Pre-1997 600, Current M600, And Early 1950's 400

[ProfessorB]

I am curious about what those of you more experienced and knowledgeable than I am (that would probably be most of you) can tell me about the differences between a pre-1997 Pelikan 600 and a current M600, and also a comparison between the pre-1997 600 and the early 1950's Pelkan 400.

 

The only one I own is a lovely tortoise shell 400, and I do not live remotely close to a shop that has a current M600 or a pre-1997 600, neither of which I have ever held in my hand. Mostly I am intersted in "feel" comparisons, nib-wise and how the weight/size of each translate to in hand feel?

 

I love the 400's semi-flex nib, and it is a thing of beauty. But at other times I also enjoy a slightly bigger, or slightly heavier pen, and sometimes also enjoy less flexible nibs that have less drag.

 

If this comparison has been taken up somewhere already in a posting on this forum that I missed in my search, thanks for pointing me.

Edited October 24, 2013 by ProfessorB

[jar]

Maybe this will help:

 

http://www.fototime.com/30011DE4F522216/large.jpg

From left to right: 1050, 800, modern (kinda) 600, early 600, 400, 200.

 

The early 600 was the same size shape and feel of the 400 or 200 of the period. It had an 18K tri-tone nib and was just a hair shorter than the modern 600 body and slightly slimmer.

 

http://www.fototime.com/8D58E0FBEC0ADC9/large.jpg

 

It also had a few additional trim rings then the 400 of the period.

 

http://www.fototime.com/CB97595DB242569/medium800.jpg

 

[ProfessorB]

Thanks so much, JAR! That's really useful. Would it be fair to say (others, please chime in to educate the inexperienced) that the older 600 feels in the hand pretty much the way a 400 does, but writes more like a modern 600? Or is that too simplistic an inference?

[sargetalon]

Jar summed it up pretty well. To me, the old 600 feels just like my M400's but I would say the nib is springier than the newer M600 (doubt it's due to material but they are 18K vs 14K nibs). I will just add some comparison picks of my two pens.

 

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/jdanley/photo-3_zpsc0bdfe89.jpg

 

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/jdanley/photo3_zps63916776.jpg

 

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/jdanley/photo2-1_zpse823c287.jpg

Edited October 24, 2013 by sargetalon

[ProfessorB]

Nice photos, Sargetalon. Sorry, I should know the answer to this, but what am I looking at (these two pens of yours are which models)?

[sargetalon]

 

Nice photos, Sargetalon. Sorry, I should know the answer to this, but what am I looking at (these two pens of yours are which models)?

 

 

Pic #1: Pre-'97 600 (left) vs Post-'97 M600 (right)

Pic #2: Post-'97 M600 (left) vs Pre-'97 600 (right)

Pic #3: Post-'97 M600 (top) vs Pre-'97 600 (bottom)

[jar]

There is one thing which I've noticed on my early 600 versus my later 600 and that has to do with performance. When I fill the newer 600 it works about the same the minute I fill it and a few days later. Not so with the early 600. When I fill it it writes jess fine, the next day it is even better and by the third day it is fantastic. My guess is that it has something to do with saturating the feed surface and channels but then what do I know?

[Recoil Rob]

Revisiting this, are the pre 1997 600 nibs interchangeable with the post 1997 600 nibs?

[Freddy]

Revisiting this, are the pre 1997 600 nibs interchangeable with the post 1997 600 nibs?

 

Yes they are...early 18C 600 for a 14C 600..or 800 early 14C for a 18C..and

you swap any way you desire.....

 

Fred

Good nite everybody

Drive safe..................

 

More Ether................