I'm asking this because I find myself avoiding rotating pens that use a piston (or other method drawing ink through the nib.) I find it harder to clean those pens, and often don't know how much ink I've actually loaded. However with so many people loving Pelikans, I'm curious if that type of filling method is really preferred.

I voted piston; I like their reliability and ink capacity. I would vote next for eye dropper - I have a couple Danitrio Densho's and they hold a ton of ink. I don't find the eye dropper too much trouble given their capacity. I really don't care for c/c pens, but you have little choice in modern pens. Perhaps that's why I prefer vintage pens.
kg

I voted "Other." My ideal filler, assuming that it is built to remain reliable, would be the Sheaffer Vacuum-Fil. Applied to a pen made with a nib section designed for it (instead of the standard C/C nib assembly that Visconti uses), it's the perfect filler: huge capacity, almost instant filling, and superb flushability.

I just restored the filler in this Tuckaway this weekend:



New shaft seal (Viton® O-ring) and new plunger washer (cut from advanced polymer sheet), and the pen is wonderful. Why would I want anything else?

I voted piston, as more than half of my regularly used pens are piston-fillers.

Pelikans are nice because you can see how much ink is left in them, and the fact that the nib unit screws right out makes them easy to clean.

My Aurora and Omas pens are all piston-fillers, but only my Aurora pens have ink windows. Aurora nib units unscrew also, so again, easy to clean. Cleaning my Omas piston-fillers is a little more work, but no more than cleaning a Snorkel or lever-filler entails.

I answered piston.

I guess it would be very annoying to not be able to see how much ink is left in the pen. I really haven't thought about that because I use a Pelikan M200, which has an ink window. It sure does hold a lot of ink, and it seems to me like it flushes out more easily than a c/c pen.

Then there's a whole psychological aspect to it (well, at least for me anyways). The only thing I ever use is bottled ink - Noodler's doesn't come in cartridges, after all! Seriously, anything that comes in cartridges comes in bottles, but not the other way around. Cartridges are also hideously expensive compared to bottled ink.

So for me, that begs the question: why bother with something designed for a thing other than what I use. To me, a c/c pen is designed for cartridges. In my mind, a converter is just a jury-rigged way to get around something that's designed for cartridges. The pen uses cartridges first, ink second. I use ink first, cartridges never, so my mind really doesn't latch onto the reasons for using a workaround. That's in my mind, at least.

Besides, have you ever tried changing ink colors using just cartridges? It's not easy - I guess that's what converters are for.

That's not to say I hate converters. 66% (that's two ) of my pens are c/c (Phileas and Al-star), and I really appreciate the Al-star converter's attempt to maximize space. But, I enjoy more something that was designed from the ground up to use bottled ink, since that's all I ever use.

Richard, the information you provide on your website is great! I've learned a lot about the snorkel and vacuum-fil systems. It looks to me like a vacuum-fil is the preferred design, as it takes in the most ink with a simpler, more reliable mechanism. The snorkel's feature of not having to dip the nib is nice, but certainly not essential.

Is the main issue with proper function of the snorkel having to do with dried out o-rings? When storing a snorkel, is it best to keep it filled with water?

Montblanc piston filling system, Parker Vacumatic and Parker Aerometric system are what I like the most but the converter is also something I appreciate.

Dried-out O-rings, ossified sac, or both. Another problem is rusted-out guts because somebody sucked ink or water into the pen.

There's no need to keep a Snorkel water filled; that's useful only for cork-based pistons such as you find on early piston fillers (Pelikan, Soennecken, Montblanc, Conklin Nozac, etc.)

I actualy made a poll like this one few months ago.
Never the less I chose piston then and I will choose piston now.

Interestingly, I asked a very similar question on another board earlier today. I posted there that my favorites are piston and button fill, even though they are not in the majority of my pens.

Parker 51 Aero with plyglass sac, or equivalent (are there any modern equivalents???). I know, this is getting as old as the Borg Queen. But there's no arguing with success. What other filler system is still going strong after 50 years with no repairs? Of course, if you want volume, go with an eye dropper, no moving or flexing parts to wear out, and max ink. For a handy filling system, though it might lack a smidge in volume as compared to the best competitors, the Aero system with Kryptonite sac (whatever Parker used in "plyglass") has not been challenged in terms of reliability and longevity. Okay, IMO.

I have to admit, it is impressive how long these Parker aerometric plyglass sacs last. I've seen other squeeze bladder converters like this that deteriorated due to ink left inside and exposure to heat (Pilot and Waterman). A Parker 51 that I picked up with soft-solidified ink inside still didn't leak and I was eventually able to get the ink to dissolve and expel.

Still, an integral piston filler from Montblanc or Lamy is amazingly strong and dependable, pulling in large amounts of ink. I have some Lamy 27 pens from the 50's that have zero leakage pistons--they fill to the top with just the slightest of air bubbles.

I voted converters based on replaceability. If one goes bad, just buy a new one (It's a lot more complicated situation when a fixed piston goes bad )

Converters hold less than most other filling mechanisms, but this hasn't been a problem for me.

Snorkel. Yes, it is overly complicated. Yes, there are so many parts that can conk out on you. But I just can't help but smile every time I fill a snorkel pen.

I voted "Other."

I use cartridges, but I refill them. So I'm not using the cartridges the way they were "meant" to be used. I don't throw them out, I accumulate them for re-use. And I don't use them neat, either. When I pop a new cartridge I'm invariably going to mix in some form of a Noodler's permanent ink in with the cartridge's own ink.

I use syringes and blunt needles to get the cartridges refilled from bottles. Works just fine for me. So I guess I sort of have a cartridge/eye dropper hybrid going on here.

For me, it's a dead tie between the Aerometric and Snorkel - though for quite different reasons. The Aero is just so reliable and easy to use, and it holds a lot of ink. The Snorkel, like Nimrud said, just makes me smile. Also, from my rather limited experience, the Snorkel does seem to be a rather reliable mechanism.

Piston! I dislike carts due to the ever-unpopular "oops, sorry honey" factor, and a perceived leaning towards clotting if left idle for some time.

For ease and mess, how could you go wrong with the capillary filler on the Parker 61? So easy, and the ink drips right off the barrel. I have fun with the snorkel, but the 61 is just too easy.

Kyle

I guess you're used to taking a long time to fill up, seeing as you drive that Hummer.

Piston, especially in a Pelikan. Cartriges are, well, ok for when there is no other choice. Converters when you have no other choice for the cartridge pens and you want to use that special ink/color.

Someone ever wondered how Montegrappa [Symphony] can be so utterly expensive when they are [darn] converter/cartridge?

Huh? What's the "oops" factor with cartridges?

Little pools of ink on inlaid wooden tables, in the case of my aged Pelikan. And, of course, the eternal stack of little dead soldiers whenever I change carts in the middle of a crossword session -- fully meaning to toss them when I finish.

Three weeks later, I'm duly reminded of said intention.

Eyedropper / eye dropper fill. It's very convenient when mixing ink in the barrel. Large ink capacity. An eye dropper can get the most ink from the bottle too.

One word: Snorkel.

One phrase...I DON'T GIVE A GOOD RIP...

I have just about every fill system sitting in the oak mechanic's chest behind me, save an eye-dropper. I have a number of Pel Levels.

My standard is simple...does the system get the colored fluid into some kind of carrying bag inside the pen and does that carrying bag dispense the colored fluid to the nib in a manner that I can make marks on paper...

If yes, I like it. If no, screw it.

Bill

I voted Converter. I find the fact that they hold less ink a plus, it gives me a reason to change/try new inks more often. Pen cleaning between inks is easyer and you always know how much ink is left in the pen. And the ability to just discard a faulty converter for a new one is a big plus. I have a Mont Blanc whose piston froze (bad ink?), that cost $55 plus shipping.

Aldo

YEAH! Me too! Screw it!

I just pour the ink on the paper and roll around on it.

For real though. Carts at the bottom of the list, I'm friends with everything else.

I voted Piston.

I use both Piston and Converter fillers. I don't use carts.

Like many here, I use different pens each week... or every other day... or <twitch> as often as I can. <warm fuzzy>

I chose piston because of the bigger ink capacity this usually allows for.

I use mainly cartridges because cartridge fillers are cheaper for the most part and they can be filled in class, I do not want to risk taking an ink bottle to class, but I voted other because I also love my lever fill Esterbrook SJ.

Piston fillers are my favourites, but I also like the way Sheaffer TD works (to be honest if a filling system is reliable then I wil be happy with it).
Andy

I voted for cartridges although I seldom use the ink that comes in them. I mostly refill them with whatever ink or mixture I want using a syringe, much like InkStainedWretch. He voted Other because he considered this way of using cartridges as a use other than originally intended. I say using cartridges is using cartridges and his vote should be counted as a cartridge vote.

Main reasons for my preference are:
1. C/c nib sections are sooo easy to clean
2. Carts hold more ink than converters because they don't have to reserve room for a filling mechanism
3. You can safely buy c/c pens on eBay without much fear that they will need expensive restoration

I didn't vote because I don't care.
As long as the filling system fills and can reliably get ink to nib that's all I care about.

I voted other. I prefer sac - lever filler pens.

I like them because I can fix them!

Andy

1st choice piston fillers
2nd snorkels
3rd TD's
4th aerometric
5th lever fillers

I voted for the piston because, like all sensible folks, I love my Pels. Still, my eyedropper filler is also a favorite.