asked to look at a M200. I actually liked the size and feel of it more than I thought I would. Pelikan have been very good at designing it with a wider girth than pens of similar length so it does not sit in the hand like a small pen might. The shop had it for £58 but I found an online shop that had it for £42. So this time next week I hope to be the proud owner of a Marble Blue M200.

Thanks to all the comments on FPN he only thing I'm really afraid of is that I will like it so much I won't want to write with any of my other pens ever again. And next week I am also collecting a Waterman Carene.

Armchop

Using an M1000 would be like writing with the muzzle of a .45 automatic.

Using an M800 is like writing with a section of PVC pipe.

Hands down, the M620's are the best all around.

Let's qualify that with "in my opinion"


Since to me a m600 is like writing with a bic

and writing with a m800 is just perfect to me

Hi! I also have a similar question (a question of life and death!!) Which one to buy? M600 or M800? Waterman Expert II is comfortable for as well Sheaffer Intrigue but love Pel M760 better!
So, if any one can drop a line or two I might spend in wright way!
Regards,
abhik

One main difference between the 600 and the 800 is that the 800 has brass parts in the filling mechanism. This makes it quite a bit heavier than the 600. It is also bigger, of course. In quality I don't think there's a difference.

Hello all,

I hope this isn't a "thread hijacker" but I just received my vintage 140. It's approximately (if not exactly) the size of an M400, which I'd classify as small-ish; it's almost an inch shorter than a Parker Sonnet I just happen to have handy.

My point, however, is that when posted, the two pens are identical in length. This same phenomenon is existed by my Shaeffer Tuckaway: Tiny pen capped, almost normal length posted.

For writing, perhaps the shorter models will work fine, if pen "girth" isn't as important. Just a thought.

David

OK, since I asked the question about the 140's size compared to the M200, here's some info back. My cousin just brought back home a nice Pelikan, and since there is no number mark on the cap's single band, I take it for a black M200 with silver furniture, and stainless steel nib.

I took it from the water soak to measure it against my vintage 140.

So, the M200 and the 140 both have the same grip and cap threads, and the 140's body is getting just a bit wider at the middle.

The part of the M200 handle from the threads to the filling knob is 5.5mm longer than 140's, and the M200's overall length is 3mm larger than the 140's. That's by difference in the design of the knob in the pens.

Capped, the 140 is longer than the M200 by 3mm, and the 140's cap is 7cm long, 5mm longer than M200's 6.5cm cap.

Posted, the M200 is longer by only 2mm than 140...


So, I guess I answered my own and hopefully somebody's else's question too... I'll post something about the writing feeling between the two of them tomorrow, when I reassemble the M200 again...




cheers,
Nenad

May I pass on what seems to be a little known and wonderfully trivial fact...

When posted, the m215 is longer than the m200/ m400. There is not much in it but it seems that the m215 is about the same posted length as the m600. I wasn't sure if it was a quirk of my own pen and so out of curiosity I emailed Richard Binder and he found a similar measurement.

Hmm - cool!
Perhaps because the barrel is a bit fatter and the cap won't go on as far?

Could be. I don't have an m200/400 for comparison but that would make sense.