Two Danitrio Cumlaudes - A Bit About Size

[jde]

I really like the colors of the Danitrio Cumlaudes that Kevin aka winedoc has been offering lately. My latest purchase of one was for a friend... the darn Cumlaude is too big for little me. I've been begging around FPN for awhile for the small Cumlaude and kept missing the few that have popped up in the sales areas. Kevin (thank you, man!) found me a used one. And the smaller Cumlaude is a more perfect size for me!

 

The large Cumlaude is known as being similar to the Montblanc 149 in size. Kevin (hope he doesn't mind my quoting him) suggests it also gives an idea of the section size of a Danitrio Densho or Takumi. The fact that the Cumlaude fatigues my writing hand makes me sad for these other Danitrio size pens. Alas.

 

Kevin wrote me that the Danitrio Hanryo is a half inch longer than the small Cumlaude. This makes a Hanryo seem like a good choice for me. Uh, not that I'm thinking about more pens. *ahem*

 

I share these size comparisons because not all of us can get to pen shows! *some day*

 

Large Cumlaude length: 5 7/8″ capped; 5 1/4″ nib to barrel; section width 1/2+", barrel width 7/8″. Inked weight: 27g capped; 17g uncapped.

 

Small Cumlaude length: 5 1/2″ capped; 4 7/8″ nib to barrel; section width between 1/4″ & 3/8″, barrel width just under 1/2″. Inked weight: 18g capped; 11-12g uncapped.

 

The small Cumlaude's converter is also small. As you'd, uh, expect, right? After refilling it three times in one day, I took the converter out and put ink directly into the barrel. That was about 3ccs of ink. Someone sent me a sample of Iroshizuku tsukushi which matches the brown Cumlaude beautifully!

 

The steel nibs are nice and smooth too. Here on FPN the Cumlaude was recommended to me a long time ago as a good entry level fountain pen. Good advice yet this fountain pen is more than that in my book!

 

http://i952.photobucket.com/albums/ae9/jdejh/Collection/dcl2.jpg

 

http://i952.photobucket.com/albums/ae9/jdejh/Collection/dcl1.jpg

[revbyrd1]

They are lovely fountain pens. Thank you for the very concise review.

How were you able to write when you filled the fountain pen directly?

Peace,

Kenny

[jde]

They are lovely fountain pens. Thank you for the very concise review.

How were you able to write when you filled the fountain pen directly?

Peace,

Kenny

 

Hey Kenny: Good question, if I understand what you are asking: the pens writes very well with one difference: I lay the pen horizontally instead of standing nib up in my pen cup. I do that so the pen writes on the first stroke after I've left it idle awhile. I found that if I left it nib up, the pen needed a bit longer to get the flow going. Does that make sense to you? I will also say that my 2 other pens I fill with an eyedropper (an Edison Huron and a Danitrio short octagon) do not require this minor coddling. They are very happy to sit nib up idling by and then both flow on first stroke. I hope I answered your question!

[akrishna59]

thanks for the comparisons, makes it much more easy. the colours are certainly eye catching.

 

best,

 

krishna.

[revbyrd1]

Thank you for the response. I realized that I left a word out of my question. I wanted to ask, "How long were you able to write filling it as an eyedropper?" Sorry for the mistake on my part, but I appreciate the information you shared.

 

Kenny

[ethernautrix]

Julie, I didn't know the Cum Laudes were so pretty! Nice photos!

[jde]

Thank you for the response. I realized that I left a word out of my question. I wanted to ask, "How long were you able to write filling it as an eyedropper?" Sorry for the mistake on my part, but I appreciate the information you shared.

 

Kenny

 

Ah... a very different good question!

 

The nib is a wet, medium which is important to know. A fine nib or dryer nib will use up ink more slowly. A broad, wet nib will use up more ink. "How long" would not be as accurate as "how many pages" using what nib, ink and paper.

 

Honestly, I can't quantify that because (1) I'm still writing with it (yay), and (2) as long as I'm not constantly refilling I tend not to pay attention and so I'm not counting pages.

 

I filled the barrel last Friday afternoon. I've written 5 pages of dense prose with the pen since I "eyedropper'ed" it. I expect it to last through a couple 1/2 day writing sessions at the very least.

 

I think the average Schmidt converter holds 1.2ml of ink. A Platinum converter holds .9ml of ink. To my eye (an unscientific approach) the converter that came with my small Cumlaude holds much less then the Platinum converter (by a half?). So... for me that meant almost every 2 pages filling the converter up again.

 

My Edison Huron and Danitrio Short Octagon, both of which I fill via eyedropper, will last 1 to 1 1/2 weeks of intensive writing. (Writing every day for an average of 5 hours.) Both the nibs on those pens are wet fines. They hold more ink than the 3ccs or the 3ml the small Cumlaude holds. According to Nibs.com pen measurements, a Pelikan 400 holds 1.8ml.

 

I can only imagine what the large Cumlaude would hold. 8ml? Anyone tried that out there in FPN land?

 

Also, a caution when converting pens to be filled via eyedropper: ink will most likely stain the inside of your barrel. If your pen is translucent you will see this eventually.

 

Not an expert. Just my experience with my own pens.

[jde]

Julie, I didn't know the Cum Laudes were so pretty! Nice photos!

 

Ah, too kind, Lisa! Thank you! The tiny Cumlaude is so sweet!

[jde]

Wanted to update this review with a bit about a second small size Cumlaude I've acquired. (Thanks to Ron Zorn!)

 

This one has a metal section, a twist-in style converter, and an imprint of "Trio Cumlaude" on the cap band, and an 18K "Trio" logo nib. Here I've read about this version of the Cumlaude but had never seen one before. Maybe I shouldn't but I assume the large or regular Cumlaude has a similar brother out there with a metal section, etc.

 

Kevin (our Winedoc) tells me the converter is no longer made. (If anyone knows of an alternative please let me know!) The metal converter, of course, does not make this type of Cumlaude suitable for eyedropper conversion. The converter is about the same size as a Platinum converter holding about .6ml.

 

The pen is the same length as the Cumlaude without a metal section. It does, of course, weigh more: 15grams inked and unposted; 22grams inked and posted.

 

The nib's a bit soft and very smooth. Barrel material same as the steel nibbed version. A beauty!

 

Cumlaudes left to right: gold-nibbed version, steel-nibbed version

 

http://i952.photobucket.com/albums/ae9/jdejh/Collection/2sections.jpg

http://i952.photobucket.com/albums/ae9/jdejh/Collection/2dcbarrels.jpg

http://i952.photobucket.com/albums/ae9/jdejh/Collection/2dcs.jpg

 

Edited to add: close-up of the screw-in style converter

http://i952.photobucket.com/albums/ae9/jdejh/Collection/dcconverter.jpg

Edited July 4, 2011 by jde

[Mr. Sweet]

Thank you for the nice review.

 

I just purchased one a tortoiseshell cumlaude from Kevin on e-Bay. It comes with a steel nib though I usually write with gold. I hope it isn't too much of a nail.

 

Beautiful pen!

[jde]

Thank you for the nice review.

 

I just purchased one a tortoiseshell cumlaude from Kevin on e-Bay. It comes with a steel nib though I usually write with gold. I hope it isn't too much of a nail.

 

Beautiful pen!

 

Be sure to let us know what you think. Yeah, I usually write with gold too. The steel is nice enough but not springy, IMHO. The tortoise cumlaude one of my most favorite pens, even so!

Edited November 6, 2012 by jde

[tenney]

I picked up a cum laude a while ago that was very nice and large. Maybe a month ago I picked up a very different one and found it much thinner and smaller. I didn't understand how one would have a name of a pen yet it was in different sizes, and thought that one of them must not have really been a cum laude. Stumbling upon this topic I now know that the cum laude really did come in different sizes.

[jslallar]

The Cumlaude has often been compared to a 149. Both are about the same size in length and width. I say about because the barrel of Cumlaude is a few mm longer than the 149, and the 149 has the girth on Cumlaude (.6 in to .5 in) The 149 feel smooth but not very warm holding, but the Cumlaude gives a very comfortable feeling almost warm. The section on Cumlaude in thinner (149 is .5 in and Cumlaude .45 in) and more tappering than 149 and that too adds to the comfort and ease of grip. The flaring at the end of the 149 makes the grip feel shorter. All in all the Cumlaude feel more comfortable and softer gripping.

 

The Cumlaude feel a bit lighter than the 149, and is of course a C / C filling and holds about 1 ml of ink (depending on the converter type, it can vary from .9 to 1.6 ml) whereas tha 149 holds a massive 2.7 ml. Posted the two pens have the same lenght, again the Cumlaude is more balanced than the 149, which becomes a tad top heavy posted. The Cumlaude posts more securely than does the 149.

 

The nibs are a different affair altogether. Cumlaude (at least mine) has a steel IPG nib, a smooth B, hard as a nail. It has been to Kevin for service and repairs, and he did not comment upon the nib. Whereas the 149 has a 18K springy nib, a beauty to behold and a pleasure to write with. I have a M, a BB and a O3B. And the other 149 I have with an older B 14C nib is even better.

 

My blue marbled large Cumlaude is a beautiful pen in its own right, but the classic beauty and elegance of the 149 remains unmatched by this competitor.

[jde]

The Cumlaude has often been compared to a 149.

 

Hey, thanks for those comparative notes between the large Cumlaude and the MB 149! That's good information you've shared.

 

One note: if anyone's Cumlaude does not have a metal section (many of the steel nibbed versions do not have one), you can convert the Cumlaude to eyedropper mode—and the ink capacity is increased to at least 3ml.

The steel nib, however, cannot begin to compete with an MB nib. Nor is it meant to compete. People compare the two mostly to indicate how large the Cumlaude is, not to indicate it is anything like an MB.

Edited November 7, 2012 by jde

[jslallar]

The Cumlaude has often been compared to a 149.

 

Hey, thanks for those comparative notes between the large Cumlaude and the MB 149! That's good information you've shared.

 

One note: if anyone's Cumlaude does not have a metal section (many of the steel nibbed versions do not have one), you can convert the Cumlaude to eyedropper mode—and the ink capacity is increased to at least 3ml.

The steel nib, however, cannot begin to compete with an MB nib. Nor is it meant to compete. People compare the two mostly to indicate how large the Cumlaude is, not to indicate it is anything like an MB.

 

Thanks jde

for the info about ED conversion.

Even in the big wide and varied world of pendom, the 149 and Cumlaude stand in a select group of LARGE pens. It is, I agree, due to the size that these are compared. Also included would be a few Dani Trios, Deltas, Pelikan M1000, Sheaffer PFM (maybe), Sailor KOP, Conway Stewart Churchill, Jinhao `59, and a few vintage pens, and the list would be almost complete. Of these the two ie 149 and Cumlaude are the closest in size and shape. None of the current line ups of Parker, Waterman, Cross, Montegrappa, Stipula, Dunhill eg would compete AFAIK.