Hello,

I was wondering if the Push-Pull filling system from Visconti is made to be used "regularly". I mean is this a gadget filling system or is it a rugged and efficient one?

There has been some disussion where their double reservoir power filler had some issues. I do not recall seeing anybody comment on the Push-Pull so I was wondering if it was because they were too rare, gadget to look only or simply very effective and rugged?

Thanks.

I think it's a gadget, an answer to a question no one was asking. But so what? I bought it because of its very gadgetness, even if it does weigh too much. Nice nib out of the box, too.

Fred

Plunger fillers have been around for a long time. It works and works well, though I've only had one for a few months.

I buy pen to write not to store them and look at them once in a while in my collection list I have nothing against the gadgetness of the filling mechanism (I find it pretty cool actually) as long as it is made and designed to be used extensively



Thank you Deirdre I was not aware that it was an old filling method

So I have one week to decide between the Arco and the Divina! (The Etruria will follow assuredly within a few months )

Parker Vacumatics (which date to the 30s) have plunger fillers, though the Visconti isn't the same as a Vac as far as I know.

I also have a Stipula plunger filler.

Yet another Doh! moment for me;I now realize I never understood correctly was Vacumatics meant! I thought it was some kind of osmose filler...

I've read the expression so many times and assumed I knew Ok yes it is definitively a proven one!

I forgot to ask, how are Pull-Push when it's time to clean them? Are they troublesome like it has been reported for the double reservoir power filler? Do you (Can you) remove the nibs to do a better cleaning job?

Hi,

Although plunger fillers were in common use in the 1930s, the Vacumatic is not a plunger filler per se. While the Vacumatic does indeed have a plunger which is depressed in order to fill, the plunger acts on a rubber diaphragm, and releasing the spring-loaded plunger allows the pen to fill. The push-and-release process must be repeated several times - Parker instructions recommended ten times, I believe - for the pen to fill completely.

"Plunger" fillers, as that term is commonly used, require only a single downward push of the plunger; and the pen fills when the plunger releases the barrel vacuum as it completes its downward travel. The most prominent companies associated with vintage plunger fillers are Sheaffer and Wahl. The Sheaffer Snorkel and Touchdown systems also used plungers...without being "plunger" fillers. And speaking of Touchdowns: is Visconti's use of the term "push and pull touchdown" intended to suggest a kinship with the pneumatic Sheaffer system - or is the Divina's system a variant of the power-filler?

Cheers,

Jon

All of the above are good points, but I don't know enough about Visconti's system (or historic filling systems) for the Divina vs. the Sheaffers, but I think it's pretty similar.

My main point, though, was that plunger fillers have been around in various forms. I'm not sure if the Stipula Suprema Nuda filler directly translates to anything historical, but it's also a plunger filler.

I have a question about cleaning visconti's system. When I've changed ink it has been diffcult to get all the water out of the pen. Is there a better way to clean this type of filler system?

If you go back in the threads, you'll find some folks take the feeds out. I just keep working the plunger until it seems fairly clear of water. As saturated as most inks are these days, it doesn't seem to affect the color or performance any. That being said, I don't store my pens for long periods of time as they're users, so I can't speak to the long term effects of leaving a little moisture in.

Unscrew the nib from the section and you have complete access to the inside of the pen. Cleaning it couldn't be easier. I flush mine, dry it with tissue and then re-fill.

The plunger-filler system was patented by Sheaffer in 1933-1934 and then went on to have glorious 15 year career. When properly restored, they are (I believe) the most efficient use of a pen barrel for storing ink (EDs hold more ink, but lose the contest because they require more work to fill).
While at the DC Show, I had a look at the new Visconti plunger-filler and was fascinated by it. Unfortunately, I did not have the bucks to buy one, test it, and take it apart. I did notice, however, that its plunger uses a configuration that differs from the vintage Sheaffer version. Sheaffer attached a flexible washer on the end of the piston, while the new Visconti uses an o-ring attached to a plastic cylinder. I have read recently of a device designed by Francis Goosens of Belgium that also uses an o-ring.

Question: when you fill your Visconti plunger-filler, about what proportion of the barrel fills with ink? The ones that were on display had fairly transparant barrels, and I wish I had seen one fill.
Cheers,
Gerry Berg

Well, the "power vacuum filler" pumps ink directly into the barrel by creating a vacuum via the back-and-forth pumping motion. The descriptions say that the pen fills on the downstroke, and I am still not sure about the physics of that. But this filling system is supposed to have enormous ink capacity, especially in pens with large barrels such as the Taj Mahal. So it seems to be more than about just gimmicks.

The plunger-vac filler was a George Sweetser invention, which later went into the De La Rue's "Onoto" model in 1905. Sheaffer patented it later for the Balance model, redesigning that flippy seal, as mentioned, I think in the mid 1930s. The Pilot 823 filler derives straight from the Onoto model. And these Visconti "Power Fillers" are of virtually the same design. There's some graphic demos on the Visconti site of the pens filling, with directions etc: http://www.visconti.it/tecnica.html Under "Use and Maintenance" they've got the fillers listed. Click and it takes you through a fill. However, nothing like using one of these yourself. As the plunger is pressed, the head pulls away from the chamber behind it, causing a vacuum (suction) until it hits a wider part of the chamber infront of it and breaks the seal. The ink is then sucked back into the chamber behind the plunger. A very clever and robust type of self-filler that draws a lot of ink. Amazing that we don't see more of it. Not quite as sturdy as a piston filler, but hey, at least no sac, and no (expletive deleted) cartridge converter.

I'm starting to think of the idea that plunger fillers hold more ink is a bit of a myth. At least, with all of the vac-fil/plunger fil type pens I've used, none of them hold more ink than a piston filler or lever filler. They all hold more ink than a c/c, but that's easy to do. The Sheaffer Triumph Vac-Fil I have holds 1.1 mL, about the same as a lever filler Sheaffer I have. My Conklin Nozac piston filler holds 1.5 mL whilst my Conklin Glider lever fill holds a whopping 2 mL! Even the Pilot 823, which someone was awesome enough to lend me for a week, holds "only" 1.5 mL of ink. And it's a *big* pen. A good quantity, to be sure, but it doesn't beat out your average piston filler- even smaller piston fillers can hold 1.2-1.6 mL of ink.

I think Vac-Fils are awesome, and the modern ones are way more durable than people give them credit for- but they don't hold that much more ink than a piston filler.

As far as the Vacumatic and a plunger filler both being vacuum fillers- I don't think it's good to treat them as the same kind of filler. In the end, all filling systems are "vacuum fillers," except eyedropper and c/c pens. I guess you could call Vacumatics incremental vacuum fillers, plunger fillers = acute vacuum fillers, piston fillers = constant liner vacuum fillers, sac fillers = shape reformation vacuum fillers, etc. Or something like that.

Aaron