What Do You Think Of The 61? Is The 51 Better?

[AL01]

I know, I almost died inside when my 21 cracked...

 

I just wish maybe that Kullock could start reproducing 61 barrels from Lucite or acrylic...

 

Now that would be awesome!!

[mitto]

I know, I almost died inside when my 21 cracked...

 

I just wish maybe that Kullock could start reproducing 61 barrels from Lucite or acrylic...

 

Now that would be awesome!!

 

Both the 21S and the 61C/C also came in flighter versions. One just needs the hoods to be remade of lucite.

[pajaro]

Or just get a 51. Skip the wannabes.

[Mangrove Jack]

I was in the same situation as you are. PARKER 51 OR 61 ?

 

I heeded the advice from members on this forum and got myself a lovely Burgundy body w/ lustraloy cap aerometric Parker 51 in mint condition and have never looked back again.

 

It feels nice and solid and is a very smooth writer with no leaking or start up issues, no blurping or any negatives whatsoever.

 

Do not discount the Parker 45 however. It is a very reliable pen and a very good writer with a huge array of different nibs that are interchangeable in a jiffy. As good as anything out there and at a very low price. I may be wrong, but I think it was Parkers longest running manufactured fountain pen of all time. Their best seller along with the P51.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Mangrove Jack

[richardandtracy]

If you have a choice of P51 or P61, get both. (Well, Aero P51 and C/C P61)

 

The P61 is my favourite pen. The reasons are

1. The nibs, to my mind, are an advance on the P51. Parker learnt a lot about nibs with the P51 and put all that in the P61. I'd say there is an overlap in quality, but the average P61 nib is better than the average P51 nib for a given level of use.
2. The shape is more refined and elegant.
3. The cap clutch fingers do not graunch like the P51, and it feels oh-so refined when putting the cap on.

However, even I accept there are flaws in the P61 compared to the P51.

1. The plastic has a shorter life. I have worn a P61 out. It took 25 years as my only pen, writing around 10-20 pages a day. With 3 pens, that's a lifetime, so this argument is creditable, but can be got around. The burgundy seems the most vulnerable colour to microcracking & general material poor choice by Parker.
2. The little arrows over the nib fall out very easily.
3. The P61 does not feel as solid as the P51, and I wouldn't want to take mine to places I've taken a P51.

There is zero chance of there being Kullock Fantasy P61 hoods. The reason is the shape MUST be moulded, as it's not a volume of revolution, unlike a P51 hood shape, meaning it cannot be machined from solid rod. Acrylic cannot be injection moulded, only extruded or cast. Extrusion needs further machining - and any pen maker will tell you that you cannot machine extruded rod without the result cracking. If cast, it would need so many moulds as to be impractical; So there is no way to get an acrylic P61 hood. The only way Parker made it practical was to use injection moulding, having cycle times of around 5 minutes per shot, instead of 24 hours and an autoclave that are necessary with acrylic casting.

There is a possibility that cnc machining may make it machinable, but Kullock turns his P51 hoods, and has probably realised US/UK P61 hoods can't be turned. I have seen no evidence of Kullock getting a cnc anything. Argentinian P61 hoods CAN be made from turned acrylic, and they were, too. The reason is that the Argentinian P61 shape has more in common with the Mk3 P51 than the normal P61.

 

If you cannot get both pens, go for a P61. They are usually cheaper than a P51. Once you have your P61, save up for a P51.

 

Regards,

 

Richard

[Ron Z]

Warning. Opinionated view expressed!

 

From the pen mechanics point of view - I loathe the 61. I really dislike working on them. The plastic is awful, the filling system unreliable and difficult to clean, they crack, the arrows fall off, and I usually find that the nibs need a lot of work to write well. I think that they were one of the worst pens Parker ever made. Even the Vector is better. I'll take a 51 thank you!

 

Richard is right about acrylics. Not only does Ariel not use a CNC machine, but he told me that the lathes he uses are rather old. That makes dimensional consistency rather difficult to attain. Never the less, he manages to produce some wonderful and amazing pieces.

[mitto]

I collect the 61 cappiliary filler and 21 Super only if these are NOS or in immaculate condition. And I don't find myself inclined to use any of these. The 61 C/C are altogether a different matter, though.

On the other hand, I don't let a 51 go in any condition or even if it is a part pen. It gives me immense pleasure to be always working on a 51 either restoring it or completing it using parts from part pens.

 

And two or three 51s are always inked either clipped to my shirt pocket or lying on my desk. So for me it is the 51 and not the 61.

[AL01]

Makes sense...

[kapanak]

I do have an issue with the proposition that acrylic can't be injection molded, because I had been involved in a production line that indeed did have sections that did inject acrylic and PMMA (Lucite) as part of the line.

[AL01]

From what I know, the aero P51s were made out of the same material as the vacs, the only difference being that they were injection mol

 

If you have a choice of P51 or P61, get both. (Well, Aero P51 and C/C P61)

 

The P61 is my favourite pen. The reasons are

1. The nibs, to my mind, are an advance on the P51. Parker learnt a lot about nibs with the P51 and put all that in the P61. I'd say there is an overlap in quality, but the average P61 nib is better than the average P51 nib for a given level of use.
2. The shape is more refined and elegant.
3. The cap clutch fingers do not graunch like the P51, and it feels oh-so refined when putting the cap on.

However, even I accept there are flaws in the P61 compared to the P51.

1. The plastic has a shorter life. I have worn a P61 out. It took 25 years as my only pen, writing around 10-20 pages a day. With 3 pens, that's a lifetime, so this argument is creditable, but can be got around. The burgundy seems the most vulnerable colour to microcracking & general material poor choice by Parker.
2. The little arrows over the nib fall out very easily.
3. The P61 does not feel as solid as the P51, and I wouldn't want to take mine to places I've taken a P51.

There is zero chance of there being Kullock Fantasy P61 hoods. The reason is the shape MUST be moulded, as it's not a volume of revolution, unlike a P51 hood shape, meaning it cannot be machined from solid rod. Acrylic cannot be injection moulded, only extruded or cast. Extrusion needs further machining - and any pen maker will tell you that you cannot machine extruded rod without the result cracking. If cast, it would need so many moulds as to be impractical; So there is no way to get an acrylic P61 hood. The only way Parker made it practical was to use injection moulding, having cycle times of around 5 minutes per shot, instead of 24 hours and an autoclave that are necessary with acrylic casting.

There is a possibility that cnc machining may make it machinable, but Kullock turns his P51 hoods, and has probably realised US/UK P61 hoods can't be turned. I have seen no evidence of Kullock getting a cnc anything. Argentinian P61 hoods CAN be made from turned acrylic, and they were, too. The reason is that the Argentinian P61 shape has more in common with the Mk3 P51 than the normal P61.

 

If you cannot get both pens, go for a P61. They are usually cheaper than a P51. Once you have your P61, save up for a P51.

 

Regards,

 

Richard

 

Then someone else, (or a bunch of people working together), should do something about it!

 

Kinda off-topic, but the original Japanese Nintendo, (the Famicom) is 33 years old, and recently a guy in Hong Kong started to make replacement electronics for it, and the same thing has slowly been in development for the many Atari consoles that are going to turn 40 years old...

[richardandtracy]

I do have an issue with the proposition that acrylic can't be injection molded, because I had been involved in a production line that indeed did have sections that did inject acrylic and PMMA (Lucite) as part of the line.

That is happy news to me.

I talked to the suppliers of Lucite in the UK for about 20 minutes over the phone trying to 1) find a supplier of a retail pack of resin for moulding with and 2) see if it was injection mouldable at all. I have a small hand operated 50g/shot injection moulder at home (as one does...) and wanted to see if it was possible to do just this. The feeling I was left with was that the UK supplier has only heard of casting or extrusion and had a minimum order of 10 tonnes (5g per hood, that gets to 2 million hoods worth, and is probably 1,950,000 more than the most optimistic estimate of the worldwide market for replacement hoods). Furthermore they were not allowed to sell the moulding components on a retail basis as the MMA component of PMMA is toxic, and in smallish quantities gives symptoms similar to that of illegal drugs. It is now illegal to sell all such psychoactive chemicals into the retail market in the UK. Stymied from every direction.

 

Regards,

 

Richard.

[Florida Blue]

From what I know, the aero P51s were made out of the same material as the vacs, the only difference being that they were injection mol

 

I believe the MKI Aero 51s were still produced using a lathe, and that only the later MKII & III Aeros (1969-EOL) were injection modeled. Both the Vac 51 and the original Aero 51s were made from the same Lucite, but the later Aeros were made from a polystyrene plastic. I think the 21 was Parker's first attempt at injection molding.

 

For some reason Parker's earlier attempts with injection modeled plastic didn't turn out well. The 21, 41 and 61 are all known for cracking. However, by the time the 45 came out in 1960 they seemed to have perfected their process. The plastic used for making 45s has turned out to be very durable.

[mitto]

Are you sure the MkII aero 51s were made of injection moulded polysryne?

 

I believe only the MkIII aero 51s were made of polystyrene and not the MkII. That is what I have personally observed on my MkII pens but, for the sake of substantiation, I would quote Richard of richardspens.com.

 

"The MarkIII, unlike its predecessors, is made of an injection-moldable plastic, not lucite. The new plastic is softer and will take scratches more readily ; and it also can shrink overtime".

 

 

http://www.richardspens.com/index_m.html?page=ref/profiles/51.htm

Edited June 15, 2016 by mitto

[Ron Z]

 

 

From what I know, the aero P51s were made out of the same material as the vacs, the only difference being that they were injection molded.

 

The vac fill 51 and aerometric 51s were both made out of Lucite. The late 51 (MK III?) was made out of the injection molded plastic, and was not Lucite. The plastic is awful, prone to shrinking and cracking. I've seen hoods that have shrunk so badly that they have to be cut off, and you find the impression of the feed on the inside wall of the hood. I won't buy them, and hate to repair them.

[Flounder]

The plastic connector on my Parker 65 was a source of amazement. it could have been robbed from Tutankhamun's tomb, it was so crumbly and dessicated; yet the section/pseudo hood was fine. How did you manage that, Parker!

 

If you have a choice of P51 or P61, get both. (Well, Aero P51 and C/C P61)

 

The P61 is my favourite pen. The reasons are [snip]

1. The cap clutch fingers do not graunch like the P51, and it feels oh-so refined when putting the cap on.

 

Richard

 

The 51 cap clutch is a capricious beast! The smoothest I've used is amazingly smooth. The graunchiest was horrid.

[AL01]

True, very true!

[pajaro]

Of the 51 mk iii and of the 61, have any of you known any that are still any good? When should I expect my pens to self destruct?

[mitto]

My MkIII 51s and my English 61 C/Cs are having no signs, whatsoever, suggesting they would self destruct any time soon. The hood on one of my capilliary fill 61, however, has started disintegrating.

[Ron Z]

The hood on the MK III doesn't self destruct, it just shrivels and shrinks. I have no idea why. Some say heat, some say exposure to moisture (!)... It doesn't polish especially well either.

 

You can buy replacement bushings for the VP, 65, and I suspect 61 c/c pens made out of brass. They work very well. They show up on eBay too...

[Florida Blue]

Are you sure the MkII aero 51s were made of injection moulded polysryne?

 

My mistake, it does appear that only the MkIII 51s were made like that. Although after reading Richard Binder's article on the 51 that you linked I found it interesting that he noted Parker began injection molding the collector and feed to save costs.

 

Binder writes that Parker began to "replace the costly machined collector and feed with molded plastic parts" with the MkII 51 Aeros.