I read somewhere but could not find it (again) in the reviews or in my searching that the Parker 100 is really seen as the true modern rendition of the Parker "51". My question is how is it technologically different? Does it have a collector like the older 51's, etc.

I have heard that the 51 SE is really like a Parker 45 in its technology, but does the same go for the Parker 100 that it is also like a Parker 45. Any comments on the technology piece would be appreciated as I am looking to get a Cobalt Black ST Parker 100.

Thank You.

I don't know if it's like a 45, but I do know that it is not like a 51, except in looks. It is also heavier.

I'm sure that pretty much any Parker "51" collector will tell you that Parker 100 is nothing like the real Parker "51".

The 100 is converter filler and the technology sure aint "51" technology

The guts of the Parker 100 are, in all meaningful ways, identical to the guts of the Parker 45. The two pens use feeds that are identical except for the shape of the end that holds the nib. The nibs themselves are identical except for the angle at which the nib emerges from the hood; on a 45, it slopes downward while it emerges straight on a 100.

Both pens have glued-in-place collectors, and the collectors are designed to serve as secondary reservoirs, not as an integral element in the ink delivery system. (These pens will actually work without collectors, as was proven by the C/C "51", which had no collector.)

Both pens are C/C fille, and neither of them has even the slightest pretensions of being aerometric. (For the record, an aerometric design does not require a squeeze filler. That's just the easiest kind to use. But someone really creative could make an aerometric pen using a Dunn filler.)

The "51" has a much simpler feed, which is not an integral part of the ink delivery system; the function of the feed in an ordinary pen is served by the collector. The feed does improve the consistency of the ink flow, but the original "51" design didn't even have a fissure in the feed.

The function of the "51" relies on the breather tube and on the design of the collector; without a collector, a "51" would be just another C/C pen, and in fact the C/C version of the "51" that Parker marketed very briefly around 1960, which I mentioned earlier, used a 45-style feed without a collector. (The 61 Mark III uses a 45-style feed, but it has a collector.)

The 100 is the 21st-century equivalent of the "51", updated for the times. People do not, as a rule, use fountain pens for their primary writing instruments; that function falls in most cases to a keyboard. The 100 is bigger and heavier because that's what J. Random Newpenbuyer wants. It is glitzier because that's what J. wants. I have a 100, and I like it. But I don't carry it often, and I don't waste my energy trying to write with it for very long at a stretch.

Richard pretty well summed up the technology part.

From a users point of view, it writes great!...I've called mine a firehose at times. I've never felt like it took any extra energy to write with it, the extra weight causes it to cradle itself nicely in the crook of your hand. I have a fine point, which is probably best if you tend to close your "E" and other loops. I also use only Noodler's Black in mine, which is more viscous that Quink Black. I suspect that the 100 would be even wetter with Quink (or similar ink).

Certainly with the hooded nib, Noodler's nib creep won't be a problem!

-Bruce