Let's Reevaluate Converter Filling Fountain Pens

[estie1948]

Very well written and very interesting article. I thoroughly enjoyed it and learned a bit of history in the bargain. Most of the pens in my rotation are lever fillers. I'm an old man and most of my pens are vintage. I have some piston filler pens and dislike them because of their filling system. The reason for my dislike is my own fault. I hate restoring them when one of those age-related events you described occurs. Certain piston fillers even require a certain tool to fully dissemble the unit. Lever fillers are easier to restore when a new sac is needed. While you did not mention it in your article since your article was not about the lever filler system, there is one thing about them that I find a huge pain. A thorough flushing is terrible on my thumb nail! Lord help me if I have two that need a good flushing at the same time! My thumb will be sore for a week!

 

Old man that I am, I do own several pens with a converter filling system. I have had no problems with the filling system on any of them. I didn't find anything in your article that was not true of my converter filling pens.

 

Again, a very well written, interesting, and educational article. Well done, sir.

 

-David.

[amk]

I have nothing against c/c pens - I'm a great lover of the Parker 45 - but I do wish manufacturers who make them would include the converter as standard. Not doing so is like selling a car and then saying "Oh, you didn't say you wanted an engine..."

 

My partner can't understand why I was so full of joy when I found five MB converters in a heap of junker pens at a sale at the weekend. "But you didn't find any vintage pens," he said. Heh.

[WaskiSquirrel]

 

Personally, I haven't found an advantage to either (except from a manufacturing standpoint that I'll mention below). A threaded converter will not seat or seal better or worse than a non-threaded converter.

 

I will say this - I avoid threaded converters since pretty much all of our pen sections are made from acrylic, ebonite, or another non-metal.

 

If you have a threaded converter going into an acrylic section and you over-tighten it, you can very easily crack the section.

 

This is not a concern with a metal section, but putting threaded converters on acrylic sections is not very good engineering due to this risk, my opinion.

 

So there is a disadvantage from a manufacturing standpoint, and I avoid them for that reason.

 

These are good points. I encountered threaded converters on the Monteverde brand, but haven't noticed any functional difference. I've never had a converter leak in any pen, and you have cited a good reason not to use them on Edison pens. The exception that I do like is the converter in the Noodler's Ahab, though some would argue it's not a true converter. I used to have a related converter in a Parker pen, and it was easier to pull up the piston if the converter is firmly seated. Of course, the Noodler's design makes it harder to crack the plastic.

 

Lamy has a nice compromise with the posts.

 

But, I prefer the converters Edison is currently using for one simple reason: most of my pens use them, so it's easy to swap around should disaster befall one of them. I can also buy a new converter anywhere.

 

And I agree with the other posters who say that a converter should be standard.

[ac12]

 

I have nothing against c/c pens - I'm a great lover of the Parker 45 - but I do wish manufacturers who make them would include the converter as standard. Not doing so is like selling a car and then saying "Oh, you didn't say you wanted an engine..."

 

My partner can't understand why I was so full of joy when I found five MB converters in a heap of junker pens at a sale at the weekend. "But you didn't find any vintage pens," he said. Heh.

 

Because I would say, the vast majority of FP users (at least in the US) use cartridge ink. And if they leave out the converter, they could sell it for a few $ less. This becomes more of an issue in the lower prices pens where a few $ could make a big difference in the selling price. When I went through college, I tossed aside the converters for my Parkers, as I just used cartridge ink. So why include a converter if the user will just throw it out, and complain of the added expense of the converter that they will never use.

 

In fact, my wife would probably use cartridges or a ball pen, if it wasn't for me. When her FP runs dry, she gives it to me to fill it up for her, so I get to deal with the bottle of ink.

[Water Ouzel]

 

Dammit! I hate when I do that! I've proofread the stupid article multiple times over the last week and there's a type-o in the second sentence!!!!

 

Thanks for the comments, and yes, thanks for the correction!

Brian, I was a technical writer for 30+ years. Trust me, there comes a time in any article/manual/book when you wouldn't notice if your own name was misspelled. After all, you know what you meant to say.

 

That's what editors are for (and they are seldom appreciated nearly enough). It was a good article, even given the typo.

[bgray]

Brian, I was a technical writer for 30+ years. Trust me, there comes a time in any article/manual/book when you wouldn't notice if your own name was misspelled. After all, you know what you meant to say.

 

That's what editors are for (and they are seldom appreciated nearly enough). It was a good article, even given the typo.

 

Good point, thanks! And I think that what happened is that I proof-read the entire article multiple multiple times, and then made a small change to the beginning towards the end of my proofing, and didn't proof that portion carefully right before publishing!

 

I realize that it's not a huge deal....it's just that tiny details like that bug the heck out of me, since I put a ton of work into being accurate, not only with facts and content, but with grammar, spelling, etc!

Edited September 28, 2014 by bgray

[Bemo]

I've slowly come around to respecting the converter as well. But the one area that still irritates me (and it could be irrational as well) is high end expensive pens that use a converter. I guess I equate a CC pen as having less manufacturing costs associated with it and that should therefore translate to a more reasonable cost.

 

Excellent article Brian!

[Lloyd]

My fav is eyedropper filling as there's nothing to break.

With some converters, replacement ones can occasionally be hard, if not impossible, to get if the manufacturer employs a custom one and then stops making them..

[ac12]

My fav is eyedropper filling as there's nothing to break.

With some converters, replacement ones can occasionally be hard, if not impossible, to get if the manufacturer employs a custom one and then stops making them..

 

Like the Waterman CF pens.

I've seen the converters go on eBay for about $40.

And I've seen empty cartridges sell for about $8 each.

That is the negative of proprietary cartridges/converters.

Edited September 28, 2014 by ac12

[annettefhorn]

My sole problem with converters is that I have not had good luck with them. The screw mechanism that draws up the ink gets stuck, or detaches from the thing you twist. I'm not someone who's hard on things, and I'm typically using Pilot Iroshizuku ink. (Maybe I should try something less saturated?) I have a couple really nice Platinum pens and I keep having to replace the $8 converters. I've never, ever, in decades of use, had a problem with a Pelikan piston. FWIW I've had better luck with Lamy converters than with the Platinums.

[Erasmus]

Great article from a great source!

 

I'm one of those C/C haters. It doesn't have to do with any practical reason, it's je ne sais quoi. Let's take a continuum with eye droppers on one end and cartridge pens on the other. The closer you get to cartridge, the less "authentic" it is (TO ME). I enjoy the antiquated, high maintenance, impractical quality of fountain pens. It ties me to a different era. C/C feels like a kit pen to me, and that's too far removed from the romanticism of fountain pens (FOR ME).

 

For the same reason, I will always wear a mechanical watch. One that will never be as accurate or maintenance free as a modern watch (sure, you could say a quartz watch is ultimately "mechanical" too! It's a matter of degrees). Amazing as those modern watches are, far surpassing mine in so many ways, I don't care for them.

 

Useful as C/C is, it's not for me. I don't think it's because I'm naive or closed minded. I just want something in particular, and C/C doesn't have it. When I say "I hate C/C," it's not a value judgement, it's a statement of personal taste, aesthetic.

 

I think this is the reason for many others 'hate' as well. They may rationalize their dislike in different ways, some more legitimate than others. But I don't think it really stems from naivete for most fountain pen collectors.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Erasmus