Has FP technology advanced in the past 50 years?

[meanwhile]

Now that I have a VERY rough grip on the history of fountain pens, I can't help thinking the technologically they peaked some time before 1960 and have held steady - or possibly even declined - since.

 

The peak of art seems to have been either the Parker 51 (which seems to have been abandoned only because the huge number of manual manufacturing steps required in its construction, not because a better writing pen came a long) or the Sheaffer PFM, which combined the Sheaffer inlaid and upturned nib with a Snorkel. Both of these pens are superb writers and have a reputation for very efficient ink use.

 

Since then, the only attempts I can think of at genuine innovation have been the Vanishing Point (introduced in the early 60's?) and Murex/Parker Falcon type pens (which are no longer made). Sailors and Pelikans are great pens, I'm sure, but hardly innovative, and the Sheaffer Legacy and Parker 100 are just homages to 50 year old designs.

 

Have I missed something? Or isn't there a need - for innovation in FP technonology? I'd love to have a Snorkel fill modern pen with a tough but transparent lexan body, 5ml ink capacity, and interchangeable nibs.

 

You could argue that the market isn't big enough to cover the cost of new technology, but that doesn't seem to stop technological progress in pocket knives, which cost a similar amount to FPs and where new materials have had a huge impact in the past few years...

 

Perhaps the real problem is that this is a nostalgia market where new technology isn't wanted?

[JeffTL]

The real question is how much more can be done; modern fountain pens generally write well and seldom leak. Even your idea of the snorkel filler with interchangeable nibs and a transparent body is simply a combination of things done by Sheaffer, Esterbrook, and Lamy (inter alia). Nibs are all essentially metal versions of the centuries-old quill, and the piston and cartridge appear to be the most efficient filling systems available (recall that the Parker 61 capillary required an unsustainable level of repairs and was switched out for a cartridge/converter system).

[RyanL27]

The only exception seems to the Vanishing Point, and even it has been around for quite some time. However, as far as fountain pens go, it does seem to be a pretty big technological leap - taking the writing qualities of a fountain pen (with superb nibs) and flawlessly combining them with the convenience of a ballpoint.

 

Other than that though, I don't want my pens made of space-age material with a bunch of moving parts. Fountain pens are rather simple in their workings (with a few exceptions) and that's part of their appeal. I don't understand computers or binary code or cars (which is sad because my father's been a mechanic for 30-some years), but I get how a "51" works.

 

Like you, I'd like to see a return to vintage filling systems. I just purchased a Pilot Custom 823 because it's a plunger/vacuum filler and is pretty unique from the converter and piston fillers of today's pens.

[meanwhile]

The real question is how much more can be done; modern fountain pens generally write well and seldom leak. Even your idea of the snorkel filler with interchangeable nibs and a transparent body is simply a combination of things done by Sheaffer, Esterbrook, and Lamy (inter alia).

Well, if I had a genuinely revolutionary idea I certainly wouldn't give it away in a public forum!

 

But even the use of lexan for the body of a pen is more innovative than anything I can think of that's been done since the Murex. Lexan is a hell of tough material, transparent, colourable (if that's a word), stain resistant, etc.

 

Or maybe Lexan *is* being used for demonstrators?? I'm so used to manufacturers making a marketing feature out of Lexan in other areas that I assume that if people don't say something is Lexan then it's "lesser" thermoplastic..

 

Anyway - the point remains that a lexan Snorkel would still arguably be a technical advance over any pen produced today even if it isn't revolutionary - if anything, the fact that a non-revolutionary product could make this claim just makes the argument that stasis has occurred even stronger.

 

Nibs are all essentially metal versions of the centuries-old quill, and the piston and cartridge appear to be the most efficient filling systems available (recall that the Parker 61 capillary required an unsustainable level of repairs and was switched out for a cartridge/converter system).

 

Still, the Triumph, P51, and inlaid nibs did find room to advance. And although the 61's filling system might have been a dead end, I don't think many people would say this of the Snorkel.

 

But on the whole I'd agree with you - the market for FPs definitely thinks current models are good enough in engineering terms.

[meanwhile]

Other than that though, I don't want my pens made of space-age material with a bunch of moving parts. Fountain pens are rather simple in their workings (with a few exceptions) and that's part of their appeal. I don't understand computers or binary code or cars (which is sad because my father's been a mechanic for 30-some years), but I get how a "51" works.

I think a "bunch of moving parts" would be exactly the wrong to go. What interests me is the sort of engineering Glock has done with handguns - using the possibilities of new materials to enormously cut the number of moving parts (by a factor of 5 in the case of Glock handguns, I think) and increase reliability and performance.

 

A Glock pen would be light and unbreakable, be able to write for days, not leak on airplanes or during any form of travel, wouldn't need cleaning after refilling, and would get the only servicing it ever needed by being put in the dishwasher.

[*david*]

The limit is cost, not possibility. Specifically either the cost of complex tools or the cost of highly skilled labour, or both.

[sonia_simone]

A pen body made of a beautiful material that did not scratch, scuff or crack would not be so terrible.

[wdyasq]

I have a Pelikan Level65. It is a large pen, holds near 4ml/cc of ink, writes as well as any pen of a similar size nib, IMO and about $15 retail.... if you could find them. The only negative thing of the pen is its' special docking system and the cap doesn't post securly.

 

Now, if it had interchangable nibs... and good flexy gold nibs... for the same money... ... and they gave me the first 50 prototypes to "demo"... (as long as I am dreaming).

 

And actually there is not much to be gained in what is available.

 

Ron

[amh210]

Maybe I missed a detail in the question but it seems to me that the biggest FP advance in the last 50 years is the ink cartridge.

 

Yes, you may not like them (I don't) but you have to recognize that it is a top-notch solution to the problem of portability and cleanliness of refilling a FP.

 

Andy

[kissing]

If you feel as though technological advancements is slow in fountain pens, and that there is some validility in your statement, it is probably an economic issue. Perhaps the demand for fountain pens is currently not big enough for pen companies to bother researching and designing new technologies - They dont see the extra profit they would get if they released a futuristic snorkel, or a "Parker 2006". Maybe we'll have another "Parker 51" in the year 2051

 

After all these years, why havent we invented a better umbrella? Hmm, I dont think the ballpoint pen has had a lot of technological advancements either (all they did is introduce "Gel Ink" - but that's already boring). Parker pens take the same rollerball and ballpoint refills they took since they were ever introduced.

 

I guess when a company has a satisfactory product, they see no reason to advance it any more. Yay! Celebrate mediocrity (However, fountain pens as we have it today is still fantastic )

[southpaw]

Just a couple of comments from my plastics days . . .

 

1) Polycarbonate (i.e., Lexan and other trade names) wouldn't really make the best material for a pen body. While there are some things that can be done to help with PC's UV issues, it doesn't handle alkaline environments too well. I worked for a nylon company and we used to take Lexan tensile bars (dog bone shaped bar around 1/8 inch thick), bend them a bit, and drop some mild alkaline solution on them and watch them shatter. Kinda neat, actually. Given that some inks are alkaline, bit of a problem.

 

2) As to the Glock, IIRC, Glocks and most polymer framed guns are made from nylon 6/6 (I know some of their competitors' guns are nylon 6/6). This wouldn't be a good pen material either. It soaks up and retains moisture, swelling in the process, and also has problems with acidic environments (some inks fit in this category also).

 

Just a few thoughts on pen materials. I've actually been thinking about this just a little in the last couple of days, and I can't figure out why anyone would make a fountain pen out of casein (sp?). Why make something that has the primary purpose of containing and delivering what is basically water (the ink) out of a material that can't handle much contact with water? Just doesn't seem like a good choice to me, but . . .

[*david*]

Maybe casein was a traditional material before usable plastics became available? I don't know. It does seem a bit like building a fireplace with ice bricks, doesn't it?

[BillTheEditor]

I can't figure out why anyone would make a fountain pen out of casein (sp?). Why make something that has the primary purpose of containing and delivering what is basically water (the ink) out of a material that can't handle much contact with water?

 

Maybe casein was a traditional material before usable plastics became available? I don't know. It does seem a bit like building a fireplace with ice bricks, doesn't it?

 

I'm a little confused. Casein is a plastic. It was used as material for the "windows" in the nose of the B-17, at least early in World War II. It couldn't be too vulnerable to water, since bombers routinely flew through rain, sat outside in rain, etc. And Wikipedia has this to say:

 

"Casein consists of a fairly high number of proline peptides, which do not interact. There are also no disulphide bridges. As a result, it has relatively little secondary structure or tertiary structure. Because of this, it cannot denature. It is relatively hydrophobic, making it poorly soluble in water. It is found in milk as a suspension of particles called casein micelles which show some resemblance with surfactant-type micellae in a sense that the hydrophilic parts reside at the surface. The caseins in the micelles are held together by calcium ions and hydrophobic interactions.

 

In addition to being consumed in milk, casein is used in the manufacture of adhesives, binders, protective coatings, plastics (such as for knife handles and knitting needles), fabrics, food additives and many other products. It is commonly used by bodybuilders as a slow-digesting source of amino acids.

 

The isoelectric point of casein is 4.6. The purified protein is water insoluble. While it is also insoluble in neutral salt solutions, it is readily dispersable in dilute alkalis and in salt solutions such as sodium oxalate and sodium acetate."

 

Maybe one of the engineers or chemists on FPN can clarify this for us.

[RLTodd]

Maybe I missed a detail in the question but it seems to me that the biggest FP advance in the last 50 years is the ink cartridge.

I think the peak is the C/C filler system which as you say was clean and portable. It also insulates the ink which makes for more efficient usage. (if I understand F. Dubiel, the aerometric 51's which do insulate the ink, out write the vac fill 51's which don't by 16%) The advent of modern shrink and fire resistant plastics and the perfection of the stiff, damage resistant, mass producable stainless steel nib. Of course by the time all the elements had come together the fountain pen was a niche product and the ballpoint had the market.

[meanwhile]

I can't figure out why anyone would make a fountain pen out of casein (sp?). Why make something that has the primary purpose of containing and delivering what is basically water (the ink) out of a material that can't handle much contact with water?

 

Maybe casein was a traditional material before usable plastics became available? I don't know. It does seem a bit like building a fireplace with ice bricks, doesn't it?

 

I'm a little confused. Casein is a plastic. It was used as material for the "windows" in the nose of the B-17, at least early in World War II. It couldn't be too vulnerable to water, since bombers routinely flew through rain, sat outside in rain, etc.

I've seen a lot of warnings not to soak casein pens because of the way water affects them.

 

As for the B-17 thing, assuming that you weren't mis-informed, I would guess that either bombers don't get immersed in water, so it doesn't matter, or that the windows needed replacing a lot or casein didn't work well, but was tried.

[JimStrutton]

I think the true answer has to be both yes and no.

 

No because I still don't think anybody has made a better everyday writing pen than a "51". From a technology point, then yes there are better technologies about, but they are patchy. I wish for instance that I could change nibs as easy as with the Parker Sonnet. Why oh why did Parker not do something like that with the 100?

 

I think that for me I want a Parker "51" that changes nibs like a Sonnet, can take a cartridge and has a c/c filler with the capacity of a Pelikan. Trouble is that even with the Sonnet I can buy a complete pen for less than I can buy a spare nib.

 

So in broad sense the technology has advanced, but in another sense the industry has not. They seem to have rolled over and admited defeat to the onslaught of the BP and the Rollerball. What I see is a lack of innovation, with vague flashes like the VP.

 

Jim

[RLTodd]

So in broad sense the technology has advanced, but in another sense the industry has not. They seem to have rolled over and admited defeat to the onslaught of the BP and the Rollerball.

Well.....

 

If the consumer demands it, it will be made because there is profit. If the consumer ignores it those making it go bankrupt. As the patents have expired on almost all of this stuff you are allowed to put up your own personal assets to produce what you want.

 

As an aside I noticed this same behavior with the "death of film." There were unlimited "wants" for products that the lack of demand had condemmed to oblivian. The products were manufacturable and in most cases in orders of sufficient quantity subcontractable. But when it came to putting up ones own hard cash, the interest evaporated.

[PaulK]

I think (maybe because I lack imagination in this area) there's not much more to be done with fountain pens as far as technology is concerned. I can see using some exotic nib and/or 'exterior' materials but what else does a consumer **need**? I think, for the most part, the greatest progress has been made on manufacturing quality (improved tolerances).

[Lloyd]

One innovation in recent years is Nathan's introduction of his bulletproof inks: permanent in every sense of the word as well as gentle on all pens. Beats the heck out of the iron gall ink my mom was required to use in school for permanence. She said that that stuff destroyed alot of kids' pens as the children weren't meticulous in flushing their pens regularly.

[kissing]

My father who used fountain pens way back long time ago (about 30 years back or so) says that he has noticed a lot of technological improvements in modern fountain pens compared to the ones he used back when he was a school student.

 

He commented that the Sonnet (new) writes better than anything he can recall, and even the piston converters were a new thing to him. From that view, I guess there have been some big technological developments in the "past 50 years".