Dostoevsky vs Wilde

[QM2]

It actually sounds like both pens have a detracting detail: D has the jewel you hate, and W has the safari thing going. If I were buying for myself, I'd be all over Fyodor.

 

Well I don't "hate" the jewel. If it were that straightforward, then I wouldn't even consider buying it. I just wonder whether the jewel de-harmonises the overall design. Then again, several people who own the Dostoevsky have told me at this point, that in person it all fits together perfectly, while in photos the sense of unity can fail to come across. But can I believe them? : ))

 

The Wilde actually does not look safari-ish to my eye. This would never have even occurred to me, had I not read a review describing it as tiger or leopard printed. I love the Wilde, but I wouldn't want to use what others would perceive as a "leopard-print pen".

[QM2]

... I am also going to get the Wilde as I like the vintage styling of this pen. Of the two, I would say the Wilde's design is closer to vintage style I think you like...

 

I admit that this statement is exerting influence on my decision : )

[niksch]

QM2/MDI--

 

Are you two sitting on the couch and responding to each others posts?

 

Eric

[QM2]

QM2/MDI--

 

Are you two sitting on the couch and responding to each others posts?

 

Eric

 

I wish!

 

We are on different continents until mid-April : ((

 

 

(... hence so much lively FPN activity!)

 

 

Edited March 1, 2009 by QM2

[MDI]

[Darius]

Both pens have a similar basic shape. The cap on the Dostoevsky is a bit longer. The Wilde, with its milled cap top and upper part of its turning knob, and simple rings, has more resemblance to the safety fillers of old. The barrel's marbling is quite unique and bold though. On the other hand, the Dostoevsky is more extavagantly decorated (barrel guilloche and ring engravings) while keeping a more basic colour scheme. So both are mixtures of vintage and modern, but I see the Wilde leaning towards vintage, and Dostoevsky towards modern. If I had to choose only one, I would go for the Wilde.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention that the Dostoevsky has an ink view window, which a functional advantage.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Darius

[Richard]

I think all of the WE pens are very similar in construction and writing quality (they share the same feed/nib construction) so differences are purely asthetical.

Many are similar, based as they are on the 146 chassis, but some are different, e.g., the Kafka, a C/C filler that uses the 144 nib and feed.

 

 

 

[QM2]

Both pens have a similar basic shape. The cap on the Dostoevsky is a bit longer. The Wilde, with its milled cap top and upper part of its turning knob, and simple rings, has more resemblance to the safety fillers of old. The barrel's marbling is quite unique and bold though. On the other hand, the Dostoevsky is more extavagantly decorated (barrel guilloche and ring engravings) while keeping a more basic colour scheme. So both are mixtures of vintage and modern, but I see the Wilde leaning towards vintage, and Dostoevsky towards modern. If I had to choose only one, I would go for the Wilde.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention that the Dostoevsky has an ink view window, which a functional advantage.

 

 

Darius, you've basically summed up why I like both pens: the Wilde for its more "authentic" vintage look; the Dostoevsky for the engraved barrel and that nice slate-coloured ink window. Both models have the same classic domed-top form, which is why I am attracted to them. Also, both have the curved section I like so much, with no metal rings next to the nib (also a plus).

 

How would you compare the way they feel in the hand?

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2009 by QM2

[QM2]

I think all of the WE pens are very similar in construction and writing quality (they share the same feed/nib construction) so differences are purely asthetical.

Many are similar, based as they are on the 146 chassis, but some are different, e.g., the Kafka, a C/C filler that uses the 144 nib and feed.

 

 

Hey, who're you calling a C/C filler -- it's a trapped converter : )

 

I had not realised about the 144 nib and feed.

My Kafka hangs his head in shame next to his WE brethren.

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2009 by QM2

[niksch]

Many are similar, based as they are on the 146 chassis, but some are different, e.g., the Kafka, a C/C filler that uses the 144 nib and feed.

 

I have to disagree with the 144/Kafka size comparison.

 

I've had my WEs out today for our other project, and so I checked this out. The Kafka has a weird shape, what with the step down from the barrel to the section. That stepdown makes the things (section, nib) look smaller, but to my eye it's an optical illusion. The feed on the Kafka is the same on the next four WEs. The nib looks to me like it's the same size, especially when compared to other sections with rings like the Vern and Shaw. I did not take my Kafka apart, but I suspect the only feed difference is that it's got a 147-type feed because of that darned converter.

 

Eric

[Richard]

I have to disagree with the 144/Kafka size comparison.

I stand corrected. I just pulled out my 146 and Kafka photos, and the nibs are indeed the same size.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Richard

[MDI]

I've heard MB boutique guys refer to the 145 as "piston or cartridge," and 146+ as "piston-only." Think what you want, but if you expand this MB terminology to Kafka, it's also "piston-only," just like other MB WEs.

 

I go through phases where this stuff matters, but, honestly, I have both MB filling systems and I don't really care very much, especially since the MB converter is a solid screw-in design with a captive spring inside, and decent capacity.

 

I know that pistons can be put into very small pens (like my M300), and I would like to see a piston-filler Mozart as much as the other guy, but the fact that it's cartridge only doesn't make me want it any less!

[Brian]

Both of these models are on my wishlist and I may have opportunity to acquire one of them in the near future. I am interested in your preferences between these two. I do realise that these things are highly subjective -- so yes, I am interested in your subjective views.

 

As for myself, I will list the "cons" for each model that make me not 100% certain: the jewel on the Dostoevsky's clip -- does it detract from the design? I am worried that it might. And the pattern on the Wilde: does it look "tigerish/leopardish" in person?

 

Thanks in advance for all opinions, personal anecdotes, etc.

 

When first introduced the Dostoyevsky was a somewhat controversial design for a writer's limited edition. The reception was that it ws too little pen for a limited edition pricepoint. Understand that in context this was following such offerings as 94 Oscar Wilde, 95 Voltaire, and 96 A. Dumas. Some simply felt disapointed and expected a pen with much more presence v. the subtle but tasteful design of the 97 Dostoyevsky.

 

Fast forward 12 years later and I think you will find two major schools of thought on this: the first is that Dostoyevsky is its own original design and worthy of comparison to any of the writers editions; and the second are from those who remember those days of the late 1990s when Dostoyevski was the less respected member of the MB LEs.

 

And this is perhaps what colors my own perception of which I think is the better pen. From the standpoint of price I would expect to see much higher prices for the Wilde and somewhat less for the Dostoyevski.

[QM2]

I've heard MB boutique guys refer to the 145 as "piston or cartridge," and 146+ as "piston-only." Think what you want, but if you expand this MB terminology to Kafka, it's also "piston-only," just like other MB WEs.

 

Of course, but clever wording does not change "the truth".

Anyway, good to know that at least the feed and nib on it are the 146.

 

I go through phases where this stuff matters, but, honestly, I have both MB filling systems and I don't really care very much, especially since the MB converter is a solid screw-in design with a captive spring inside, and decent capacity.

 

I know that pistons can be put into very small pens (like my M300), and I would like to see a piston-filler Mozart as much as the other guy, but the fact that it's cartridge only doesn't make me want it any less!

 

Well, that is your opinion. Personally, I prefer internal filling mechanisms, with the exception of pens such as mini pens or "travel pens", which can be more useful when C/C. But preferences aside, it is a simple matter of internal filling mechanisms -- especially good ones, like the MB piston system -- being more technically challenging and more expensive to manufacture. So when they are done properly, an internal system increases the pen's value. This is why I have a problem, when a high-end pen is suddenly made with a C/C system, while its price remains as high as its piston siblings.

 

But in any case -- this is really off topic, so I do not want to continue in that direction. Happily, both the Wilde and Dostoevsky are piston fillers as all Writers Edition pens should be.

 

 

[QM2]

When first introduced the Dostoyevsky was a somewhat controversial design for a writer's limited edition. The reception was that it ws too little pen for a limited edition pricepoint. Understand that in context this was following such offerings as 94 Oscar Wilde, 95 Voltaire, and 96 A. Dumas. Some simply felt disapointed and expected a pen with much more presence v. the subtle but tasteful design of the 97 Dostoyevsky.

 

Fast forward 12 years later and I think you will find two major schools of thought on this: the first is that Dostoyevsky is its own original design and worthy of comparison to any of the writers editions; and the second are from those who remember those days of the late 1990s when Dostoyevski was the less respected member of the MB LEs.

 

And this is perhaps what colors my own perception of which I think is the better pen. From the standpoint of price I would expect to see much higher prices for the Wilde and somewhat less for the Dostoyevski.

 

Thanks for this interesting information. I would never have suspected that the Dostoevsky could be considered "too subtle"! If anything, its extravagance is what makes me a little hesitant. Shows how perceptions can change in the course of a decade.

[Darius]

Both pens have a similar basic shape. The cap on the Dostoevsky is a bit longer. The Wilde, with its milled cap top and upper part of its turning knob, and simple rings, has more resemblance to the safety fillers of old. The barrel's marbling is quite unique and bold though. On the other hand, the Dostoevsky is more extavagantly decorated (barrel guilloche and ring engravings) while keeping a more basic colour scheme. So both are mixtures of vintage and modern, but I see the Wilde leaning towards vintage, and Dostoevsky towards modern. If I had to choose only one, I would go for the Wilde.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention that the Dostoevsky has an ink view window, which a functional advantage.

 

 

Darius, you've basically summed up why I like both pens: the Wilde for its more "authentic" vintage look; the Dostoevsky for the engraved barrel and that nice slate-coloured ink window. Both models have the same classic domed-top form, which is why I am attracted to them. Also, both have the curved section I like so much, with no metal rings next to the nib (also a plus).

 

How would you compare the way they feel in the hand?

In the hand, they are more or less the same. They have little if any difference in weight and dimentions.

[QM2]

Thank you everyone once again for the insightful comments on both pens.

 

The issue has now been settled: It will be the Dostoevsky, and he shall be mine in the end of April...