Wasn't the Lever Fill Pretty Much the Best Idea?

[Estycollector]

Over the past couple of years I have read about and actually have some various fill systems. When I consider the Parker Aerometric and Vacumatic, Sheaffer Snorkel, and other mechanisms, I am sort of left with the notion that the lever type worked well  and was less complicated to repair. Perhaps is greatest weakness was not sucking in enough ink. 

 

As a restorer of old Esterbrook pens for personal consumption, the only thing the brand could have done is to have threaded the nib holder like Sheaffer did. This would have made re-sacing and changing out the j bar a lot easier. 

 

What am I am not considering? 

[SamChevre]

The mechanism I'd say in my limited experience is a close competitor is the piston-fillers that use a double screw mechanism.  I repaired my father's Koh-I-Noor pen from the 1960's; other than being completely glued together with India Ink, the fill mechanism still worked perfectly.

 

For mechanism pictures, see here and the posts immediately below:

 

[Bo Bo Olson]

Even if changing inks, it is faster than piston.

When not changing inks is at least as fast or faster than a piston pen....not taking much longer than taking a cartridge pen apart and putting it back together again.

Conklin came in with the dime pressed sac, then Shaffer perfected it in 1912.

 

Status has had and still has a lot to do with the pen one buys. With the Vac, the Shaffer New Balance became old fashioned.

The P-51 wasn't better nor faster, but was "New!!!" and of course expensive.

The Snorkel newer than the old out of style P-51, and expensive....and 'one wanted' to be in with Flynn, up to date, showing one could afford the newest mechanical marvel.

 

When the cartridge came in; in still the adding machine world, when color TV was first coming in....cartridges were and still are expensive enough to be high status......

The Esterbrook due to still being a pretty pen, lasted until 1960, as pretty, and a few years later as pressed palstic and cheap metal top.

You can guess who had the new on the market ugly Esterbrook.

It didn't matter, I was too poor to get my name engraved on any pen, so they were 'collected' for free every year.....ugly or not.

Hell they even stole Wearevers and Venus lever pens.

Bic's were next in line to be stolen.

[Seville]

Lever was totally the best idea until this morning when I cut my nails and this afternoon tried to work the lever on a Waterman 100 year pen.

 

Philip

[sgphototn]

I have four piston pens, one lever, and the rest eyedroppers and converters.

 

I'll take eyedroppers and converters every time for ease of use, cleaning, low maintenance.

 

My one lever filler, an Eversharp Skyline circa 1945-46, writes great and is a sentimental pen but requires refilling too often for me.

 

I like the piston-fillers I have (Pelikans and one Senator) but don't anticipate buying another piston-filler.

[Bo Bo Olson]

21 minutes ago, Seville said:

Lever was totally the best idea until this morning when I cut my nails and this afternoon tried to work the lever on a Waterman 100 year pen.

 

Philip

LOL....neatly trimmed not .... well you have learned your lesson.

[Bo Bo Olson]

3 minutes ago, sgphototn said:

 

 

I'll take eyedroppers and converters every time for ease of use, cleaning, low maintenance.

I don't like burping pens, or converters that vapor lock...

 

.and I don't see ease, nor much low maintenance.

It does take me 10 seconds longer to fit the cut rubber bulb that fits my Pelikan screw in nibs so I can clean it like a CC pen. Counting screw out of nib. 

My thinner snouted rubber bulb cleans out my piston faster than you or as fast as you can clean your converter. 

And I don't have to take my pen apart all the time to put in a new cartridge.

MB is the fastest pure piston knob cleaning pen....faster than Pelikan, but not as fast as two rubber bulb cleaning.

Is faster than my Osmia, and so many other piston pens. Geha is a bit slow because of the reserve tank take a lot longer to clean.....how ever if I don't change inks every time I turn around; a piston pen is with in seconds as fast as a lever pen.........lots faster than taking a pen apart.

 

Some how or another I've ended up with 6-10 CC pens (85 or so), that I use mostly for cartridges of the fancy Edelstein cartridges I missed buying a LE bottle or Kaweco colors. Two pens do have converters.

 

My bought in '70/71 P-75 I found out, long after converters came in; that it actually took a cartridge also.....well, knowing how it worked, tossed the box and the hidden two cartridges @ 1970 and squeezed ever since. A 3 way pen!!!

A perfectly balanced pen when posted.

 

I'm really interested in perfect or near perfect balance......to go with great to finely made nibs with some give to them.

I have one eyedropper....the pretty pens from India are very nice, but  burp. As many complain about.

As of yet my eye dropper hasn't burped, but I don't use it enough. My  'late '30's made in Milan Fend Safety Pen has great balance even posted; as was demanded of all pens back in the day of One Man, One Pen; next pen bought in 10 years.

Picture with permission of Penboard.de...mine has slightly different chasing. 18 K rolled gold. The 18 KR.

Yep, is a pain taking the syringe to fill it.

 

 

 

[Aether]

Not great filling system too many parts not needed.   Unscrew or pull out section and pump sack with your fingers.  Takes seconds longer and barrel not need be compromised with cuts for levers or buttons.

[Ron Z]

What am I am not considering?

 

Lever fillers are simple, and revolutionized the pen world.  A lot of the other systems were mostly a way to get around the patents (coin filler, hatchet filler, crescent filler etc.) 

 

But a lever filler in a pen with a threaded section can be difficult.  The sac can adhere to the pressure bar, or wrap around it, bind, tear... or generally be a pain.  It's why you are supposed to pull the button and if possible, the pressure bar on a Parker button filler.

 

[corniche]

3 hours ago, Seville said:

Lever was totally the best idea until this morning when I cut my nails and this afternoon tried to work the lever on a Waterman 100 year pen.

 

Philip

 

Hello Seville,

 

I feel your pain.

 

That's one of my problems with them; the lever tab has a way of making like a bamboo shiv (shoot) under your fingernails.

 

Plus, they have the habit of getting away from you and fly backwards, snapping wide open.

 

And finally, I think they ruin the aesthetic of the pen.

 

The one thing in their favor is their beautiful simplicity. 

 

- Sean 

[corniche]

2 hours ago, sgphototn said:

I have four piston pens, one lever, and the rest eyedroppers and converters.

 

I'll take eyedroppers and converters every time for ease of use, cleaning, low maintenance.

 

My one lever filler, an Eversharp Skyline circa 1945-46, writes great and is a sentimental pen but requires refilling too often for me.

 

I like the piston-fillers I have (Pelikans and one Senator) but don't anticipate buying another piston-filler.

 

Hi sgphototn, et al,

 

C/C and piston fill, (IF the nib is removable), are my all-time favorites.  For vintage systems, I like Parker's Aerometric. (As long as it's already been restored).

 

- Sean 

[inkstainedruth]

Every fill system has its advantages and disadvantages.  That's partly why I like a variety of pens.

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[Driften]

2 hours ago, corniche said:

 

That's one of my problems with them; the lever tab has a way of making like a bamboo shiv (shoot) under your fingernails.

 

 

I totally agree.... I would rather use a Parker button filler and let the button press the bar against the sac.

[lovemy51]

whilst the lever fillers i find easier to work with, as far as repair goes, i like aerometrics... only need one hand to fill. i see why some prefer the button filler as well. my Pilot con-20's are very good

[corniche]

19 hours ago, Estycollector said:

Over the past couple of years I have read about and actually have some various fill systems. When I consider the Parker Aerometric and Vacumatic, Sheaffer Snorkel, and other mechanisms, I am sort of left with the notion that the lever type worked well  and was less complicated to repair. Perhaps is greatest weakness was not sucking in enough ink. 

 

As a restorer of old Esterbrook pens for personal consumption, the only thing the brand could have done is to have threaded the nib holder like Sheaffer did. This would have made re-sacing and changing out the j bar a lot easier. 

 

What am I am not considering? 

 

Hi Chuck, 

 

It's an interesting paradox, that while the lever filler is probably my LEAST favorite filling system; the Esterbrook Model J is one of my favorite pens.

 

- Sean 

[fabri00]

I think the button filler is better than lever filler.

Lever filler has 2 weak points: the lever that can be broken or disengaged from the body of the pen, and the J bar that could be rusted and might need to be replaced.

The button filler is less elegant but more solid as filling system, and much easier to be repaired.

[hari317]

IMO my most favorite self filling system is the Parker Button filler. It's simpler, has lesser parts and is more elegant than the lever fillers. My second favorite system for its elegance is the Touchdown by Sheaffer where the user need not block or release any holes. The system is let down by the relatively fragile barrels (now approaching half century old) which can crack and compromise the pneumatic sealing.

 

[txomsy]

As for ease of repair, a converter is likely -now- the easier. In the worst case, throw it away and plug in a new one. Replacing a sac is a pain whenever they wear out.

 

If you are to love sacs and a bar, then the Parker sac converters are practically the same and much easier to handle. And may be substituted by / substitute a standard converter. You have to disassemble the pen body, but considering how often a pen is filled from the total use time, it's a small part. And no need to manipulate a fragile lever which, if you cut your nails short (as many people do) may become a pain, and is easy to break (from what I've seen at pen shows), in which case, good luck finding a new one.

 

A coin filler... well more or less the same arguments. A button filler... parts that pass and rust like the lever filler and you still need to unscrew the back cap. And not as easy to repair. The most satisfying pen I have is a button filler, mainly because of the nib. But it rattles and I fear the mechanism may be affected, and can't get it apart without fear of breaking it. Not that I'd have the parts I might need either.

 

Repair... getting sacs now is a pain. Unscrewing the body of a pen that hasn't been disassembled in decades, whose sac has melted or the bar rusted, and that has been stuck-glued-shellacked to the section for decades is a pain. A converter body has to be unscrewed every load, so it keeps easy. I could go on and on. Each system has its pros and cons, as Inkstainedruth said.

 

But it's the heyday of converters. In due time they may be as difficult to come by as a sac.

 

So, that's why I like piston fillers. Want a lot of ink? Piston filler. Parts to be replaced? None in a modern piston filler. Ease of maintenance? Which maintenance? I've reloaded ink-encrusted old piston fillers and they've worked straight away. Yet... yes, for cork pistons that requires a change, but it is difficult to think cork will vanish sooner than plastic sacs or converters. As long as you can get your hands on a bottle of wine you'll have a replacement (cork or plastic) material to build your part. Disassembly? That depends on the model, but my vintage reform, modern indian piston fillers and many others were designed for easy full disassembly from the beginning. Replaceable nibs? My 60's West-Germany piston fillers all had screw-in nib units, so that's nothing new. Yeah, filling means rotating the piston... and filling a lever filler pulling the lever, waiting, and repeating two or three times to get larger ink loads. Which is more convenient? For the time it takes compared with the total use time, I -personally- don't care.

 

Then there are those piston fillers with a rear cap to cover the rotator. Not much difference between filling those and a converter pen. So, which is better? Ditto.

 

The most serious issues I've had are from shrunk plastic bodies making piston movement difficult, something that may/will eventually affect any similar plastic pen, or from the plastic breaking, which is the same. That is why I prefer now metal pens with a converter for EDC.

 

My preferred pen for writing is an eyedropper Peter Pan, for ease of filling and the nib. I only need to remember to hold it for a while nib up in my hand before writing to avoid burps.

 

So, which is better? piston? converter? lever? coin? button? eyedropper? safety? plastic/resin? metal? wood? urushi? etc?

 

Personally I am happy that there was a choice, I accept that nowadays it has practically shrunk to eyedropper, c/c, vacuum or piston, do not care the least for filling as it is a tiny part of the experience, and will choose the pen to use at each moment following my fancy. Carpe diem.

[Estycollector]

2 hours ago, corniche said:

 

Hi Chuck, 

 

It's an interesting paradox, that while the lever filler is probably my LEAST favorite filling system; the Esterbrook Model J is one of my favorite pens.

 

- Sean 

Hey there Sean,

 

I agree, those J's are a favorite. 

 

Regards,

chuck

 

 

[hari317]

Regarding cartridge pens,  while a converter can be replaced when worn out (but some converters are hard to find like the Pilot Con W or the Sheaffer Slim or the Sailor Squeeze), the cartridge piercing nipple (which also holds the converter)wears out too(bad materials, long term stability was unknown at the time of manufacture), and with some pens the pen is a total writeoff when that happens. Common with Montblanc Slimlines.