Clear, Demonstrator Pens More Prone To Cracking?

[aeba]

 

jar is right - proof requires systematic data, not selective anecdote and speculation. Why not muster a representative sample of users on FPN and poll them?

What keeps that from being contaminated with anecdotes and outright poll trolling?

[catbert]

What keeps that from being contaminated with anecdotes and outright poll trolling?

 

Absolutely nothing. If large numbers of us are willing to lie in order to boost or smear a pen, there's a bigger problem here than whether or not all TWSBIs crack spontaneously.

 

I don't own a TWSBI and none of my clear pens has imploded (yet). I do wonder if 'user-serviceable' + new users might have contributed to some cracking but I have no axe to grind. I'll probably choose between an Eco and a vac mini if/when it appears, to see for myself, just as I bought a Lamy 2000 EF to see for myself (it was fine).

[aeba]

 

Absolutely nothing. If large numbers of us are willing to lie in order to boost or smear a pen, there's a bigger problem here than whether or not all TWSBIs crack spontaneously.

 

I don't own a TWSBI and none of my clear pens has imploded (yet). I do wonder if 'user-serviceable' + new users might have contributed to some cracking but I have no axe to grind. I'll probably choose between an Eco and a vac mini if/when it appears, to see for myself, just as I bought a Lamy 2000 EF to see for myself (it was fine).

Yep, I do agree that it would show a bigger problem, but still... I mean, if some one wants to do a poll about it, sure, go ahead. I just am not sure on how science-y it would be. Members-list on FPN has 4686 entries. Out of that 924 has more than 5 posts. 319 has more than 5 posts and has logged in this year. Over all 456 has logged in this year. That is not that large sample size.

 

Oh and I do not believe demonstrators in general cracking more than non-demos.

[catbert]

Yep, I do agree that it would show a bigger problem, but still... I mean, if some one wants to do a poll about it, sure, go ahead. I just am not sure on how science-y it would be. Members-list on FPN has 4686 entries. Out of that 924 has more than 5 posts. 319 has more than 5 posts and has logged in this year. Over all 456 has logged in this year. That is not that large sample size.

 

Oh and I do not believe demonstrators in general cracking more than non-demos.

Someone did start a poll - see link above. The numbers you cite are at least larger than the number of participants in this and other similar threads, and might be sufficient to show a trend. Worth a try, no?

[jar]

Nice trick. The only body which could provide those statistics surely won't want to provide the statistics.

 

There are several answers to that assertion.

 

First, simple economics would enter into TWSBI deciding to help provide such data. The material costs are often among the smaller expenses that determine a products overall cost. Changing the plastic used would likely not effect overall costs significantly.

 

The bigger answer though is peer review. Science is based on questioning results and so tests get repeated to see if the original finding is valid.

 

Don't misunderstand my position.

 

I am not a TWSBI fan boy. I've tried three samples (I'm old and forgetful so it might have been four or even five) and found them to be unacceptable, unbalanced, slippery, scratchy nibs; overpriced even if they were free. Plus I find them butt fuggly.

 

But that does not change the fact that anecdotal information is notoriously unreliable.

[bongo47]

Cracking is bad, no doubt, and I'm really hoping that my new Eco doesn't because I'm loving everything about it. It's my only TWSBI, so no direct experience with any problems yet. For sure I'll now treat it a bit more gingerly. It's construction makes it look pretty sturdy, so I had been a bit cavalier with it.

 

That said, for $28 I'm of the mind that it will likely someday frustrate me. My Ahab burps ink and dries out just sitting there, my Lamy cap seems to be getting progressively looser and pops off, my preppies have cracked and so on. I buy these pens because I want to use them every day without stressing over loss, drops or breaks and still have pleasure of staring at ink sloshing and flowing through the feed.

 

But... I really hope this TWSBI lasts a while.

[NewPenMan]

On this "flaws of anecdotal evidence" argument, sanity has left the rails. I'm not sure exactly what you're envisioning but likely JD power and Associates is not going to formulate a statistical Report which suits your needs and taste.

 

There is evidence out there that supports the notion that rumor is one of the most effective method of information transmission whether you like it or not. And I suspect you don't like anecdotal evidence because you don't control it. Control is a big deal in western culture it is a falsehood a specter a delusion.

 

Once people start saying that they have a problem with a product you have lost control of any message and that is simply bare-knuckle reality. Best to put it on the grown-up pants and deal with it realistically.

 

But I much more trust a friend online or people on this forum to gain a sense of whether A pen is a good purchase then I would statistics-based charts and graphs produced buy some high dollar firm conducting the only type of "research" you seem to acknowledge. You do realize that figures can be manipulated there are many ways of looking at "Scientific data" and history is full of examples of this. You've heard the phrase," figures don't lie but liars figure." There's a very good reason for that saying.

 

twsbi themselves have acknowledged the cracking problem in their own products which they make and sell. Clearly they have moved on from any "science-based" handling of the issue.

 

Perhaps you should, too.

 

I am somewhat sympathetic to your viewpoint in that I have in my life Felt that all I could trust is scientific documentation.. The only and final word on any subject what we call "Science"

 

I am going to suggest to you that "Science" is like any other religion - yes religion. It is a belief system which believers feel is the most real thing in the universe. Every religion has its own dogma, Science included.

 

One of the most corrosive features of dogma is ruling out everything else saying that the thing which is believed in can do no wrong, is always the most correct.

 

If somebody told you - anecdotally - that your house was on fire, I'm willing to bet that you would get your Buns out of your house, stat, and that you would not wait to see a statistical report or scientific evidence that yes your house is on fire.

Edited September 1, 2015 by NewPenMan

[Freddy]

 

Again..Thanks!

 

Fred

good evening and safe journey............Adios.

[J85909266]

I have a clear TWSBI Vac 700. Been using it for months. It has not cracked. I hereby submit this to the internet records.

[NewPenMan]

Will need a proper method all scientifical-like, to properly register this data to make sure that is properly steeped in the purist Scientific method and absolutely certified to be bereft of even the slightest particle of anecdotalism.

 

Do you hereby swear to the Almighty God of science, Bill Nye, that Data you have submitted hereto is accurate and pure to the best of your knowledge, so help you Isaac Newton??

 

 

==================

For the record I don't mean any harm by all this I'm just trying to have a little fun no offense intended. I've already made up my mind for myself about twsbi pens

Edited September 1, 2015 by NewPenMan

[J85909266]

Will need a proper method all scientifical-like, to properly register this data to make sure that is properly steeped in the purist Scientific method and absolutely certified to be bereft of even the slightest particle of anecdotalism.

 

Do you hereby swear to the Almighty God of science, Bill Nye, that Data you have submitted hereto is accurate and pure to the best of your knowledge, so help you Isaac Newton??

*places right hand on a science*

 

I do.

Edited September 1, 2015 by J85909266

[jar]

Will need a proper method all scientifical-like, to properly register this data to make sure that is properly steeped in the purist Scientific method and absolutely certified to be bereft of even the slightest particle of anecdotalism.

 

Do you hereby swear to the Almighty God of science, Bill Nye, that Data you have submitted hereto is accurate and pure to the best of your knowledge, so help you Isaac Newton??

You really need to learn just what the Scientific Method is.

 

First, the very idea that there could even be a god of science is ludicrous and sophomoric.

 

That is why Science works and religion doesn't.

[NewPenMan]

*places right hand on a science*

 

I do.

Well ladies and gentleman's I do believe that we have ourselves a Jen you wine bona fide honest to goodness Data point.

 

If there are no objections I hereby move that we should enter the value of "1" in the column of persons having A twsbi pen that has not cracked.

 

Amen,

Let us pray....

Edited September 1, 2015 by NewPenMan

[J85909266]

You really need to learn just what the Scientific Method is.

 

First, the very idea that there could even be a god of science is ludicrous and sophomoric.

 

That is why Science works and religion doesn't.

We are just being factitious, sir. No worries.

[NewPenMan]

Now I just had surgery but as soon as I feel better and after we have a couple more scientifical Data points I will code up a real nice table and post it online so they can bear the full weight of scrutiny by the entire Internet community.

[NewPenMan]

You really need to learn just what the Scientific Method is.

 

First, the very idea that there could even be a god of science is ludicrous and sophomoric.

 

That is why Science works and religion doesn't.

 

Seriously want to open that can of worms? When I feel better I'll gladly debate you on the subject but I have to warn you you are batting out of your league. I myself have a traditional Science background.

 

Meanwhile enjoy the picture show

Edited September 2, 2015 by NewPenMan

[aeba]

 

There are several answers to that assertion.

 

First, simple economics would enter into TWSBI deciding to help provide such data. The material costs are often among the smaller expenses that determine a products overall cost. Changing the plastic used would likely not effect overall costs significantly.

 

The bigger answer though is peer review. Science is based on questioning results and so tests get repeated to see if the original finding is valid.

 

Don't misunderstand my position.

 

I am not a TWSBI fan boy. I've tried three samples (I'm old and forgetful so it might have been four or even five) and found them to be unacceptable, unbalanced, slippery, scratchy nibs; overpriced even if they were free. Plus I find them butt fuggly.

 

But that does not change the fact that anecdotal information is notoriously unreliable.

Hmm. In general, yep.

 

I have had Twsbi 700 couple of times in shopping basket, but never pulled the trigger. It has everything I would want from a pen: easy cleaning, user serviceability and changeable nibs. It also has interesting filling method. All those times I was looking for a pen which will take some abusing and still last for some decades. And nope, Twsbi's "diamond" design isn't for me either. I would prefer Conid's cleaner lines, they just are out of my price point for the moment.

 

As much as I dislike giving organizations excuse because they are young, I have to wonder how many (material) mistakes all these now old and great pen manufacturers did when they were as young as Twsbi is now.

[jar]

As much as I dislike giving organizations excuse because they are young, I have to wonder how many (material) mistakes all these now old and great pen manufacturers did when they were as young as Twsbi is now.

 

Not just young companies and not just when they are starting out.

 

Around Christmas of 1939 Waterman introduced a flagship pen using the new material Lucite called the 100 Year pen.

 

http://www.fototime.com/34A52EA1BD18493/large.jpg

Unfortunately many of the ends began cracking, crazing, getting milky and crumbling away. Today a 100Year pen that has not had the end replaced is somewhat rare.

 

Sheaffer made their plunger filler pens with a steel rod that was coated in plastic to protect it. Unfortunately the plastic often cracked allowing ink to eat away the rod.

 

Parker introduced a great new product (and Scripto about the same time), a liquid graphite pencil that could be erased but still be as permanent as any pencil. While the two pencils were initially popular sales dwindled and within five years or so the products were discontinued.

 

Montblanc introduced a new and for them very innovative model, the 250 series with a new wing nib and a slip on cap.

 

http://www.fototime.com/4D404D7D012C8F0/large.jpg

It was and still is an exceptional pen but it suffered from stress cracks in the cap lips. Today finding one without cracks is difficult.

 

Montblanc also had problems with something as simple as naming their pens. They tried to call their flagship 149 "The Diplomat" even though there was and still is an existing German Diplomat fountain pen company. They introduced a line of compact pens called "Rouge et Noir" and "Noir et Noir" even though the names "et Noir" were trademarked in Germany. In both cases they were sued, lost and had to stop using the names.

 

Omas had a whole series of pens where the celluloid was not cured sufficiently and so failed.

 

Casein was a popular material for pens but had one serious drawback. When exposed to water it would absorb the water and swell up, eventually dissolving.

 

The lesson is that if you are uncomfortable with a product and worry that the product will fail, then just don't buy that product.

[Ron Z]

One correction on the Hundred Year Pens. The early pens were Lucite, and when found are still intact. Anticipating the restriction on the use of Lucite before the start of WWII, they changed the material to celluloid in time for Christmas 1941, and it is the ends on the celluloid pens that crumble and fall apart. Details can be found in the article on Hundred Year Pens on Richard Binders website.

 

To add to Jars list of failures, add the Parker VP filler made out of a very brittle clear acrylic. They are not glass as some have suggested, but plastic. Glass does not dissolve when it comes in contact with organic solvents. The fillers were the Achilles heel of the pen, prone to breaking when pulled out the section and reinserted, and one reason why the pen was made for only one year.

 

I suspect that a couple of things could contribute to failure of the clear plastics. One is the absence of UV absorbing materials in the plastic, so some decay may be possible as a result of UV exposure. The second could be stresses from someone repeatedly taking the pen apart and putting it together again. Repeated stress from over tightening parts on reassembly would introduce unintended or unanticipated stress. There are some folks who are CDO* about cleaning their pens.

 

 

*CDO - OCD with the letters in alphabetical order.

[jar]

One correction on the Hundred Year Pens. The early pens were Lucite, and when found are still intact. Anticipating the restriction on the use of Lucite before thee start of WWI, they changed the material to celluloid in time for Christmas 1941, and it is the ends on the celluloid pens that crumble and fall apart. Details can be found in the article on Hundred Year Pens on Richard Binders website.

 

You're right. I should have remembered that. But wasn't it WWII?