Pilot CON-20 vs CON-50: Which converter is better?

[Arts11]

So I've been doing some heavy browsing lately and I noticed these 2 converters for Pilot pens. The CON-20 seems to be your standard squeeze converter, while the CON-50 is a twisting kind. My question is, which one is better? Specifically, which one hold more ink? and which one allows for more streamlined ink "delivery" to the feed?

[donwinn]

I am uncertain if one is superior to the other in delivery of ink flow; however, I pretty sure that the Con-50 holds more ink, although I might be wrong. The real winner is the button-filler Con-70, which is huge compared to the 20 or 50.

 

Donnie

[Arts11]

I am uncertain if one is superior to the other in delivery of ink flow; however, I pretty sure that the Con-50 holds more ink, although I might be wrong. The real winner is the button-filler Con-70, which is huge compared to the 20 or 50.

 

Donnie

Thanks for the suggestion Don! Do you know if the CON-70 fits in like the Pilot Knight/Prera/78G series of pens, or are those too small?

[donwinn]

I am uncertain if one is superior to the other in delivery of ink flow; however, I pretty sure that the Con-50 holds more ink, although I might be wrong. The real winner is the button-filler Con-70, which is huge compared to the 20 or 50.

 

Donnie

Thanks for the suggestion Don! Do you know if the CON-70 fits in like the Pilot Knight/Prera/78G series of pens, or are those too small?

 

If I have time tomorrow, I will pull the 70 from my Custom 742, and try it in the Knight and the 78G, and report back.

 

Donnie

 

[Dillo]

Hi,

 

The Con-20 holds more ink than the Con-50 according to my measurements.

 

I'll have a look in my notebook, and if I can find the numbers, I'll let you know.

 

Dillon

[MYU]

CON-20. No question. The CON-50 is a piston converter, which sounds more impressive than a squeeze bladder, but the design makes it difficult to fill completely. You have to "push out" the air pocket after the first filling and then dip the pen again to complete it. And still, you probably don't end up matching the CON-20 capacity.

 

The best approach is to refill a cartridge, if you're up for it. Otherwise, the CON-20 is the converter of choice (for those pens that can't take the CON-70!).

[Arts11]

If I have time tomorrow, I will pull the 70 from my Custom 742, and try it in the Knight and the 78G, and report back.

 

Donnie

Thanks for the offer! It's much appreciated.

 

CON-20. No question. The CON-50 is a piston converter, which sounds more impressive than a squeeze bladder, but the design makes it difficult to fill completely. You have to "push out" the air pocket after the first filling and then dip the pen again to complete it. And still, you probably don't end up matching the CON-20 capacity.

 

The best approach is to refill a cartridge, if you're up for it. Otherwise, the CON-20 is the converter of choice (for those pens that can't take the CON-70!).

I see. I guess I'll have to decide between the CON-20 and CON-70 then. Thanks!

 

[troglokev]

Just be aware that the CON-70 has a larger diameter than the others, and does not fit all Pilot pens.

 

If it does fit, it is far and away the best option, though.

[nemesiz]

CON-20. No question. The CON-50 is a piston converter, which sounds more impressive than a squeeze bladder, but the design makes it difficult to fill completely. You have to "push out" the air pocket after the first filling and then dip the pen again to complete it. And still, you probably don't end up matching the CON-20 capacity.

 

The best approach is to refill a cartridge, if you're up for it. Otherwise, the CON-20 is the converter of choice (for those pens that can't take the CON-70!).

 

The main advantage of the Con-50 over the Con-20 is the ability to see the amount of ink inside the convertor. This allows the user to calculate ink usage, and refill the fountain pen's reservoir to the appropriate level. With the squeeze convertor it's extremely difficult to fill and then calculate the liquid contained inside, so at the worst of times you can run of ink. For simplicity reasons my preference would be the piston filler.

 

 

[1000km]

While the CON-20 might in theory have greater capacity, in practice the squeeze filler seems to hold less ink.

As nemesiz rightly points out, the other advantage of the CON-50 is being able to see how much ink you have available.

As far as I am aware the CON-70 is too large to fit the 78G and Prera.

[carlc]

You might want to check out this thread:

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...71&hl=con20

 

There was a long discussion on the con 50 there.

[Dillo]

Hi,

 

To use the Con-20 properly, press the bar and hold for five seconds, release and count to five. Press again and hold, then release and keep in ink until the sac reinflates completely.

 

For the Con-50, screw down the plunger, screw up, pause, then screw down again, screw up slowly, pause, remove from ink, and you are done.

 

Dillon

[donwinn]

Proven by scientific method.

 

Hypothesis: A Pilot Con-70 will fit in a Pilot 78G and/or a Pilot Knight

 

Experiment 1: Remove Con-70 from Custom 742

Remove squeeze converter from Pilot Knight, replace with Con-70 (the converter in the Knight is NOT a Con-20, but a squeeze converter resembling the simple converter from a Parker 51 Special)

Attempt to replace pen barrel onto Knight

 

Observation 1: Pen barrel will not fit over Con-70 due to increased diameter of Con-70 compared to original converter.

 

Experiment 2: Remove squeeze converter from Pilot 78G, replace with Con-70 (same model converter as Pilot Knight, see above)

Attempt to replace pen barrel onto Pilot 78G

 

Observation 2: Pen barrel will not fit over Con-70 due to increased diameter of Con-70 compared to original converter.

 

Narrative: As I do not have a Con-50, I can go no further, as far as ascertaining which converters will fit in the Pilot 78G/Knight.

 

Donnie

[oceansportrait]

As someone else mentioned, if your pen can fit either converter, that's great but be careful because not all Pilot pens can accomodate either. My Myu90 for instance, can only fit a Con-20 (and even that one's a tight fit!)

[MYU]

While the CON-20 might in theory have greater capacity, in practice the squeeze filler seems to hold less ink.

As nemesiz rightly points out, the other advantage of the CON-50 is being able to see how much ink you have available.

As far as I am aware the CON-70 is too large to fit the 78G and Prera.

It comes down to technique, as Dillon pointed out. But the best approach is to use a cartridge and manually refill it, if a CON-70 won't fit. And you're correct--the 78G, Prera, VP, and most vintage Pilots won't take the CON-70.

[mrwh1609]

Many thanks for this. After trying to squeeze the tiny exposed sides of the sac in my CON-20 ("why is that *%!@# metal in the way?"), I took to filling it with a syringe. Now I know better. And now I wonder what other daily mistakes I'm making....

 

Hi,

 

To use the Con-20 properly, press the bar and hold for five seconds, release and count to five. Press again and hold, then release and keep in ink until the sac reinflates completely.

 

For the Con-50, screw down the plunger, screw up, pause, then screw down again, screw up slowly, pause, remove from ink, and you are done.

 

Dillon

 

[rollerboy]

I don't know about ink capacity but in my albeit limited experience so far, I've had more success with the CON-20 than the CON-50. The CON-50 seems prone to having the ink get stuck at the top of the converter. It's the Heinz Ketchup bottle of converters.

[Silvermink]

I prefer the CON-20. I find the CON-50 a pain to fill.

[Arts11]

Proven by scientific method.

 

Hypothesis: A Pilot Con-70 will fit in a Pilot 78G and/or a Pilot Knight

 

Experiment 1: Remove Con-70 from Custom 742

Remove squeeze converter from Pilot Knight, replace with Con-70 (the converter in the Knight is NOT a Con-20, but a squeeze converter resembling the simple converter from a Parker 51 Special)

Attempt to replace pen barrel onto Knight

 

Observation 1: Pen barrel will not fit over Con-70 due to increased diameter of Con-70 compared to original converter.

 

Experiment 2: Remove squeeze converter from Pilot 78G, replace with Con-70 (same model converter as Pilot Knight, see above)

Attempt to replace pen barrel onto Pilot 78G

 

Observation 2: Pen barrel will not fit over Con-70 due to increased diameter of Con-70 compared to original converter.

 

Narrative: As I do not have a Con-50, I can go no further, as far as ascertaining which converters will fit in the Pilot 78G/Knight.

 

Donnie

Thanks for trying it out Don! Sorry I'm so slow on the response. I was away for the weekend and didn't have access to a PC.

 

And thanks to everybody else for their opinions. I've always been a bit annoyed with being unable to determine how much ink I had left in a squeeze converter at a glance so I was wondering how the other alternatives were. Just out of curiosity though, has anyone had some really good success with using the CON-50? Seems like CON-50s are really popular sales items so I figure a lot of people must like/use them quite well and it might be nice to see why some use them.

 

[Neill78]

Hi,

 

The Con-20 holds more ink than the Con-50 according to my measurements.

 

I'll have a look in my notebook, and if I can find the numbers, I'll let you know.

 

Dillon

 

I looked inquired about the volumes last week for a separate thread and officially they are exactly the same.

I prefer the CON-50 because it's easier to see the ink level.

 

Neill