Do you HATE See-Through Pens Too?

[Estycollector]

My definition is you can view the interior. 

[es9]

1 hour ago, inkstainedruth said:

So with all this discussion of what is and is not technically a demonstrator, I have a question.  If you take the definition narrowly (say, as what A Smug Dill said), are demonstrators actually working pens?  Or are they just effectively advertising pieces: "See how much better OUR fill system is to that other brand's fill system?" to the retailers and/or customers?

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

Can’t they be both?  ...not to be contrarian, but a working pen seems like a great advertisement. 
 

Additional thought: this seems like an instance in which the word’s meaning has changed over time. No one likely would have called a postal reservoir pen or a crystal parker vacumatic a “demonstrator” by any stretch of the imagination. But today, either might meet someone’s definition. 

[Bo Bo Olson]

I had thought a demonstrator was a display pen, unless you wanted to order one at the Old Corner Pen Shoppe...for vintage pens. Which was why they were/are rare.

 

For clear Twsbi's and such, it is just a working pen. More to display the ink and it's color, than examining the simpler guts.

[maclink]

6 minutes ago, Bo Bo Olson said:

I had thought a demonstrator was a display pen, unless you wanted to order one at the Old Corner Pen Shoppe...for vintage pens. Which was why they were/are rare.

 

For clear Twsbi's and such, it is just a working pen. More to display the ink and it's color, than examining the simpler guts.

Yeah.... there's the distinction to be made between a pen designed from the ground up to be transparent/translucent wholly or in part (Conid or TWSBI or Opus88 Demonstrator) and those that happen to be a demonstrator version of a pen originally designed to be made with opaque materials.

 

As someone mentioned, it isn't easy working with a Conid model without a clear barrel to watch as you ink it up, to monitor the mini reservoir.  I definitely wouldn't want to do that.  While with other demonstrators, I would get it for the appearance.

[A Smug Dill]

1 hour ago, es9 said:

Can’t they be both?  ...not to be contrarian, but a working pen seems like a great advertisement. 

 

Just as ‘prototype’ does not necessarily imply a non-working model for illustration of a limited scope only, there is no reason why ‘demonstrator’ would imply the pen doesn't actually write, especially if the purpose is to demonstrate how the model works right down to delivery of the functional outcome, i.e. laying ink on the page.

 

44 minutes ago, maclink said:

there's the distinction to be made between a pen designed from the ground up to be transparent/translucent wholly or in part (Conid or TWSBI or Opus88 Demonstrator) and those that happen to be a demonstrator version of a pen originally designed to be made with opaque materials.

 

That would only make sense if transparency or translucency of the pen body is actually required for the writing instrument to properly, fully and/or optimally function in the former case. The crux of your statement seems to me to be more about the aesthetic design intent of the pen; in which case, transparency or translucency of a demonstrator model that has more established opaque siblings of the same function design, but tweaked to look interesting or geeky-blingy and fetch a higher price in the market, would also be core to its aesthetic design intent.

[mizgeorge]

This thread has been interesting in that it's made me think about things I do and don't like in pens - including why I'm not keen on c/c pens and I realise that a lot of it comes down to infinitely preferring to have at least an ink window and an integrated filling system. i definitely gravitate to the pens where I can see how much ink I have on hand. I was using an old Onoto K3 today - a piston filler (so good there) with a decent nib (another tick) but no ink window, and I really didn't like it. I couldn't judge the fill, couldn't judge how well the feed was performing (this is a pen I've had to do a bit of work on) and it just didn't feel as straightforward as its windowed equivalents. 

 

So whilst it doesn't have to be a full clear demonstrator (though as I said earlier I do like them), I like at least enough transparency to see what's going on. For me to really like a pen that doesn't have that it's got to have something else going on that appeals to me a lot. There are plenty that do, and I forgive them their lack of ink visibility because each has something else that speaks to me, but there's definitely a theme there. 

 

It's quite nice to feel I've nailed that down - and definitely goes some way to explaining my special love for vintage European (and especially German) pens. 

[txomsy]

BTW, as for the discussion on demonstrators....

 

From what I witness, the head of the thread talks for See-Through pens. So, to my deeply handicapped mind, it seems to include all, and the discussion, besides interesting -which I do not deny and actually enjoy- is moot to the topic.

[A Smug Dill]

1 hour ago, txomsy said:

From what I witness, the head of the thread talks for See-Through pens.

 

Demonstrators are see-through pens, and there is no indication from the O.P. that he/she was only referring to the limited subset of see-through pens that are not also demonstrators exposing the inner workings of the pens to observers.

[maclink]

8 hours ago, mizgeorge said:

This thread has been interesting in that it's made me think about things I do and don't like in pens - including why I'm not keen on c/c pens and I realise that a lot of it comes down to infinitely preferring to have at least an ink window and an integrated filling system. i definitely gravitate to the pens where I can see how much ink I have on hand. I was using an old Onoto K3 today - a piston filler (so good there) with a decent nib (another tick) but no ink window, and I really didn't like it. I couldn't judge the fill, couldn't judge how well the feed was performing (this is a pen I've had to do a bit of work on) and it just didn't feel as straightforward as its windowed equivalents. 

 

So whilst it doesn't have to be a full clear demonstrator (though as I said earlier I do like them), I like at least enough transparency to see what's going on. For me to really like a pen that doesn't have that it's got to have something else going on that appeals to me a lot. There are plenty that do, and I forgive them their lack of ink visibility because each has something else that speaks to me, but there's definitely a theme there. 

You are not alone.  I much prefer ink level visibility and with c/c pens, I frequently check the converter... a demonstrator model making that a lot easier, even though it can have a tacky appearance.

[Estycollector]

This wrangling reminds me of  Justice Potter Stewart being asked to discribe the threshold for obcenity to which he said " I know it when I see it". 

 

 

[Paganini]

Since the talk is all about semantics now, I think it's fair to say that the Moonman C1 (which I mentioned earlier) is a "see-through" pen. I think it's also fair to say that, by any kind of rigorous definition, the C1 is not a "demonstrator" - the one part of the pen (i.e., the section) where you might could say that anything is "demonstrated" is opaque! 

[maclink]

1 minute ago, Paganini said:

Since the talk is all about semantics now, I think it's fair to say that the Moonman C1 (which I mentioned earlier) is a "see-through" pen. I think it's also fair to say that, by any kind of rigorous definition, the C1 is not a "demonstrator" - the one part of the pen (i.e., the section) where you might could say that anything is "demonstrated" is opaque! 

I agree with your semantics. 

[Biber]

Yes, I hate see-through pens, also known to many as demstrators. I also hate inks that sheen and large girth pens (that typically employ a #6 nib). I also don't think very highly of those who insist on absolute permanence in an ink.    

[Bo Bo Olson]

When one writes walking to work in Seattle, or is clumsy at the desk...........

58 minutes ago, Biber said:

I also don't think very highly of those who insist on absolute permanence in an ink.    

 

[Biber]

Actually, I was thinking something along the lines of "as if anything YOU could ever write deserves preservation for posterity."  (You in a generic sense of course.) But I didn't want to come right out and say that.   

[ethernautrix]

43 minutes ago, Biber said:

Actually, I was thinking something along the lines of "as if anything YOU could ever write deserves preservation for posterity."  (You in a generic sense of course.) But I didn't want to come right out and say that.   

 

It isn't necessarily always about "for posterity." It might be for much shorter periods of time: a day, a few years, maybe twenty years, or "just until I don't want or need this anymore." 

 

 

And why think about those who prefer such inks when that has absolutely no bearing on your existence? Unless it weirdly does....

[maclink]

1 hour ago, Biber said:

Actually, I was thinking something along the lines of "as if anything YOU could ever write deserves preservation for posterity."  (You in a generic sense of course.) But I didn't want to come right out and say that.   

If it's a medical or legal documentation that could be referenced decades later, then yes, it may well be that important.  

[OutlawJosey]

On 2/25/2021 at 4:43 AM, Estycollector said:

This wrangling reminds me of  Justice Potter Stewart being asked to discribe the threshold for obcenity to which he said " I know it when I see it". 

 

 

I was just thinking that I like my transparent eyedropper pens because they give the ink a chance to show a little leg. 

[Estycollector]

41 minutes ago, OutlawJosey said:

I was just thinking that I like my transparent eyedropper pens because they give the ink a chance to show a little leg. 

I "little leg" in a healthy context within the confines of ones control is quite good to see. 

[Biber]

19 hours ago, ethernautrix said:

And why think about those who prefer such inks when that has absolutely no bearing on your existence? Unless it weirdly does....

 

That's pretty cheap Lisa. I would have thought better of you. Seriously you've never been annoyed by someone else's "requirements"? Come to think of it, why does my annoyance have a bearing on your existence?

 

I dare say anyone who actually needs such characteristics in an ink either doesn't use a fountain pen in those instances or uses the appropriate ink without talking or otherwise making a big deal about it.  

 

"Unless it weirdly does...."  - Nice save. 

 

Sorry for the digression. I should have known better that there are those on whom facetiousness would be lost.