Do most people prefer cartridge/converter pens? It seems that most pens use this system, though I would think that most aficionados prefer integral reservoirs. Cartridges and converters hold only a small amount of ink and, while cartridges limit your ink choices, converters add a connection point for failure (and are inherently cheaper--and probably more poorly made--than a good pen's piston filler).

So why do about 95% of new pens use this system? It's not only cheap pens, either--looking through Fountain Pen Hospital's catalogue, I see some really expensive C/C pens.

I'm happy with my Pelikans, and I'm glad to have found a good maker with a classic look and piston-filled pens.

Thoughts?

I guess if I had my way I wouldn't own but one C/C pen and everything else modern would be piston filled! Vintage, of course, is a whole different story. I guess a lot of manufacturers make C/C fillers because it is cheaper to build a pen that way and people buy them because it's all they can find?!

So if I had a say in it, most modern pens made today would be Pistons!!!

I believe the reason is that manufacturers realize they can thereby give the buyer the greatest choice in filling. Those who become serious and can fill from a bottle. Others can continue to buy expensive cartridges.

i would always prefer a piston filler, due to its permanent nature and large ink capacity.

Not me... I prefer my Parker 51 Vacs and Vacumatics... and my Pelikan piston fillers...
C/C pens are OK and they have a place... but not high on my list

For the office, I prefer a cartridge pen. When the ink runs dry, I can reach into the left front pocket of my slacks, pull out a full cartridge, and twist-pull-toss-press-poke-twist - and I'm back in business - all in under 5 seconds. I need to change cartridges about twice a day. I spend my office time running from one exam room to the next (eye doctors call them exam lanes), and so I am not nested all day at my desk, where I have my bottled ink (and a roll of paper towels). Quick and simple refills without the risk of spill - that's what drives my choice for a pen at work.

And so my two most used work pens are my Pilot Vanishing Point (with its new amazing Richard Binder 0.9 mm / Fine ItaliPoint Cursive Italic nib) and my Montblanc Starwalker with its factory smooth bold nib.

At home, I prefer the tradition (and large capacity) of a piston filled fountain pen and real bottled ink. Somehow the piston fill design, like the fountain pen itself, connects me to a more literate time in our past. I like well made old things from the early to mid 20th century and from the latter part of the nineteenth century. Our fathers and grandfathers cared about craftmanship and design, and they demanded the best of both. I also like the small solitary ritual of filling a fountain pen with bottled ink. It's a small pause in the process to anticipate and prepare for the writing to come. And like any good fanfare or prelude, it makes me appreciate the main theme even more.

At home. my most used pen is my Montblanc Meisterstuk 149, my companion for over twenty years. Soon, I'd like to add a Pelikan Majesty to my small collection. German engineering is a good thing.

I've never used an eyedropper filled pen, but I am hoping to secure one of David Oscarson's Valhalla series. That might be the best of both worlds. Cartridge filled at work for easy and quick refills; and the pleasant little ritual of filling with a wider selection of bottled ink at home.

I wonder what the capacity of your 149 is, and how many cartridges' worth of ink it holds. I don't know that I'd want to carry an ink bottle, but I suppose I've not thought of filling a pen as a ritual: in, out, wipe, in well under a minute.

The Pelikan Majesty looks nice, but I would *love* to see an M600 (cap and barrel) in the vermeil finish (and texture) they use for the cap of the M450. I wouldn't even mind the size of the M450 if only the barrel weren't so ugly to me:

I use cartridge/converter pens with highly saturated inks and integral fillers with more traditional inks. My favorite pens tend to be piston fillers and eyedropper fillers with the shut-off mechanism. But I have a lot of Noodler's and PR inks that I use in pens with converters.

(Edited to correct spelling of "off." D'oh!)

I much prefer self filler pens, which is how they manufactured when they were writing tools more than pocket jewelry. Piston fillers are my favorites, followed by eyedroppers. Larger capacity, and the ability of using any kind of ink I want--including my own mixes. One of the big points about self fillers is that I never had the "superficial tension vs. capillarity" problem that I found in many cc pens (the exception are Pilot and Nakaya converters, which work flawlessly). In addition, when using self fillers, I can still say that they are more environmentally sound than disposable ballpoint pens--which is not the case for cc pens. Of course, self fillers require a much elaborated design, more testing and the production runs have to be larger (it's not only a matter of turning a rod); this is probably one of the main reasons why modern pens are mostly cc.

Hate C/C converters!
With the exception of the old style (first, maybe?) Parker converter with the rubber sac inside, which is *tolerable*

I intensely dislike c/c pens and now that I have discovered Pelikans I may never buy another c/c pen. Of course, never is a long time, and there are some tempting c/c pens out there.

I do find bottle-filling to be a bit of a ritual. I don't have an office--I'm a law student--and so I do try to ensure that I don't run out of ink. My m215 holds so much ink though that when I change inks (weekly) I am always flushing out some ink. During exam week I refill daily just to be sure.

My converter pens were always running out. I don't use cartridges at all.

I like the simplicity.

Of which?


I write some in my office (e.g. brief notes), but mostly I use the computer. I use a pen when I'm elsewhere, and I've never run out of ink. I refill (or check, at least, by holding my pen's transparent section up to a light) whenever I think about it, which is, I suppose, every few days. If I'm leaving for a meeting in which I know I'll need to write a lot, I check it before I leave. I keep a bottle of the same ink at work and at home, so I can refill conveniently.

By the way, while this has (as I expected) turned out overwhelmingly in support of internal fillers, my initial question was more about the general fountain-pen-buying public than us enthusiasts. It's hard to believe that 95% of the people who buy fountain pens--even those that cost several hundred dollars or more--prefer cartridges, but the market seemingly indicates that they do. With the advent of the ballpoint pen and the rollerball, just how many fountain-pen buyers aren't enthusiasts?

Personally, I suspect that C/Cs have more to do with production costs than modern demand, except possibly on student pens. It's just me, but I'd think a typical fountain pen user would like a bit of the nostalgia that the other filling systems have. (Although in all fairness, it is hard to argue with the convenience of cartridges when you're on the go.)

Myself, I keep a couple of somewhat cheap C/Cs around for testing new inks. If something goes wrong (like my best friend's bottle of Diamine blue-black that clogged both pens it was used in), it's easy to clean them out. But for other use, different filling systems fascinate me, and I love trying them out. (Haven't been in this long enough to pick a favorite, though! )

I understand the cost savings on a $25 Lamy, but on a $100, $300, or $1,000 pen? It's absurd that there are otherwise really nice pens that aren't available with an internal filling system. If nothing else, perhaps manufacturers could offer the option.


I can understand pengrump's logic more than the convenience argument, though I use Noodler's ink in my Pelikans.

Exactly! Pen manufacturers are afraid to lose customers that for whatever reason want to avoid using bottles of ink. With the C/C system, they can hit two groups of people: those who want to use cartridges, and those who like bottled ink.

Personally, I much prefer piston-fillers, but I can tolerate converters if I like the pen otherwise.

Perhaps offering both would be best. I see many nice-looking pens I might consider if only they were piston-fillers. I would have to really like a C/C pen to consider it.

I don't have a problem with C/C, but it's disappointing to me when a really nice pen uses it. I would have loved to see, for instance, the Parker 100 feature some filling mechanism other than the C/C. The same goes for the Duofold. I don't begrudge them the Sonnet or anything lower in price using the C/C. If we could at least get more of a quality squeeze fill converter that could be removed for the cartridge user, I'd be happy with that.

Or something at least as good as Pilot/Namiki's big pump converter which holds a nice load of ink and works superbly.

I agree.
When you see really expensive models with fancy colours and patterns, impressive trim (even solid gold!)
a magnificent box, and inside you get a teeny weeny convertor (sometimes embedded to mimic a true piston filler),
the mismatch in external and internal design gives me the feeling of fakery.

I don't like the CC fillers. Touchdown, Lever fill, Button fill, Piston or a good working Vac., but no CC if I can help it.

I would add that for lower priced pens convertors are reasonable.
It's the models that in the highest price range that use teeny weeny convertors that
I find lame.
And really lame when those models use outsourced nibs with pathetic quality control.
Then it's no more than a glorified kit pen in my eyes.

I don't think that it's a matter of nostalgia. There are plenty of old filling systems I don't particularly care for. For instance, I much prefer a piston filler, an eyedropper or a vacuum filler to a lever filler. In fact, the issue is convenience. To me it boils down to having enough ink to write ten pages nonstop, or to pick-up another ink color if I need to, or not having to worry about whether the converter is going to be so badly design (after all, it seems that companies even save in the design of their converter) that superficial tension wins over capillarity. I've been on the go for a long while, and never missed cartridges.

The problem with converters is precisely that they are the cheapest--in all senses of the term--parts of a contemporary pen. The only two exceptions are: 1. The big, wide-diameter converter Stipula uses in the Etruria convertible series, and 2. The pump converters used by Pilot in the medium and high range pens. Other than that, it seems to me a shame to open a $400 pen to find a $5 converter. To my mind, the filling mechanism and the nib are what make or break a pen--if they are not the best for the pen's price range, then I suspect everything else.

I may have mentioned this before, but I strongly prefer cartridges and always have. Some of this may be habit--I've used them pretty much exclusively for the last 30 years, but I find them a simple and elegant way of getting ink to the feed. There's nothing really to go wrong, they require little to no maintainence, they make it easy to flush the pen on the rare occasions that I need to, they contain an aesthetically pleasing shot of ink that lasts a good long time, they are unmessy, and so on. . .

Cheers,
Eric

repeated post

Preferably piston fillers, button fillers or vacumatic fillers because of good ink capacity and practicalness. Converter/Cartridge fillers are not that high on my list except one pen, the Waterman Le Man 100. The filling system I hate the most is the lever system.

I belive the c/c approach is used to minimize maintenance on the pen. Rather than ahving to find some one to repair the pen the user can either use the cartridge or replace the converter.

This works well as long as the cartridges and/or converters are available. I have an Esterbrook Safari pen that I refill the esterbrook cartridge or use Sheaffer cartridges in.

Other filling systems require work on the pen if the filler fails. The general public would be likely to stick a malfunctioning pen in a drawer and forget about it.

I had an example of this. I was at the bank to use the ATM, a woman in a car through mechanical pencil out the widow because she couldn't get it to work. I picked it up to give and she said keep it she didn't want it. It was a Montblanc Meisterstuck MP.

For the general public the c/c pen is here to stay.

Jim

An interesting corollary question might be, "Do you prefer a razor with disposable blades, or a straight razor?". I may be wrong, but I suspect the original impetus for development of the cartridge, especially those proprietary ones, was to follow the Gilette model of marketing, to wit: give them the razor (pen) for very little money, but sell them blades (cartridges) and you have a lifetime customer.

The folks who use a straight razor for wet shaving know that a straight razor is much more heavy duty than a blade razor which uses disposable blades. It takes more time to use, and even more skill. The disposable blade costs a fraction of what a good straight razor does, but the straight razor is not disposable.

Serendipitously, or sadly, depending upon your perspective, the cartridge pen caught the fancy of the FP using public in spades, to the point where most pens available were cartridge pens, rather than lever/eyedropper/piston/touchdown/aero/vac/button fillers. The added bonus for FP manufacturers was that it significantly reduced the cost of manufacturing the pens. No filling mechanism to mess with, unless you used a proprietary cartridge/converter system, in which case you also generated an additional revenue stream.

At this point, many years after the conquest of the cartridge, even high end pen manufacturers use the c/c filling method. Several good reasons have already been posted, and I won't rehash them. The suggestion, however, that high end pens have a choice of filling method would likely increase the cost of these already not-inexpensive pens even more.

Donnie

Converters are (usually) small, hold little ink, and flow poorly sometimes. They can be easily (and cheaply) exchanged, but I do not like them. The Pelikan piston should be standard in all brands .

I like my "aero" fill the best, but lately I've been refilling cartridges with a syringe. That way I can fill it with whatever color ink I prefer. The "aero" is less messy though.

For me it's more about the aesthetics of the pen and the way the nib works. I like the quote, "Life's too short to carry an ugly pen". I don't buy ugly pens, regardless of make, model or what others thinks. I also won't use a pen that has a nib that is scratchy, dry or burps ink when ever it feels like it. I just sent my Pelikan Pura in for a nib exchange - from fine to medium. I like the way it looks, just not the line it put down. Just my 2 cents, but how the ink stays in the pen is a moot point for me.

I think unfortunately a business typically exists to make money, and usually changes in design are linked in good part mathematically to market forces which that company perceives will boots it's bottom line. Sometimes, that falls into alignment with customer preference, and some times, not so much. But when you get a history of industry, it's going to develop a variety of supported "demand" forces (i.e. "us").

Seems to me that pens designed to hold a cartridge can more easily be argued to be born of an easier design, so lest cost goes into development and production, and cartridges can be pumped out like madhouse. Whereas an integrated tank system may require better design, better production, and arguably more effort on the part of the manufacturer to provide support/service/repair. In the computer industry, often, that support/service/repair part of the business is very sought after by the user, but is very very costly to the manufacturer, and as such, can be spotty, outsourced, questionable.

All that rambling simply to say, we have a variety of fillers out there, but I suspect the driving force for each development in many cases leans more heavily on company vision than on customer request (although often perhaps veiled into "customer satisfaction" by the marketing staff).

That aside, the question is about "preference"; which falls squarely upon you and I, the buyer, the writer, the collector.

I'm still green enough in the pen world to really enjoy all the fillers without too much insistance yet; each one is fascinating and novel to me, for different reasons. The integrals make me feel like they're more a quality product in most cases, while balanced perhaps with a bit more day to day hassle. The easy on-the-go nature of a cartridge swapout on-the-fly, though is really difficult to argue. (Although for me, I carry a fistful of pens anyway, so if I ever ran out, I'm still in service; only true for me - I can see a student with a pen or two during finals week with tons of essays in a tighter spot.)

At the moment, I have really only one pen that is an integral filler, a 51 Special, and it's the hoop-styled squeeze filler. I dig it, I really do. The mess in filling is no greater than my converter pens, seems to store enough ink for my uses. That feel of a one-piece machine is a good and right feel.

I have a half-breed, which is the Pilot MYU 701. It uses the metal converter which is a side-window squeeze fill, so for all purposes, it acts just like an integral; I treat it as an integral and think of it that way. It did, however, ship with two cartridges, which I am now experimenting with, and it's been nothing but good times with this pen.

I have two very low-end dimestore Shaeffers that are cartridge-only. The feel cheap to me, light as toy plastic, kickaround, scuff-em-up pens. But they write like champs, God bless 'em. Had them for about 20 years now, and it's hard to go wrong.

The rest of my pens are a medium range of quality (under $100, generally), and all shipped with both carts and converters. Can't say anything bad about those. I get a wide range of choice as far as filling, colors if I like, refilling, mobility, mess/lack-of-mess.

All that steam out the door, and I may feel entirely different if I plunked down $15000 for that TRex pen that FPH is offering. I think if I lose my mind to that degree, I'd not care how the pen fills, because for that money, the pen better come with a pen valet who fills my pen if ever it falls below 1/3 tank.

What do I prefer? I have to actually take the stand and say converter. For my pen range (admittedly not in the 'luxury' realm), and frequency of use (not wildfire), I like the ease, style, and choices I get with the converters. But that's just my preference; and as we know, part of what makes this hobby so fantastic is the wide scale of detail and opinions out there.

cheers!

The following is my guestimate: Manufacturers prefer to concentrate on "looks" to attract new buyesrs and, by the way it just happens it is less problematic and lower costs to include a cartridge filling system. So for new buyers looks and cost play right down the ally of manufacturers. Once you start using FP and see that your are somewhat circled tight in the use of different ink colors from different manufacturers and different qualities THEN they start feeling sorry about having chosen a CC system and THEN they realize that quality and looks dont go hand in hand and also that price and quality dont go hand in hand either. So, the alterntive now is read, ask, and see what other FP users are using and then things become more interesting but more complicated...such as life is, untill you most probably buy the next and the next and so on. You eventually go creazy when you see that the more you buy, the more you use the one you used and it happens to be the older one you use. (I dont know if it clear but I know you understand me perfectly.)

I started using FP even before CC were introduced but I confess that I have some FP with CC systems and I also confess that I used them very little because, in this part of the world, there is a very limited supply of manufaturer´s cartridges so it is a safer bet to buy and use a piston filled FP.

It is very surprising and to me very annoying to see such an expensive FP, upward of US$ 700.00 with CC systems. The only one I have bought with CC is a Nakaya and I bought it so because there is no other way...(I havent heard of Danitrio then) but I wont buy another one. (The others I have were given to me as a gifts from my son and doughter).

vervavolant

Although I prefer embedded filling systems, I don't mind c/c pens, provided the converter is decent. As others have said, so many pen makers seem to be selling cheap converters. What I won't have is a pen that will take only cartridges. In my experience, cartridge-filled pens have inferior flow. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Lisa

I actually prefer cc fillers. They are easier and less fussy than internal pistons. I agree that the converter holds less ink than a piston, but that\'s not a big deal unless you are a heavy writer - and I\'m not. And the price of a pen has little to do with the filling system; the price is due to how the pen is made overall, not just the filling system.

It's easy for me to see why cartridges & converters have more or less taken over; there are design advantages to cartridges & converters - production costs don't even have to enter into the equation.

I've never had problems with cartridges - period. They just work. There is a lot to be said there. Cartridges are simple, hassle-free, and dependable. Replacing the cartridge is about as much trouble as changing a battery, or a rollerball refill - a no brainer.

I have never had problems with converters either. Every converter I've used is a cartridge sized piston filler. Twist and the piston sucks ink into the pen - very much like a piston filler.

I've never had flow problems with either either cartridges or converters.

And if there's ever a problem with the cartridge - you replace it, cheaply. If you have a problem with the converter, you replace it for $8 or so. No special knowledge, tools, or techniques required.

If you have a problem with an integral filling system, it is going to take a great deal more care and knowledge to bring it back into working order - often requiring professional repairs. And most consumers are more likely to throw away a pen than get it fixed - just like a broken TV or printer. I've known people who will replace a car instead of getting it repaired - they just don't trust a mechanic.

So in this day and age, if a consumer can't fix it him/herself, it's tossed to the junk heap. Cartridges & converters provide a mechanism so simple nearly anybody can fix it on their own, prolonging the useful life of the pen for most consumers.

I honestly don't see what the hate directed at converters is for; in my experience, a converter is a piston fillter that requires you to remove the rear portion of the barrel before filling. In contrast, a piston filler requires you to operate a screw on the barrel. There just isn't that much of a difference to me; I'm unscrewing part of the barrel either way.

Ink capacity is a red herring to me - a refill of my (piston-filled) Lamy 2000 lasts about as long as a refill of my (converter) Safaris and Javelins. I don't find refilling to be bothersome at all, and with a converter filled pen, it's pretty easy to check the ink level before I go to a meeting - and bring a second pen if the ink is getting low.

The Lamy 2000's window is really only good for saying "yup, I'm out of ink" when the pen runs dry. One thing I'm finding I miss with my (snorkel) Sheaffer PFM is that it's hard for me to tell how much ink is left.

In contrast, with any of my converters, i just unscrew the barrel (if necessary), and look.

I have absolutely no problems with converters. Cartridges are OK, but they don't make cartridges with my favorite ink(s). I also have no problems with my piston filling Lamy 2000's, or my snorkel PFM. But if 'something bad' happens with my converter pens, I'm confident that if it can be fixed, I can fix it myself.

If something goes wrong with my PFM or 2000, I'm not so confident in my ability to repair it - Frank's Dubiel's book notwithstanding.

Given the choice, I will use converters over carts. As I collect 30's to 70's pens I have a little of everything however and would turn none of them away.

For me it really depends upon where and under what conditions I'll be using the pen. When I was in the navy and was constantly on the move under conditions that left a lot to be desired, I loved the fact that I could carry packs of cartridges with me and have the convenience of using a fountain pen without having to store a bottle of ink in my bunk and worry about it getting broken and ruining my clothes. Even when stationed on shore I oftened worked in environments where I had no storage area that could safely store a bottle of ink.

But under circumstances where storage of ink bottles isn't a problem, I'd prefer the piston filler.

I think that manufacturers prefer cartridge/converter pens. They are cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to repair. They use standardized parts (converter, feed) that can be purchased in bulk and cheaply. When the piston filler (converter) fails, the user doesn't send it in for repair - they purchase a new one, with their own money.

I think that most users don't care, or prefer C/C pens. The people who hang around here are a tiny subset (pen hobbyists) of a small set (fountain pen users). Many of the fountain pens sold are purchased are purchased as gifts, and most of the pens purchased or gifted are filled and used once or twice, or never - for most people a fountain pen is too much of a hassle compared to a 10¢ disposable BIC.

In addition, even for frequent fp users, unlike 70 years ago, people who communicate via written words do most of their communicating with a keyboard - so the long write-out of a high capacity pen is not that that valuable.

A few pens that I have purchase recently have converters cemented in, and call themselves piston fill pens. In these cases, I would prefer real c/c pen.

Remember that in the end, fountain pen manufacturers have to make money, just like every other business. The cheaper the manufacturing cost the greater the profit. Not a thing wrong with this, but successful companies focus on making things that people want to buy at the lowest cost.