CONID converter fill fountain pen

[fountainbel]

Hi all,

We would appriciate your input on the following issue :

Aiming to make an "entry level" pen at lower cost, attached two pictures of "converter fill"prototypes.

The plunger filler version has 26 parts, while a converter filler only needs 10 parts

Specifications for version "03 "read as follows : (* note version 01 is 6mm longer & 3 grams heavier)

-Capped length 138 mm *

-Posted length 155mm*.

-Maximum diameter (on cap ring) 16.5mm

-Capped/posted weight :26 grams *

-Unposted weight :15 grams

-Features double bayonet cap enclosure system.

-Alternatively vailable with stainless, titanium or 18K BOCK screw-in nib assemblies

-Same material options as its bigger brother (shown on the CONID website: www.conidpen.com )

On the converter pen the original "logo" clip- being expensive to make- was eliminated and replaced bij a wire clip.

On the version 01 the clip looked to long, and the lengthratio between the exposed barrel length and caplength seemed to small.

Logically we can also install the shorter clip -shown on version 03- on the 01 version, so only the cap/ barrel ratio is in question.

On version 03 the clip was shorten, cap band was made smaller & the barrel was also somewhat shortened

Note the pen can also be used as an eyedropper and the pen can also be made in a clipless version.

We opted for a "posting" version, is this wise , or should we make de barrel diameter larger (convex shaped as the cap?) & eliminate the posting possibility?

Which version appeals the most to you ?

What do you think of the new clip?

Thanks in advance or your valued input !

Francis

 

 

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h89/foun...rtversion01.jpg

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h89/foun...rtversion03.jpg

Edited April 26, 2009 by fountainbel

[Maja]

Hi all,

We would appriciate your input on the following issue :

Aiming to make an "entry level" pen at lower cost, attached a picture of two "converte fill"prototypes.

The plunger filler version has 26 parts, while a converter filler only has 10 parts

On this pen the original "logo" clip- being expensive to make- was eliminated and replaced bij a wire clip.

On the version 01 the clip looked to long, and the lengthratio between the exposed barrel length and caplength seemed to small.

On version 03 the clip was shorten, cap band was made smaller & the barrel was also somewhat shortened

Note the pen can also be used as an eyedropper and the pen can also be made in a clipless version.

We opted for a "posting" version, is this wise , or should we make de barrel diameter larger (convex shaped as the cap?) & eliminate the posting possibility?

Which version appeals the most to you ?

Thanks in advance or your valued input !

Francis

 

 

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h89/foun...rtversion01.jpg

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h89/foun...rtversion03.jpg

 

Hi Francis,

Congratulations on the both the plunger-filler versions on your website ( http://www.conidpen.com/ ), and the converter-fill versions shown the links above---they are both very tasteful and beautifully designed fountain pens! :clap1:

 

This is just my opinion, but I prefer the version 03 with the shorter clip. The version 01 is an interesting-looking pen (reminds me of those Japanese "long-short" pens made by Pilot) but I prefer the version 03, just based on its proportions.

 

I'm not sure how long the version 01 and 03 above are (ie. are they the same length as the plunger-filler/piston-filler Benjamin Graham and Luca Pacioli pens on your website----148mm capped/closed and 175mm posted???)....but if they are the same as the plunger/piston-fillers, then I could see myself not needing to post the newer versions 01 and 03 here. HOWEVER, I am also not sure of the barrel diameters of these pens...so that is another factor. Any chance you could provide us with that data?

 

As for whether or not a clipless model would look nice, I am sure it would

[fountainbel]

Hi Maja

Thanks for the compliment and for your valued input .

I completed my original post including your requests, thank you very much!

 

Francis

 

 

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h89/foun...rtversion01.jpg

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h89/foun...rtversion03.jpg

 

Hi Francis,

Congratulations on the both the plunger-filler versions on your website ( http://www.conidpen.com/ ), and the converter-fill versions shown the links above---they are both very tasteful and beautifully designed fountain pens! :clap1:

 

This is just my opinion, but I prefer the version 03 with the shorter clip. The version 01 is an interesting-looking pen (reminds me of those Japanese "long-short" pens made by Pilot) but I prefer the version 03, just based on its proportions.

 

I'm not sure how long the version 01 and 03 above are (ie. are they the same length as the plunger-filler/piston-filler Benjamin Graham and Luca Pacioli pens on your website----148mm capped/closed and 175mm posted???)....but if they are the same as the plunger/piston-fillers, then I could see myself not needing to post the newer versions 01 and 03 here. HOWEVER, I am also not sure of the barrel diameters of these pens...so that is another factor. Any chance you could provide us with that data?

 

As for whether or not a clipless model would look nice, I am sure it would

[mic]

I prefer the shorter clip version. Its a really neat looking clip kinda looks like a match.

[AJP]

My vote goes for the shorter clip as well. Great pen Francis! Congrats.

[kiavonne]

Heh, here I go being the dissenting one again.

 

I like the longer clip. It feels somehow more streamlined or flowing or something to me. The short clip feels unfinished in some way.

 

I prefer the overall design of the short clip pen, though, vs the long clip. So, either way, I'd probably be happy with the pen.

 

Both are very nice looking pens.

Edited April 26, 2009 by kiavonne

[Maja]

Specifications for version "03 "read as follows : (* note version 01 is 6mm longer & 3 grams heavier)

-Capped length 138 mm *

-Posted length 155mm*.

-Maximum diameter (on cap ring) 16.5mm

-Capped/posted weight :26 grams *

Thanks for the extra info, Francis. Given the posted length is 155mm for version 03 (the one I prefer), I would say that this is a pen I would likely post.

The maximum diameter (on cap ring) works out to 0.65 inch, which is quite a chunky (wide) pen, wow! I don't think it needs to be any wider then, in my opion.

 

[Univer]

Hi,

 

I'm casting a vote for the longer clip. Whether the resemblance is intentional or not, the combination of clip design and mottled ebonite calls to mind the unusual and attractive J.G. Rider clip.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[fountainbel]

Thank you all for your input, much appricated !

One remark if I may :As stated in my initial posting, the length of the clip is not the major issue,since I can install the long or short clip on both version.

The major difference between the two versions is the ratio between the exposed barrel length and the caplength.

Major question is if the nearly equal length between the exposed barrel & cap on version 01 appeals more to you as the 1.15 length ratio shown in version 03.

Thanks in advance for your continuated input !

Francis

 

 

Hi,

 

I'm casting a vote for the longer clip. Whether the resemblance is intentional or not, the combination of clip design and mottled ebonite calls to mind the unusual and attractive J.G. Rider clip.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[Univer]

Hi Francis,

 

Forgive me: I meant to indicate that I preferred the pen that was shown with the long clip: i.e., the pen with the wider band and nearly equal barrel/cap ratio. I like the look of the clip "ball" touching/overlapping the cap band. That said, I would be perfectly happy with either design, but I would personally opt for the longer clip in either case.

 

Thanks, as always, for graciously inviting our opinions!

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[mic]

when i said short clip i meant everything about it. the cap on the other one seems too big to me. though i am not saying i don't like it its just that i prefer the one with the short clip.

[southpaw]

I prefer cartversion03.

[richardandtracy]

My preference is for the proportions of pen with the shorter clip. I think it looks better. The end of the clip should be just onto the stainless ring though. I think it looks a little odd otherwise.

 

Regards,

 

Richard.

 

[hari317]

We opted for a "posting" version, is this wise , or should we make de barrel diameter larger (convex shaped as the cap?) & eliminate the posting possibility?

Which version appeals the most to you ?

What do you think of the new clip?

 

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h89/fountainbel/Cartversion01.jpg

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h89/fountainbel/Cartversion03.jpg

 

Hi Francis, the proportions of the version 03 look more appealing to me, but that may be due to the composition of the subject which is different in both the photographs. However to make a more accurate judgement can you take the photographs of the pens side by side. The clip design is very good, I request some photogrphs of the clip side view.

 

I would prefer that the possibility to post the cap be retained.

 

May I request an ED filled Conid version too? I dream of a two chamber design (with a feed chamber and large reservoir) in a similar concept to the Pelikan Level but with the filling with a ED when the section is unscrewed. The feed chamber can be kept transparent which will act as an ink level window too.

 

Thanks!

Hari

 

[sirksael]

What happened to the clip with the CONID logo in it? It seems I liked that one better than this one...

[Ghost Plane]

I like the shorter clip. I'd also prefer posting as I like longer/larger pens due to holding them farther back on the body than most folks.

[Dillo]

Hi,

 

I like the short clip pen better. The cap and body seem to look nicer proportionally.

 

Dillon

[fountainbel]

What happened to the clip with the CONID logo in it? It seems I liked that one better than this one...

Making the logo clip is very labor intensive, making the clip expensive.

As explained in my initial posting, the major aim of the converter pen was to make a lower cost "entry" version, so the wire clip is a cost compromise. The logo clip will still be offered on pen equipped with one of the CONID filling systems

.

[fountainbel]

Hi all,

Again our sincere thanks to all off you for your valued input!

It looks we were right in thinking the barrel-cap ratio of version 3 looks better to most people.

Note we are actually also in the process of making a converter fill pen completely made in Titanium, featuring one one piece titanium cap (with integrated female bayonet enclosure system) , barrel (with integrated male bayonet fingers), section and clip.

Even the nib will be alternatively offered with a titanium Bock nib.

I'll post some pictures as soon as the prototype is finished.

Thanks again !

Francis

[fountainbel]

.

 

 

Hi Francis, the proportions of the version 03 look more appealing to me, but that may be due to the composition of the subject which is different in both the photographs. However to make a more accurate judgement can you take the photographs of the pens side by side. The clip design is very good, I request some photogrphs of the clip side view.

 

I would prefer that the possibility to post the cap be retained.

 

May I request an ED filled Conid version too? I dream of a two chamber design (with a feed chamber and large reservoir) in a similar concept to the Pelikan Level but with the filling with a ED when the section is unscrewed. The feed chamber can be kept transparent which will act as an ink level window too.

 

Thanks!

Hari

 

 

Hi Hari,

Thanks for your input.

The converter pen can also be used as an eye dropper, an Oring seals the section in the barrel.

We are however not directly planning to provide an ink window.

I'll post a side vieuw picture of the clip when I add picures of the titanium pen

Francis