Filling Systems: Best Or All Equal ?

[olivier78860]

ED all the way. Nothing beats this, in terms of usability. Cartridges come second, if you have to travel.

[olivier78860]

When there is a choice my preference generally would be for a cartridge pen, but a well made filling system is better than a poorly made system. The one that I really don't much like is an eye dropper. There are very good reasons that design was tossed on the thrash heap of history about a hundred years ago.

 

Yes, and I suppose the two main reasons are :

- You don't control what people put in their pens (all those proprietary cartridges formats are laughable), converters are quite recent

- It's not "rich" enough nor patentable. Nobody would buy a Montblanc eye-dropper at 600-1000€.

[nxn96]

I think you also need to consider how and where you use a pen.

 

Personally, I like the Aerometric filler Parker "51"s, but when I travel out of town for more than a few days, I will often take a cartridge/converter filler- either a Parker Sonnet or 45 Flighter, plus a couple of cartridges in case I need them. Usually I don't need to refill the pen, but for that every once in a while I'm glad to have the convenience of being able to simply pull out the empty converter and pop in a cartridge.

 

Again, just as a personal view. Hope this helps

[jar]

When there is a choice my preference generally would be for a cartridge pen, but a well made filling system is better than a poorly made system. The one that I really don't much like is an eye dropper. There are very good reasons that design was tossed on the thrash heap of history about a hundred years ago.

 

Yes, and I suppose the two main reasons are :

- You don't control what people put in their pens (all those proprietary cartridges formats are laughable), converters are quite recent

- It's not "rich" enough nor patentable. Nobody would buy a Montblanc eye-dropper at 600-1000€.

 

Well, no, neither of those would even appear on my list of reasons to avoid eye dropper pens.

 

The big reason is a matter of temperature control and ink flow. Of all the different methods of filling available today, eye droppers are simply the least reliable, the messiest to fill and the most likely to blob and belch ink at an inopportune time that I have ever found.

 

Lots of folk like them though and that is one of the great things about the fountain pen market today; there is probably more variety available today then at any time in the past.

[Scriver]

It's definitely a matter of personal preference and style of use. I find converters both the most practical and least charming of all the filling mechanims. So I have a few converter pens (okay, more than a few) for experimenting with different inks, but more pens with integral fillers, as I like those more. A plurality of my pens are lever fillers (I include the P51 aerometric in this category), and I find they tend to be trouble-free and easy to repair if there's a problem. I have a few piston fillers, vac-fils, and snorkels, but there the relationship is more fraught. I have come to be particularly wary of vacuum fillers, as they strike me as unnecessarily troublesome, though the snorkel the two compensating benefits of filling from small levels of ink and being distinctly different than all other pens. I have a few cheap EDs, but they hold too much ink, so I seldom use them.

[ethernautrix]

Without a doubt, c/c is best. I think there was a scientific study that proved it.

[mirosc]

Without a doubt, c/c is best. I think there was a scientific study that proved it.

 

Who had commissioned that study?

[ethernautrix]

Without a doubt, c/c is best. I think there was a scientific study that proved it.

 

Who had commissioned that study?

 

 

The International Siblinghood of Piston-, Lever-, Crescent-, Sac-based Fillers and EyeDroppers Boosters whose membership consists mainly of scientists and engineers and rational people. I hear they were absolutely gutted by the unequivocal results.

[Lloyd]

The International Siblinghood of Piston-, Lever-, Crescent-, Sac-based Fillers and EyeDroppers Boosters whose membership consists mainly of scientists and engineers and rational people. I hear they were absolutely gutted by the unequivocal results.

 

I'm particularly fond of the off-spring of the Eyedroppers and the C/Cs. I know, Cher had issues with half breeds, but I prefer dual filler pens like my Edisons.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxoWto09Oyg

Edited March 6, 2012 by Lloyd

[Goncharov]

Without a doubt, c/c is best. I think there was a scientific study that proved it.

 

Who had commissioned that study?

 

 

The International Siblinghood of Piston-, Lever-, Crescent-, Sac-based Fillers and EyeDroppers Boosters whose membership consists mainly of scientists and engineers and rational people. I hear they were absolutely gutted by the unequivocal results.

 

That's just what they want people to believe. The ISPLCSbFEDB is actually just a front group created by the C/C SuperPAC.

 

 

 

 

 

The obviously correct answer is that the Snorkel filler is the best.

[Shakespeare]

Hallo guys,,

 

MANY THANKS ( sorry for shouting :ltcapd: ) for your reply's.

 

I learned a lot !!! :clap1:

 

I like to change and experiment with inks so I guess I stay with converters for a while. Cartridges are also OK, but filling your pen from an ink bottle is more fun ! It's a fine little "ritual".

 

BTW, has anyone an idea how long the rubber of a piston filler and the rubber sac of an lever filler lasts ? 5-10-15-20 years ???? I have no idea....

[jar]

BTW, has anyone an idea how long the rubber of a piston filler and the rubber sac of an lever filler lasts ? 5-10-15-20 years ???? I have no idea....

 

Yes to all the above and of course many points outside those ranges.

 

In general a modern ink sac should last 20 years or more of normal regular use, but many things can shorten that lifespan; leaving it filled, not flushing properly, exposure to high or very low temperatures, exposure to sunlight can all reduce the life span significantly.

 

The seals on a modern piston will also depend on the initial quality, how it is stored, total fit ...

[Shakespeare]

Thanks Jar !

[SimonUK]

On the converter front, i've used both Screw and Piston converters, and i find it much much easier to use a Piston/Pump converter, with Screw ones, i seems to draw up far to much air and not enough Ink, although they do tend to hold a lot more ink...

[Gobblecup]

While I guess those C/C people have their reasons, not even the worst eyedropper has cause me as much frustration and malfunction as Cartridge Converter fillers. I find C/C fillers consistently cause flow problems. I have had many brands, and all of them have been purged from my collection. My Visconti may have been the worst; it would only write about a quarter page before I had to open it up and twist more ink into the feed, and even violent shaking didn't help much. It may as well have been a dip pen. And this is the problem I have encountered with several C/C fillers. The only one's I've kept are a Parker Sonnet, for sentimental value, I never use it; and one of my VPs, I find the design and function too good to toss out, the Converter's main drawback is that I have to fill it almost daily if I carry it about. And filling a cartridge with a syringe is just annoying IMO.

 

Everything else has it's place for me. I tend to prefer lever fillers, button fillers and piston fillers. I have yet to try a bulb filler. Aero is alright, but tends to be a pain to clean.

[asaha]

I am quite sure they are not equal. But the best really depends on individual pen and individual person.

 

So in general, no best no equal :roflmho:

[Federer]

Piston-fillers by far! Clean, easy to use, large ink capacity, less risk of getting ink all over you than with an eye-dropper. There's a reason Nathan makes most of his Noodler's pens piston-fillers.

[pajaro]

Touchdown.

[hari317]

I admire the simplicity and easy maintainability of the button fillers, I also love the ED system. Cartridge pens are very convienient on the move and have excellent ink capacity, contrary to popular perception.

[kernando]

Saying "converter" as a system is overly vague, because converters could be made in almost as many ways as self fillers. Whatever pros and cons you find for the different systems will be similar to the self fillers, but on smaller dimensions. Or you could say that it depends on what kind of converter.

 

I would say that some kinds of sac fillers like blow filler, coin, matchstick, hatchet, etc, aren't worthwhile because they don't have much advantage over other sac squeezing mechanisms, and are less convenient.