Mismatched Filler?

[Cryptos]

Hi folks, I may be mistaken (and often am) but does anyone else think that this looks like a Parker 75 filler in a Parker 51 body? I ask because the the pen, when last I checked, was going for about $150, and I was wondering if there is something missing that I need to learn here.

 

Edited August 25, 2014 by Cryptos

[northlodge]

Parker 51 cartridge fillers are few and far between. At $150 it is probably on the cheap side, so grab it quick

[Cryptos]

Ah, a cartridge filler, never heard of that before. Unfortunately I do not have $150 to fritter away on such follies! (35 minutes to go on the auction).

[pajaro]

The original converter's sac has probably long since failed, and the P75 type converter was probably the closest available substitute for the original. The Parker cartridge/converter model is not common, but the ink flow in the pen had issues. It wasn't as good as a normal aerometric 51. If you wanted this as a collectible, a good buy under maybe $300. As a pen to write with, not so good, better to get a regular 51. I had one of these and wondered why it wasn't so great to write with, and the late Old Griz, God rest his soul, explained that the ink flow wasn't as good in the C/C version as in the aerometric-filled 51.

[Florida Blue]

The C/C or "Convertible" 51 was only made from 1961 to 1963. The converter in that pen looks like it could be original (http://parker51.com/cartr.html see last photo). I think a C/C fill 51 can take a modern 51 converter too as they seemed to use the same converters as a 45 or 75.

 

Since few were made and probably still exist (plus it has a GF cap) it will probably fetch a good price.

[Cryptos]

It sold for approx. $145, which may be a good price if you have the means, but for me that is a very expensive option. Interesting though.

[FarmBoy]

The original converter's sac has probably long since failed, and the P75 type converter was probably the closest available substitute for the original. The Parker cartridge/converter model is not common, but the ink flow in the pen had issues. It wasn't as good as a normal aerometric 51. If you wanted this as a collectible, a good buy under maybe $300. As a pen to write with, not so good, better to get a regular 51. I had one of these and wondered why it wasn't so great to write with, and the late Old Griz, God rest his soul, explained that the ink flow wasn't as good in the C/C version as in the aerometric-filled 51.

I have not experienced these ink flow issues in cartridge fill 51s. Where do I find out more about this? Is there commentary in a ParkerGram or other publication?

 

Farmboy

[pajaro]

I have not experienced these ink flow issues in cartridge fill 51s. Where do I find out more about this? Is there commentary in a ParkerGram or other publication?

 

Farmboy

 

As I wrote, it was the now deceased Old Griz who had written this. As I recall, his explanation centered around the connector being too narrow. This was news to me. I had suspected some nib issue. I disposed of the pen. I would have thought you would have seen this. I don't remember when it was posted. I am usually not interested enough in this stuff to look into "Parkergrams" or running down technical publications about pens.

[FarmBoy]

 

As I wrote, it was the now deceased Old Griz who had written this. As I recall, his explanation centered around the connector being too narrow. This was news to me. I had suspected some nib issue. I disposed of the pen. I would have thought you would have seen this. I don't remember when it was posted. I am usually not interested enough in this stuff to look into "Parkergrams" or running down technical publications about pens.

I suspect his comments were directed at the 51 SE which isn't a 51 on the inside.

 

FB

[pajaro]

Actually, it was about the 51 C/C pen. There was one for sale, and I remember wondering if I might have a better experience with another sample. The comments were that the feed connector was more restrictive in the C/C version of the 51 than in the aerometric 51. Actually unless a different feed were used on the C/C version than on the aerometric version, I don't see how the C/C version would have poorer flow. I was told, though, that the C/C version had poorer ink flow, and I didn't buy another C/C pen to give it another try.

 

I think my C/C pen had a nib issue or feed issue or both. It was a poor writer with a thin line and skipped. Back in those days I didn't know people fixed pens. I believe the converter that came with that C/C 51 was a converter like what you find in a Parker 45.