Jump to content

11, The Waterman's Piston and Vacuum Fillers


rhr

Recommended Posts

Did Waterman ever produce a piston, or plunger, or pump filler in the 1930s? And how about a button-vac filler? Well, Parker had its Vacumatic with its diaphragm filler, so Waterman’s had to have its Ink-Vue with a diaphragm, even though theirs was lever-driven rather than plunger-rod activated. So why didn't Waterman have a vac filler as well? And Sheaffer and Pelikan had some very competitive piston fillers. So why didn't Waterman’s have a piston, or plunger, or pump filler? And if Waterman did have pump fillers, or vac fillers under development in the 1930s, but never put the pens into production, then how do you look for them? How can you look for them, when you don't know that they ever existed? And how can you look for 1930s patents when the word "pen" isn't used in the title of one of them? Well, the answer is you can't, unless you stumble upon them, and even then, they're only the patents for the pens, not the actual pens.

 

 

Well, here are a couple for all the Waterman's collectors out there. First of all, there's patent no. 1,967,580 for a pump filler that was assigned to Waterman's in 1934. The piston rod, or plunger had to be pumped several times to fill the pen. It was, as far as I know, never produced. Then there's a Waterman's button-activated vacuum filler in patent no. 2,139,084, also unproduced as far as I know. Has anyone ever seen one of either of these?

 

George Kovalenko.

 

:ph34r:

Edited by rhr

rhrpen(at)gmail.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • rhr

    4

  • Ben Looijesteijn

    1

Top Posters In This Topic

Over on Lion & Pen, David Nishimura pointed out the file application no. 15,044, filed April 6, 1935, mentioned in patent no. 2,139,084. File number applications are difficult to find, so I didn't follow up on it till this morning. This is the patent number for that one, 2,087,672, the Waterman's "Ink-Vue" lever-actuated bulb-vacuum filler.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

:ph34r:

Edited by rhr

rhrpen(at)gmail.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's an interesting piece of Canadian "Ink-Vue" ephemera, a pen that was sent back from the Waterman's repair department in Montreal as unfixable due to lack of repair parts.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

:ph34r:

 

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/rhrpen/inkvue.jpg

rhrpen(at)gmail.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a hurry, so I won't hyperlink all these patents, but you might also want to look at patent no. 2,068,419 for an interesting collapsed diaphragm Ink-Vue, and 2,162,223 for the "Lady Patricia" Ink-Vue plastic, and 2,217,755, the goofy, one-piece, Ink-Vue barrel that's HELL to fix!

 

George Kovalenko.

 

:ph34r:

rhrpen(at)gmail.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...

hi George,

I know for sure that Watermans produced a piston filler in the '40s. I believe it was specially made for the Swiss market. I have two of those in my collection. Very nice pens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Most Contributions

    1. amberleadavis
      amberleadavis
      43972
    2. PAKMAN
      PAKMAN
      35351
    3. inkstainedruth
      inkstainedruth
      30436
    4. Ghost Plane
      Ghost Plane
      28220
    5. Bo Bo Olson
      Bo Bo Olson
      27744
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Comments

    • inkstainedruth
      Thanks for the info (I only used B&W film and learned to process that).   Boy -- the stuff I learn here!  Just continually astounded at the depth and breadth of knowledge in this community! Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth 
    • Ceilidh
    • Ceilidh
      >Well, I knew people who were photography majors in college, and I'm pretty sure that at least some of them were doing photos in color,<   I'm sure they were, and my answer assumes that. It just wasn't likely to have been Kodachrome.  It would have been the films I referred to as "other color films." (Kodachrome is not a generic term for color film. It is a specific film that produces transparencies, or slides, by a process not used for any other film. There are other color trans
    • inkstainedruth
      @Ceilidh -- Well, I knew people who were photography majors in college, and I'm pretty sure that at least some of them were doing photos in color, not just B&W like I learned to process.  Whether they were doing the processing of the film themselves in one of the darkrooms, or sending their stuff out to be processed commercially?  That I don't actually know, but had always assumed that they were processing their own film. Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth   ETA: And of course
    • jmccarty3
      Kodachrome 25 was the most accurate film for clinical photography and was used by dermatologists everywhere. I got magnificent results with a Nikon F2 and a MicroNikkor 60 mm lens, using a manually calibrated small flash on a bracket. I wish there were a filter called "Kodachrome 25 color balance" on my iPhone camera.
  • Chatbox

    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More
  • Files






×
×
  • Create New...