New Montblanc pen designs; Rambling observations

[Wael El-Dasher]

20 hours ago, NoType said:

Wael El-Dasher, I agree with you that there seems to be a marked change in Montblanc’s approach to the design of the Writers Edition pens since the launch of the series.  One could argue that the Patron of Art collection underwent a similar punctuated evolution, but much earlier.  

 

This list of Patron of Art and Writers Edition models helped me analyse Montblanc’s design decisions of various pens:

Year          PoA                                       WE

1992         Lorenzo de’Medici               Ernest Hemingway 

1993         Octavian                               Agatha Christie

                                                                  30000 FP & 4810

                                                               Imperial Dragon

                                                                  5000 & 888

1994         Louis XIV                              Oscar Wilde

1995         The Prince Regent               Voltaire 

                     4810 & 888

1996         Semiramis                             Alexandre Dumas

                     4810 & 888

1997         Peter I the Great                   Fyodor Dostoevsky

                     4810 & 888

                 Catherine II the Great

                     4810 & 888

1998         Alexander the Great            Edgar Allen Poe

                     4810 & 888

1999         Friedrich II the Great           Marcel Proust

                     4810 & 888

2000         Karl der Grosse                   Friedrich Schiller

                     4810 & 888

2001         Marquise de Pompadour    Charles Dickens

                     4810 & 888

2002         Andrew Carnegie                F. Scott Fitzgerald 

                     4810 & 888

2003         Nicolaus Copernicus          Jules Verne            

                    B4810 & 888

2004         J. P. Morgan                        Franz Kafka

                     4810 & 888

2005         Pope Julius II                       Miguel de Cervantes 

                     4810 & 888

2006         Sir Henry Tate                     Virginia Woolf 

                     4810 & 888

2007         Alexander von Humboldt    William Faulkner 

                     4810 & 888

2008         Francois I                             George Bernard Shaw

                     4810 & 888

2009         Max von Oppenheim           Thomas Mann

                     4810 & 888

2010          Elisabeth I                            Mark Twain

                     4810 & 888

2011          Gaius Mæcenus                   Carlo Collodi

                     4810 & 888

2012          Joseph II                              Jonathan Swift

                     4810 & 888

2013          Ludovico Sforza                  Honoré de Balzac

                     4810 & 888

2014          Henry E. Steinway              Daniel Defoe

                     4810 & 888

2015          Luciano Pavarotti                Leo Tolstoy

                     4810 & 888                          9000 & 1868

2016          Peggy Guggenheim            William Shakespeare 

                     4810 & 888                          8700 & 1597

2017          Scipione Borghese              Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                     4810 & 888                          9800 & 1931

2018          Ludwig II                              Homer

                     4810 & 888                          9800 & 1581

2019          Hadrian                                Rudyard Kipling

                     4810 & 888                          9800 & 1895 & 70

2020          Moctezuma                         Victor Hugo   

                     4810 & 888                          9800 & 1831

2021          Napoleon                             Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

                     4810 & 888                          9000 & 1902 & 97 & 8

 

To my novice and undereducated eye, the Patron of Art series abandoned overt references to historical pens merely four years after its launch, the Semiramis perhaps the last direct evocation of an interwar Montblanc pen.  Henceforth, Montblanc gave subtler nods to earlier designs, like the Francois I and Karl der Grosser, and borrowed freely from their current lines, like the Friedrich II the Great and Sir Henry Tate.  Andrew Carnegie, especially, brings to mind a slimmer 149, and Max von Oppenheim a more robust 146 (a predecessor of the “wide-body” chassis of the later Masters for Meisterstück and Meisterstück Great Masters collections).  After mixing various historical and modern design cues in The Prince Regent, Peter I the Great, Catherine II the Great, and Alexander the Great models, Montblanc seems to have adopted a different directive for the new millennium pens (with the exception of the Carnegie).  One can detect a more defined break from both antecedents and modern pens; for instance, where the 1994 Louis XIV evokes vintage overlay designs, the 2001 Marquise de Pompadour seems a new format , the conceptual progenitor of the highly collectible Classique-sized 2003-2012 Annual Editions.  Although the 2005 Pope Julius II shares the Carnegie’s overall form factor and manages to reference an attenuated 149 , in general as the Patrons of Art pens from 2003 onwards adopted more ornamentation representative of their particular muse, as Michael R more succinctly noted above about the Writers Editions, the origins of their chassis became less recognisable.  

 

This trend towards themed details coming to the fore also gathered momentum in the Writers Edition Collection around the turn of the millennium, although before Charles Dickens the form factors were more restrained and hewed more closely to design antecedents than can be seen during the same period with the Patrons of Art Collection.

 

Another landmark decision, to create more than one version of the Writers Edition pens, took form in 2015 with the Leo Tolstoy LE1868, which featured more elaborate materials and details.

 

The period beginning in 2015 represents the largest break from the previous design philosophy of the Writers Editions, which heretofore seemed to envisage pens in the series as writing tools with themed designs rather than art objects that happened to write, and could thus be distinguished from the Patrons of Art apparent design directive to appeal to the collector more than to the user.  The new design philosophy of the Writers Edition seems closer to the Patron of Art’s philosophy, at least for the more limited, more expensive versions, like the Tolstoy 1868, Shakespeare 1597, Saint-Exupéry 1931, and Homer 1581, and especially the Kipling 70, Doyle 8, Doyle 97 models.

 

Concurrently, execution of details has grown crisper, more precise, and hard-edged in the Writers Editions, as you noted above when comparing the Victor Hugo’s clip with that of the Agatha Christie.  

 

So, yes, I think it is safe to say that Montblanc’s recent designs represent a departure from earlier ones, most obviously in the Writers Edition collection, which now seems to have evolved into almost a kind of junior version of the Patron of Arts series.  I find the Writers Edition trend to ever more elaborate and complicated designs to be regrettable, and I miss the earlier pen’s relative “simplicity, purity of purpose, and elegant restraint” that you mention, although I acknowledge that some of the new designs are generally attractive, as Michael R, Toll, meiers, and you yourself attest.

 

Arcfide’s observation that the timing of the release of more complicated pen designs coincides with the launch of the Heritage Collection is a good one.

 

(As to automobile design, I cannot name a single model released after 2017, from any manufacturer, that I like. This situation is novel for me, an inveterate “car buff.”)

I agree NoType with ur analysis. I’m grateful for the table you made listing the POA & WE over the years. This helped me easily visualize the change that happened at Montblanc in an instant.

 

My reading is there were 2 changes and three phases. Phase 1 is 1992-2000. That’s when the pens drew heavily on vintage MB pens for inspiration. The pens of that era are the ones i get nostalgic about. I appreciate them more than the others because they did possess that purity of purpose and elegant restraint that I referred to earlier.
 

First change is 2001 the Dickens. The pens from 2001-2015 are the transition pens. Even though the pens didn’t draw directly from MB vintage pens, some had some of that Montblanc DNA still in there. Most of them still felt usable but we’re leaning heavier on more elaborate design. That era did produce pens that attracted newer buyers. The JP Morgan with its elegant pin striped sterling barrel and carbon/silver weave cap is just stunning. I had one and loved it, but recall how heavy and impractical it was to lug around. I also had and still love the Andrew Carnegie. It’s such a stunning pen, but also impractical for daily use. I did try to use it all the time too. The Kafka was lovely but way too tall for any shirt pocket. Overall that era produced some new designs that didn’t lean onto Montblanc history, choosing instead to forge new ground. The current market doesn’t hold these pens at the same value as the older pens, based on my observation of resale prices on eBay. Still some very nice pens and one can probably get good deals. 
 

the 2nd change is 2016-present. That’s phase 3 and where we are today. Starting with Shakespeare that’s very ornate and has more than 1 version. I believe this current era of design is showing a larger leap in direction and design language than previous iterations.

 

I could be totally off base here but that’s what I see.  

[NoType]

26 minutes ago, Wael El-Dasher said:

I agree NoType with ur analysis. I’m grateful for the table you made listing the POA & WE over the years. This helped me easily visualize the change that happened at Montblanc in an instant.

 

My reading is there were 2 changes and three phases. Phase 1 is 1992-2000. That’s when the pens drew heavily on vintage MB pens for inspiration. The pens of that era are the ones i get nostalgic about. I appreciate them more than the others because they did possess that purity of purpose and elegant restraint that I referred to earlier.
 

First change is 2001 the Dickens. The pens from 2001-2015 are the transition pens. Even though the pens didn’t draw directly from MB vintage pens, some had some of that Montblanc DNA still in there. Most of them still felt usable but we’re leaning heavier on more elaborate design. That era did produce pens that attracted newer buyers. The JP Morgan with its elegant pin striped sterling barrel and carbon/silver weave cap is just stunning. I had one and loved it, but recall how heavy and impractical it was to lug around. I also had and still love the Andrew Carnegie. It’s such a stunning pen, but also impractical for daily use. I did try to use it all the time too. The Kafka was lovely but way too tall for any shirt pocket. Overall that era produced some new designs that didn’t lean onto Montblanc history, choosing instead to forge new ground. The current market doesn’t hold these pens at the same value as the older pens, based on my observation of resale prices on eBay. Still some very nice pens and one can probably get good deals. 
 

the 2nd change is 2016-present. That’s phase 3 and where we are today. Starting with Shakespeare that’s very ornate and has more than 1 version. I believe this current era of design is showing a larger leap in direction and design language than previous iterations.

 

I could be totally off base here but that’s what I see.  

Wael El-Dasher, I like how you’ve broken down the Writers Edition data into easily digestible phases, while marking the change from Phase I to Phase II as the Dickens, and the change from Phase II to Phase III.  I have only two points of clarification.  

One, that for the Patron of Arts pens, a change came earlier than for the Writers Edition, starting with the 1997 Peter I the Great and Catherine II the Great, such that one could argue for a subdivision of the first phase into Phases IA (1992-1996) and IB (1997-2000).

Two, that for the Writers Edition pens, the change to more than one version occurred with the 2015 Leo Tolstoy, if I’m not very much mistaken — one year earlier than the Shakespeare you have identified as the (second) change from Phase II to Phase III. 
 

In all other respects I admire your summary of the design changes and completely concur with your conclusions, finding especially interesting your observation that the second-hand market seems to value the Phase I(IA and IB) Patron of Art pens and Phase I Writers Edition pens more highly than those of Phases II and III.  

 

 

[sebastel23]

Very interesting observations made here, and thanks for describing them so clearly (including the time table).

 

I tried to put myself into the shoes of the responsible designers, marketing experts, and other decision makers at Montblanc - what else could they do to satisfy their clients? There seems to be a desire for "classic design" pieces, but there is not much of possibilities for unique features, while keeping it with that restricted approach. Of course, you might consider plain reissues, and I'm certain that a 139 reissue might find some interest on the market. But how many of such a reissue could be sold?

 

On the other hand, there are the collectors, and there are the ones grabbing for jewel heavy golden clunkers. Won't they be better served with the current design principles? And, won't this be the more promising market segment (esecially considering Montblanc's established role as provider of all kinds of luxury items)?

 

So, I don't expect a change in their marketing, BUT: what would you like to see to come up in writers editions or patrons of art? 

 

I'd like to see a Raymond Chandler WE, but currently I have no idea how that one might look like. 

Or maybe Mary Shelley? Christian Morgenstern? Hugo Ball? Charles Baudelaire? So many writers that could inspire a beautiful pen....

 

Cheers,

sebastian

 

[The Mustard]

On 11/13/2021 at 4:03 PM, Toll said:

Even though many recent MB offerings do not appeal to me, e.g., Beatles, James Dean, Pirelli), each year there is one or more new pens that call out to me, such as the Hugo and the Napoleon. In general, I find the workmanship of MB to be nearly flawless; the epitome of pen design and use. Although, a recent purchase — a Namiki Yukari Royale in Vermilion is making me want to explore those pens more. 

 

I totally agree that some of the latter Character pens are no where near as good as the early ones although I haven't seen my reserved LE Ferrari yet. The SE Dean is nothing to write home about although I do love my LE version of that edition. I'm not a fan of any of the versions of the Beatles or Disney either but the POA pens continue to be excellent and I am one of the few that likes the Montezuma. My favourite POA's are the early and obvious Di Medici and Octavian together with Von Humbolt and Elizabeth 1 from the middle years.

 

Like you I am tempted away from MB for certain iconic pens of which the Namiki Yukari Royale Urushi is one (I have it in black because I have the #50 nib in Vermilion, I don't think i al allowed to refer to it as the emperor) - what a fantastic fountain pen that is, it just radiates sophistication and quality in every way. My other definite love is my Yard-O-Led Grand Viceroy Victorian, it writes so beautifully and I find myself gazing at it when I should be concentrating at work, well worth an investigation if you aren't familiar with it.

 

I am hopeful for the Pirelli and refuse to be put off it until i have actually held it. In general I love all of the Great Masters Pens of which The Moon Pearl is my favourite.  

 

I agree with @NoType with most of what he has added in his excellent post, especially with 

On 11/16/2021 at 10:40 AM, NoType said:

 I find the Writers Edition trend to ever more elaborate and complicated designs to be regrettable, and I miss the earlier pen’s relative “simplicity, purity of purpose, and elegant restraint”

 

for me that started to change from Kafka onwards (2004) as Verne in 2003 is one of my very favourites from the range and I can't allow it to be tarnished in a less favourable epoch! That said, there were still some great pens produced after that time even if the themes became more obviously signposted, I really like Twain, Shakespeare, St.Exupery and Homer for example.  

[The Mustard]

7 hours ago, sebastel23 said:

I'd like to see a Raymond Chandler WE, but currently I have no idea how that one might look like. 

Or maybe Mary Shelley? Christian Morgenstern? Hugo Ball? Charles Baudelaire? So many writers that could inspire a beautiful pen....

 

 

I'm expecting to see Thomas Hardy on the centenary of his death in 2028 but on that basis I'm going to have to hang on until 2050 to enjoy celebrating the Bi-Centenary of the birth of another of my literary heroes Robert Louis Stevenson. What I really want is a Roald Dahl pen though!

[NoType]

The Mustard, despite my above comments, I share your enthusiasm for the Jules Verne; the shimmering, undulating, variegated reflectivity exhibited by the guilloché interacting with the cobalt lacquer, is nothing short of mesmerising.

[Wael El-Dasher]

I’m glad everyone here has noticed the changes in Montblanc’s designs. I really don’t have any issues with any of the Montblanc pens. Whether they appeal to me or not is purely subjective and certainly their quality hasn’t been affected. 
 

I was hoping to sort of pin down when these changes occurred and it seems we’re almost at agreement at the 3 phases. It’s interesting hearing how we have different ideas of when these changes occurred but I feel they’re in 7-8 year phases before a mini design revolution occurs at Montblanc. 

Even the mighty 149 finally came out with platinum trim! That was a pen that no matter how much people have asked for platinum trim, MB would always respond by saying that it will not change the 149 and remain true to the original. Yet suddenly all that went out the window. 
 

That does remind me of an old story about teenage drinking and getting punished severely for it by my dad then a few years later I walked in on my dad and younger brother having a beer together! 🤣. Somehow that old rule went out the window too. We laughed about it then, and I harbor no ill will towards my brother( lucky (bleep)). 🤣 

[Wael El-Dasher]

5 hours ago, NoType said:

The Mustard, despite my above comments, I share your enthusiasm for the Jules Verne; the shimmering, undulating, variegated reflectivity exhibited by the guilloché interacting with the cobalt lacquer, is nothing short of mesmerising.

I didn’t think about it this way before but you’re both right I believe. The Jules Verne may be the starting point of the first phase of change. It wasn’t based on any historical MB design base and was a  clean slate design. I’ve never owned one but have seen it. Very nicely made pen. 

[virtuoso]

Nobody mentioned the Miles Davis pen! Some people don't like the style; I happen to love my pen. The Miles Davis ink is the worst blue that I own.

 

  Virtuoso aka Steve

[Wael El-Dasher]

15 hours ago, virtuoso said:

Nobody mentioned the Miles Davis pen! Some people don't like the style; I happen to love my pen. The Miles Davis ink is the worst blue that I own.

 

  Virtuoso aka Steve

I believe I saw it online a few times. It looks good. What I suspect happened is Montblanc was looking for ways to attract new clientele. They probably plateaued with the 146/9 and variations. They started the WE series and POA series and they didn’t do well at first. As Bryant reminded me the other day, the Hemingway was selling so poorly that they were being sold at book clubs for $395. I think the Medici did fine. As the WE and POA series continued they reached a point where they stopped leaning on historical pens for the design basis. All new original designs started being released. Also they decreased the number of pens being made. They made 25000 Hemingway pens for example. They made 21000 Proust. These are high numbers when compared to Shakespeare, 9000 pens. It’s a known marketing strategy that if you have a desirable product and you want to make ur product more coveted, limit production. Making it scarce automatically makes it desirable. 
 

This is all conjecture mind you. So in order to make up the decrease in limited edition WE pens, they started introducing new lines of LE pens as well. These new series are totally unconstrained by historical MB pen design cues. They’re meant to be new interpretations of the characters they symbolize. I guess Montblanc designer felt that they don't need to justify their new pens designs with historical pen references, that they need to forge new ground and lay down new designs for future pens to reference. Who knows.  
 

Which is where, I believe, the third change happened when they made a balance shift  again to more elaborate and decorative pens, that aren’t necessarily practical for daily use, but they knew there’s an untapped market ,as witnessed by the success of other Italian pen makers especially.

So now there are multiple lines of LE pens within the WE pen series, they also started applying tiers to their LE pens, as they’ve done with the POA. So it’s become layer upon layers of LE within the LE series. 
 

I personally find this strategy confusing, but there’s no denying that MB knows what they’re doing in the market. Where in the past, people like myself, think of Montblanc as a great pen manufacturer, that I’d go and buy my first 149 with my first pay check. Now Montblanc is a luxury goods manufacturer, who’s products are coveted because they’re a luxury item and no longer a practical and well made tool, say in the same way a Snap-On ratchet is an exquisitely made tool that's desired because it's dependable.
 

It's almost a page out of Rolex’s marketing shift, from practical, no nonsense tool watch to a luxury watch.  
 

cheers

 

Wael

[NoType]

13 hours ago, Wael El-Dasher said:

I didn’t think about it this way before but you’re both right I believe. The Jules Verne may be the starting point of the first phase of change. It wasn’t based on any historical MB design base and was a  clean slate design. I’ve never owned one but have seen it. Very nicely made pen. 

Wael El-Dasher, although I still agree with you that the first change was with the 2001 Charles Dickens, I do admire the Jules Verne design, and understand why The Mustard holds it in such high esteem.  It is an example of some of the pens of Phases II and III that I find attractive.

 

 

[NoType]

2 hours ago, Wael El-Dasher said:

I believe I saw it online a few times. It looks good. What I suspect happened is Montblanc was looking for ways to attract new clientele. They probably plateaued with the 146/9 and variations. They started the WE series and POA series and they didn’t do well at first. As Bryant reminded me the other day, the Hemingway was selling so poorly that they were being sold at book clubs for $395. I think the Medici did fine. As the WE and POA series continued they reached a point where they stopped leaning on historical pens for the design basis. All new original designs started being released. Also they decreased the number of pens being made. They made 25000 Hemingway pens for example. They made 21000 Proust. These are high numbers when compared to Shakespeare, 9000 pens. It’s a known marketing strategy that if you have a desirable product and you want to make ur product more coveted, limit production. Making it scarce automatically makes it desirable. 
 

This is all conjecture mind you. So in order to make up the decrease in limited edition WE pens, they started introducing new lines of LE pens as well. These new series are totally I constrained by historical MB pen design cues. They’re meant to be new interpretations of the characters they symbolize.  
 

Which is where, I believe, the third change happened when they made this balance shift to more elaborate and decorative pens that aren’t necessarily practical for daily use, but they knew there’s an untapped market as witnessed by the success of other Italian pen makers especially.

So now there are multiple lines of LE pens and within the WE pen series, they also started applying tiers or LE, as they’ve done with the POA. So it’s become layer upon layers of LE with the LE series. 
 

I personally find this strategy confusing but there’s no denying that MB knows what they’re doing in the market. Where as in the past, people like myself think of Montblanc as a great pen manufacturer that I’d go and buy my first 149 with my first pay check. Now Montblanc is a luxury good manufacturer who’s products are coveted.
 

its almost a page out of Rolex’s marketing shift, from practical, no nonsense tool watch to a luxury watch.  
 

cheers

 

Wael

Wael El-Dasher, I am in complete agreement with this excellent analysis.  Thank you for such a clear, concise summary.

[NoType]

On 11/17/2021 at 2:01 AM, sebastel23 said:

Very interesting observations made here, and thanks for describing them so clearly (including the time table).

 

I tried to put myself into the shoes of the responsible designers, marketing experts, and other decision makers at Montblanc - what else could they do to satisfy their clients? There seems to be a desire for "classic design" pieces, but there is not much of possibilities for unique features, while keeping it with that restricted approach. Of course, you might consider plain reissues, and I'm certain that a 139 reissue might find some interest on the market. But how many of such a reissue could be sold?

 

On the other hand, there are the collectors, and there are the ones grabbing for jewel heavy golden clunkers. Won't they be better served with the current design principles? And, won't this be the more promising market segment (esecially considering Montblanc's established role as provider of all kinds of luxury items)?

 

So, I don't expect a change in their marketing, BUT: what would you like to see to come up in writers editions or patrons of art? 

 

I'd like to see a Raymond Chandler WE, but currently I have no idea how that one might look like. 

Or maybe Mary Shelley? Christian Morgenstern? Hugo Ball? Charles Baudelaire? So many writers that could inspire a beautiful pen....

 

Cheers,

sebastian

 

sebastel23, the considerations you raise with your excellent questions are very well taken, and demand further reflection on my part, but for the time being allow me to speculate that Montblanc is necessarily evolving as it responds to the changing tastes of their new customer base while continuing to provide temptations for their loyal clientele, no mean feat for any established concern.  The more limited, more elaborate, more exclusive, and more expensive versions of Writers Editions pens represent the evolution, while, as Arcadian conjectured, perhaps the Heritage Collection was introduced to pay homage to the zeitgeist of the pre-1930’s and tempt a subset of long-term customers.

[NumberSix]

How do you guys feel about metal grip sections, which does seem to be a feature at least sometimes on these special editions. For example, IIRC one of the Enzo pens has a metal grip, and one does not. (fortunately, were I to buy one, I prefer the look of the non-metal-grip model better anyway)

 

Metal sections tend to be an instant "NO" from me. But if anyone can do it right, I suspect MB could. 

 

Is it an issue for anyone else?

[NoType]

NumberSix, I might be in the minority here, but I don’t have a particular preference for either resin or metal sections, and am equally comfortable with both.  My foci of interest are Meisterstück Solitaire LeGrand, Masters for Meisterstück, and Meisterstück Great Masters — my older Solitaires (i.e., Citrin, Geometric Dimension, Pure Silver, Ramses II, (new) Silver Barley, Tsar Nicolai I, and others) have resin sections, while the rest have metal sections.  Amongst my smattering of Writers Editions and Patrons of Arts, I’m completely unbothered by the metal sections of the Jules Verne, Alexander von Humboldt, Max von Oppenheim,

Elisabeth I, Ludovico Sforza, and Henry E. Steinway.

[Wael El-Dasher]

7 hours ago, NumberSix said:

How do you guys feel about metal grip sections, which does seem to be a feature at least sometimes on these special editions. For example, IIRC one of the Enzo pens has a metal grip, and one does not. (fortunately, were I to buy one, I prefer the look of the non-metal-grip model better anyway)

 

Metal sections tend to be an instant "NO" from me. But if anyone can do it right, I suspect MB could. 

 

Is it an issue for anyone else?

I recall when they first started making the sections in metal and many FPN members were complaining about it. I had a pen with the metal section and recall not being a fan either but loved the design of the pen. For the life of me, I can't recall what pen that was. I had an Agatha at the time and for me, it's really hard to beat the soft curves of the Agatha's section.

 

Now it has become so common with Montblanc that few raise an eyebrow when they see it. Even the big step down from barrel to thread to section has become more prolific. Not too long ago that was a big issue for FPN members too. 

 

I stopped by the Montblanc Boutique today at lunch and handled the Napoleon 4810 version. I am intrigued by that pen but I didn't feel that uncontrollable pull that says "you're not walking out of here without it". It was nicely made and it didn't feel that heavy, say compared to the JP Morgan I used to have. I clipped it to my shirt pocket and it didn't feel like an anchor. 

 

I did ask the sales manager if anyone dared to clip the Moctezuma, which they had in both versions. 
 

 

 

cheers

 

Wael 

[Wael El-Dasher]

11 hours ago, NoType said:

Wael El-Dasher, although I still agree with you that the first change was with the 2001 Charles Dickens, I do admire the Jules Verne design, and understand why The Mustard holds it in such high esteem.  It is an example of some of the pens of Phases II and III that I find attractive.

 

 

NoType,

 

I hold all their pens in high esteem, irrespective whether they appeal to me or not. Even the Moctezuma, a pen that still shocks me as something Montblanc would make, is still a magnificent piece of art. I admire its craftsmanship and detailed execution. But at the same time I recognize that it would be hard to take notes during a work meeting with that pen 🤷🏻‍♂️. So it’s really a lovely piece of art that happens to also write. In essence, the fact it’s a pen is secondary for it’s existence. 
 

My interest here is really two fold:

 

1. What happened with Montblanc pens and their designs and how did we get here. From Hemingway to today, when did this change happen, are we witnessing a new phase?…etc.

2. How do we, as fans of fountain pens and other writing instruments, feel about these different pens. Do we gravitate towards one era or another? How do we feel about the changes with Montblanc?…etc.

 

I found an article, though it’s topical and lacks any real depth, it outlines some basic observations.

 

https://www.8ways.ch/en/digital-news/marketing-lessons-montblanc

 

cheers

 

Wael

[Arcadian]

20 hours ago, virtuoso said:

Nobody mentioned the Miles Davis pen! Some people don't like the style; I happen to love my pen. The Miles Davis ink is the worst blue that I own.

 

  Virtuoso aka Steve

 

I have it as well, and really like it. That is to say, I'm not crazy about the design (especially the clip), but the pen is incredibly well balanced in spite of its significant heft, writes like a dream, and the piston is the most gratifyingly smooth action of any pen that I own, Montblanc or otherwise. 

 

 - P. 

 

[Arcadian]

14 hours ago, NumberSix said:

How do you guys feel about metal grip sections, which does seem to be a feature at least sometimes on these special editions. For example, IIRC one of the Enzo pens has a metal grip, and one does not. (fortunately, were I to buy one, I prefer the look of the non-metal-grip model better anyway)

 

Metal sections tend to be an instant "NO" from me. But if anyone can do it right, I suspect MB could. 

 

Is it an issue for anyone else?

 

I spent a long time hating them, without actually using any pens with metal sections. Now I've sort of gotten used to them. Sterling silver ones are preferred over steel ones, though not the exclusivity of it - it's just a nicer tactile experience. The extent to which I no longer terribly mind metal sections is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that I spent an awful lot of money on the Montblanc Purdey pen just yesterday. 

 

 - P. 

[The Mustard]

22 hours ago, NumberSix said:

How do you guys feel about metal grip sections, which does seem to be a feature at least sometimes on these special editions. For example, IIRC one of the Enzo pens has a metal grip, and one does not. (fortunately, were I to buy one, I prefer the look of the non-metal-grip model better anyway)

 

Metal sections tend to be an instant "NO" from me. But if anyone can do it right, I suspect MB could. 

 

Is it an issue for anyone else?

 

Metal sections really don't bother me at all, in fact i would say that I probably prefer them from an aesthetic perspective and am indifferent from a practical viewpoint. Step downs, as @Wael El-Dasher rightly points out have received plenty of unfavourable comments here but also don't bother me at all - probably because I hold a fountain pen way too far down the section - probably explaining my indecipherable hand writing - if my English teacher from primary school learnt that I am interested in fountain pens today she would laugh her cotton socks off!!

 

@Arcadian - many congratulations on your purchase, that is a stunning pen, oozes gravitas, enjoy!