So, I recently moved a snorkel that I picked up a few weeks ago into my rotation. I have to say, I really like it! The nib (Triumph Palladium Silver) is smooth, and it is so much easier to fill! How come they stopped making these?

They stopped making Snorkels because BP and RB pens tppk over the market.
Snorkels make great writers and excellent collection due to a bit variety of colours and models.

It is a shame they did stop making them....

I'm not sure we'd be willing to pay what it would cost to produce the Snorkels in today's environment. But, aren't they great pens?

I think production costs were more of an issue than ballpoint competition (and note that rollerballs did not come out till long after the end of the fountainpen era). By 1960 the Snorkel was relegated to the most expensive model - the PFM - that could justify the production cost, while the mid-range Imperials had dropped the Snorkel for the old Touchdown filling mechanism. The Snorkel was obviously not enough of a market draw to justify the cost of putting it in the Imperials. It wasn't just because of ballpoints - the Imperial line was extremely successful and Sheaffer sold a boatload of fountain pens in the 1960s. .

I also suspect that competition with cartridge fillers were just as much of an issue as ballpoints. The Snorkels biggest claim was that it could be filled without dipping the nib and section in ink - a cartridge eliminated the whole messy ink bottle entirely, and could be swapped out in the middle of a meeting or an exam (as well as much cheaper to produce). I suspect by the mid 1960s the Snorkel was seen as a gadget rather than a convenience.

Frankly I am not sure it is really worth it - I mean I love the concept, and they are great pens to collect, but a touchdown is just as easy to use, and if you are going to mess around with a bottle of ink anyway, wiping the nib is just not that huge of an issue. The only real advantage I see for them is that you can get the last drop out of an ink bottle.

John

I was getting set up to answer on the lines of number of parts and '52-'59 not being a bad run (having neglected the PFM), but Johnny beat me to it. I assume that there's similar reasons for the conical Triumph point being supplanted by the inlaid point-- less monkeying around to reach the final product. Those inlaid jobs write pretty smoothly, too.

I completely agree with Johnny Appleseed's assessment of the Snorkel. I think the Touchdown was just genius... and the Snork is a Touchdown with a cool gadget attached. I'll always have a soft spot for Snorkels, having been my first pen, but if I have a choice, I'll pick a Triumph Touchdown over a Snorkel. Of course, I'll never possibly have too many of either!
And as an aside (or maybe further aside)... Johnny, I make that Lat/Long out to be Kent, Am I right? That 47N jumps out at me since I'm about exactly 5 degrees east of you at the dry end of the state.

Tim
(wishing I had a couple more Snorkels)

Hi,

Great pens, no question. (Getting into the conversation late...sorry.)

I may have an imperfect understanding of the historical context, but I reckon the Snorkel's demise is attributable to several different causes...some industry-wide, some model-specific.

In industry-wide terms: as others have mentioned, the ascendancy of the ballpoint - that all-purpose villain! - was a factor. Just as important, as Johnny points out, was the emerging view of cartridge fountain pens as the convenient, modern, preferable alternative to "old-fashioned" self-filling systems. (These two elements are related, of course: the more convenient the fountain pen, the better able it would be to resist the encroachment of the ballpoint.)

It's useful to remember (sticking with Sheaffer for the moment, by way of illustration) that not all of the early Sheaffer cartridge pens were low-budget "school" pens. The top model in the so-called "Dolphin" series, the 1000, was sold only in a cartridge version; the Touchdown filler was relegated to the lower-end Dolphin pens. The stubby, slot-windowed Comp II pen - a cartridge-only model, no converter option - was priced on par with the contemporary Snorkel-filling PFM I. In fact - if memory serves - Sheaffer did not initially offer a converter at all for its cartridge models. The thinking must have been: who would want to take the retrograde step of reverting to messy old bottled ink, when the up-to-date, mess-free cartridge was available? (When a converter did appear, it was the distinctly odd Skrip Converter: a sort of ancestor of the Legacy Touchdown converter, and a story for another time....)

The marketers were pushing cartridge pens rather than self-filling systems, and the few self-fillers still hanging around were probably seen as semi-obsolescent models that didn't support further development expenditures. So Sheaffer dropped the Snorkel, keeping its less-complicated Touchdown cousin around for a while longer (and there were a few late lever-fillers, too). Elsewhere, the Parker "51" kept its simple aerometric filler until the model was retired in the early 70s. The Parker 61 ended its life as a cartridge pen, its capillary system - a poignant effort to keep the self-filler relevant - having been eliminated around 1969.

As far as the filling system itself goes, remember - at the end of its run, the Snorkel was a filling system used by a single model: the PFM. And the PFM, whatever its status among modern collectors, was not a hot seller in its day. When the PFM was dropped, Sheaffer must have seen little reason to re-engineer the Snorkel for use in some other pen. The Touchdown was still available, after all, for the few bottled-ink diehards.

Beyond the filling system, addressing the pen model itself: the splendid Triumph nib - the full-size version, at least - must have been seen as having run its course (it debuted c. 1942). The Inlaid Nib was the Next Big Thing, and that's where the marketing emphasis was. Even the form factor of the Snorkel was probably seen as old-fashioned. When it was introduced, the Snorkel (and maybe the TM Touchdown) was lauded in ad copy as being "pencil-thin." Sheaffer had clearly stepped away from that styling direction with the PFM and its "man-sized barrel"; and even though the PFM was not a great success in the marketplace, its styling had obvious influence on other Sheaffer lines.

So, summing up: a complicated filling system whose cost could no longer be justified in light of the popularity of cartridge pens (as well as its single-model application); a nib design that was awfully long-in-the-tooth, with a cool new replacement ready and waiting; and a form factor that was out of sync with then-current brand direction. Discontinuing the Snorkel (the slim-profile pen and the filling system alike) must have seemed like an unassailable business decision.

And you know, it's the same story with so many wonderful designs. Looking back, who among us wouldn't agree that the Waterman Patrician or the Parker Duofold - pens whose discontinuation made perfect sense at the time - should have been kept in production? And sure enough, both models were eventually revived, after a fashion; just as the modern Sheaffer Crest invoked the design of the Snorkel. Not the same thing, though, is it?

Cheers,

Jon

PS For what it's worth, I'm with several of my colleagues here: I happen to prefer the less fussy Touchdown as a pure filling system - the Snorkel was a response to the perceived distaste for wiping the pen point, and I've never found that job unduly burdensome. If only the TM Touchdown had been made in Vermillion or Periwinkle...!

Most of you seem to share the same opinion as I do, the Snorkel filling system is a great novelty or gadget, but it's no better than a Touchdown or even the standard lever filler.

I will say this about Snorkels, though, their nibs are always ridiculously smooth, almost to the point where it's a bad thing. It's always a pleasure to write with a snorkel.

Also, who can forget the ability shoot a jet of ink over a meter?