Older Vs Newer Watermans

[Slpederson]

I notice that some of you seem to prefer the older (pre-1950's) models, while some use the newer ones. I'm curious to hear the reasons for your preferences. I'm especially interested in hearing from those of you who use the older pens primarily. They seem to be difficult to find in good condition, and are quite expensive when you can find them. Do the older models really write that much better? Do they require more care and maintenance? Or are the more modern pens easier to use and more maintenance-free?

Edited March 29, 2015 by Slpederson

[Left FPN]

I have both on my desk, a reconditioned 52 RR, Executive and Carene(s).

 

At the moment all my jotting is with the 52...what a lovely writer. A bit of variation in the line width on the verticals of each letter, with very little effort, just makes the text look nice. While I have renewed the sac, I suspect it will have to be replaced again in 20 years time. Older pens need not be expensive, just be in the right place at the right time. £60 (£56 + new sac) provided me with a lovely pen.

 

The Executive I have had for 30 years and for cosmetic reasons I have replaced the section a couple of times. Again a fantastic and somewhat underrated pen (nib). These seem to be demanding higher prices now on auction sites.

 

As for the Carene's, again great pens and can be had for little money (£30 to £70) now.

 

I cannot say that one is easier to use than the other. If old and modern are in good working condition, filling is much the same...other than for those who use cartridges in modern pens.

[Frank C]

I fell in love with Waterman LeMan 100s in the early nineties. I bought several and then a few more when they were discontinued by Waterman. They are made of brass with an epoxy coating. Nice heavy functional pens. I use them with Waterman Ink, which is well-behaved ink, if a little boring.

 

I have looked at the older Waterman's, but never found one to my liking. The current models don't really interest me, although I've been thinking about getting an Edson for many years—but it hasn't happened and my interests have changed over the years.

[sidthecat]

I like the oldies: they're full of character. Every nib is different, and each one changes my writing in a different way.

They're also not too heavy.

[pajaro]

I have a few older models, like the Crusader, that are sac and lever filling. Then I have several, Laureats, Experts, Carenes, Executive Phileas and Kultur, that are all converter/cartridge fillers.

 

I have found, not only with this make, but with others as well, Parker and Montblanc for example, that the pens with sacs or with the barrel as the reservoir, as in piston fillers and the Parker 51 vacumatic, that the sac/lever, piston and Vacumatic fillers seem to work from day to day and week to week with less fuss and they generally write with the first stroke after days of non use.

 

I have also found that many of the cartridge/converter models need to be wetted, refilled or cleaned out after a few days of non-use. I think the earlier pens work better when they are in good condition. Possibly the feed has more area exposed to the ink reservoir, or maybe the channel of ink passage is wider. Whatever, the Crusader, along with the Montblanc 146, the Parker 51 and Pelikan piston fillers give me less hassle to get the ink started and the pen writing after one or more days of nonuse than do the Waterman Laureat, Carene and Phileas; the Parker Sonnet and 45; the Montblanc 144 and Pelikan C/C pens.

 

I will say that the Phileas with an 18K extra fine nib from a L'etalon and the Montblanc 144s are better than the rest of the C/C horde. The Crusader sac/lever filler is my best Waterman. I like the looks of the newer pens more, but those older pens deliver performance. I have resacced my Crusader, and it was an easy job, easier than an Esterbrook even..

[Slpederson]

Thnak you all, this in an intersting and informative discussion. I need to start my Carene shopping in the UK clearly. Over here I haven't seen one for less than $130 USD, mostly $200 and up.

 

Interesting observation about the hard starting of the cartridge/converter pens vs older ones. I have a Phileas, an Executive, a couple of Laureats, and a C/F. I notice the finer the nib, the harder to start. The Phileas is always ready to write, the Executive takes a single swipe (both are mediums). The medium nib Laureat takes a bit, but not nearly the work getting the fine nib Laureat or thre C/F started.

[pajaro]

The more of the C/C pens you have, and the longer between uses, the harder the start. Most of mine take some effort after one day of nonuse. Carenes are best. The Crusader cost very little, though, a few dollars, and the pen starts always, even after weeks unused. So, its bang for the buck is greater, and it's not bad looking.

[Frank C]

I have found, not only with this make, but with others as well, Parker and Montblanc for example, that the pens with sacs or with the barrel as the reservoir, as in piston fillers and the Parker 51 vacumatic, that the sac/lever, piston and Vacumatic fillers seem to work from day to day and week to week with less fuss and they generally write with the first stroke after days of non use.

 

I have also found that many of the cartridge/converter models need to be wetted, refilled or cleaned out after a few days of non-use. I think the earlier pens work better when they are in good condition. Possibly the feed has more area exposed to the ink reservoir, or maybe the channel of ink passage is wider. Whatever, the Crusader, along with the Montblanc 146, the Parker 51 and Pelikan piston fillers give me less hassle to get the ink started and the pen writing after one or more days of nonuse than do the Waterman Laureat, Carene and Phileas; the Parker Sonnet and 45; the Montblanc 144 and Pelikan C/C pens.

 

I will say that the Phileas with an 18K extra fine nib from a L'etalon and the Montblanc 144s are better than the rest of the C/C horde. The Crusader sac/lever filler is my best Waterman. I like the looks of the newer pens more, but those older pens deliver performance. I have resacced my Crusader, and it was an easy job, easier than an Esterbrook even..

 

I haven't really noticed this phenomenon. My daily users are mostly vacuum or piston fillers, but I do have quite a few c/c pens. Actually one of the best for not drying out is a Sailor Pro Gear with a converter. I filled and then misplaced it. When I finally found it, I looked through my records and realized that I had filled it four years previously. It had some liquid ink, so I wrote with it. It became an experiment. Every month or so thereafter, I would write a line or two with it. It lasted another two years before running out of ink.

[Procyon]

Well, I think the OP misses some of the attraction of the older pens. For many of us, it is not really a matter of whether they write better or worse than new pens. I simply like them better. I like their history. I like the fact that they are still functional after 80 or 100 years of existence - not many people are. This shows their quality. There is a reason this is called the "Golden Age" of pens.

 

Many modern pens use a converter - I won't mention a cartridge, because that is an abomination - almost any other type of filling system is preferable. Luckily, some modern pens do use a piston filling system, and these are very nice pens, for the most part.

 

The fact is, though, that I have a huge number of pens, and writing with all of them is out of the question. I am a collector - because i like the history, the detailed data of production, etc. of the pens and the companies that produced them. For me, It is a hobby - not a piece of writing equipment.

[Slpederson]

Thank you, Procyon. That is in part the question I apparently did not pose clearly enough. Is the attraction of the older models the age and history, or are they more functional? You have answered that clearly for yourself. I wish I could afford an nice pre-war pen for the history and long lasting quality. Unfortunately good ones are a bit past my budget.

 

Why are cartridges an abomination? Because they are second half twentieth century? Or some other reason? I am truly asking to be educated here.

[Cepasaccus]

I very much prefer the older Watermans. Modern pens with nail nibs and C/C filling don't do anything for me. A pen like a MB 146 feels good to the touch, is reliable, but it doesn't create a feeling writing with it. With old pens the writing is an experience for me. It is so much fun that writing without purpose has purpose enough. And to come back to Waterman ... I love safeties. They are the perfect pocket pen. They do not leak. They do not dry up. They have no problem in the plane. Waterman made great safeties. They made great nibs for them. So that is what I use most of the time, at the moment an incredible Sumgai, something like a 542.

 

Cepasaccus

[graystranger]

I do not mind using cartridges in my pens, i refill them with the ink of my choice using an ink syringe or a pipette (for the Pilot cartridges). Many cartridges hold more ink than their converters. Some cartridges (Pilot, Platinum, Parker, Waterman) hold quite a bit of in. Using fountain pens at work every day a filled Pilot or Waterman cartridge would last me a couple of weeks (rotating through several pens during the day) before needing to be refilled. I think of a cartridge as a removable ink sac, and I do not mind refilling a cartridge any more than I mind filling a piston fill pen and having to wipe the grip and nib off. Then closing the ink bottle tightly.

 

The concept of using only cartridges, limiting myself to only the boring inks available, AND PAYING UP TO 12 TIMES THE COST OF THE INK is an abomination. Some worry about their pen running out of ink during a meeting, at work, school, etc. It has been years since I only had one pen with me!! It has never been a problem, I just switch to a second pen and keep going. Refill the pen or cartridge when I get back to the ink. This is usually avoidable if you fill your pen once a day.

 

I do not like the short international cartridges, though I have refilled them too for some years. They hold too little ink, though that is more of a philosophy than a problem for me.

 

Me, I love old and new pens. The old pens for their craftsmanship, style, and panache, the new pens for their style, panache, and design. My vintage pens write very well. So do my modern pens.

[pajaro]

I have often thought that cartridge ink is different in some way from bottled ink. Seems to last longer. Still, I personally don't care to use them much.

 

The older pens have a certain charm for a great many people, and there is the thought of the heritage they carry with them. Still, I don't like the styles of pens made before about 1940, and the pens made in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s are my favorites. They are old enough for me. The earlier pens I just cannot relate to. I am not a serious pen collector. Serious collectors I have known wanted one or more of virtually everything and gave the appearance of striving for everything that could be had, a complete collection being their aim.

 

I like the Waterman Crusader, and some similar Watermans, but also the Laureat and the Phileas. Having had a few Carenes for a while now, I think their style is more akin to old, old pens and my interest in them has faded. I did manage to fit one fine Carene section into a Phileas, though. An interesting but workable frankencuriousity.

[manolo]

I don't like old fountain pens. I find them small (although you spend a lot of money; the biggest are the most expensive), fragile, they need care, maintenance...ok, nibs can be better if you like flex, but I do not, I prefer getting line expression through stubs, obliques or semi-flexible nibs.

 

This applies to Waterman pens, one of my 3 preferred brands (Waterman, Platinum & Pelikan).

 

Regarding filling system, I like cartridges, filled with syringe, above any other system. Even piston filler. It is cleaner, more versatile, easy to transport. I was fond of pistons some years ago but now much less. For this reason, my Pelikans see less use as time passes.

 

For Watermans, I prefer pens made in 70-80s, the Le Man 200, Le Man 100 series, or even the cheaper series of those years. I find they are very well built, very reliable, good sizes, and I can find quite a diversity of nibs.

[Frank C]

I don't like old fountain pens. I find them small (although you spend a lot of money; the biggest are the most expensive), fragile, they need care, maintenance...ok, nibs can be better if you like flex, but I do not, I prefer getting line expression through stubs, obliques or semi-flexible nibs.

 

This applies to Waterman pens, one of my 3 preferred brands (Waterman, Platinum & Pelikan).

 

Regarding filling system, I like cartridges, filled with syringe, above any other system. Even piston filler. It is cleaner, more versatile, easy to transport. I was fond of pistons some years ago but now much less. For this reason, my Pelikans see less use as time passes.

 

For Watermans, I prefer pens made in 70-80s, the Le Man 200, Le Man 100 series, or even the cheaper series of those years. I find they are very well built, very reliable, good sizes, and I can find quite a diversity of nibs.

 

I agree with Manolo, I think that the Waterman Le Mans 100 is "The Perfect Fountain Pen", or at least one of them, anyway.

[manolo]

I agree with Manolo, I think that the Waterman Le Mans 100 is "The Perfect Fountain Pen", or at least one of them, anyway.

 

If only they came in different colours...I imagine a purple Le Man 100...wow. I agree with Frank, Waterman 100 is the "perfect pen" (leaving aside their propensity to damage in the front collar...)

[tryphon]

I fell in love with Waterman LeMan 100s in the early nineties. I bought several and then a few more when they were discontinued by Waterman. They are made of brass with an epoxy coating. Nice heavy functional pens. I use them with Waterman Ink, which is well-behaved ink, if a little boring.

 

I have looked at the older Waterman's, but never found one to my liking. The current models don't really interest me, although I've been thinking about getting an Edson for many years—but it hasn't happened and my interests have changed over the years.

Not really an epoxi coating. You may find this article interesting:

 

http://www.newpentrace.net/articleGA%20MAN100.html

[Left FPN]

Carbon fibre....we would need to see more on this. It was then and still is now an expensive material to include in a design.

[manolo]

¿Carbon fibre? Ummmmm, it sounds too modern for those days, I will ask some guys about this.

The truth is, the material that covers the barrel is really resilient, I have one with a couple of big dings but the enamel has not riipped off.

[tryphon]

I wrote the artcle and it was based on info provided by Waterman of France. Please note that the barrel is not made of carbon fiber, but contains carbon fiber. Incidentally, there were pens made entirely of carbon fiber well before 1990!