Snorkel Spring Steel

[es9]

Anyone happen to know why Sheaffer used carbon steel for snorkel springs? Or at least why they didn’t switch over to stainless at some point. They have to have considered the risk of rusting, and they did use stainless for the PFM springs.
 

Was stainless just that much more expensive? I understand that replacement parts would have been plentiful. I imagine, however, that Sheaffer would want to avoid hurting its brand. And while it takes a while for latex sacs to fail, Sheaffer surely considered that they would — or that a leak would form, etc. 

[Ron Z]

PVC sacs didn't exist when Sheaffer was making the pens between 1952 and 1959, only latex.  The PFM was introduced about the time that they quit making the snorkels. 

 

I doubt that Sheaffer never imagined that the pens would still be in use 65 years later.  They had a lifetime warranty (lifetime of the original owner) and a big service department to fix them along with a network of dealers with repair shops.  Given the number of pens still found in the wild, I don't think that they were especially concerned about the possible rusted spring hurting their brand.

[bunnspecial]

6 hours ago, Ron Z said:

PVC sacs didn't exist when Sheaffer was making the pens between 1952 and 1959, only latex.  The PFM was introduced about the time that they quit making the snorkels. 

 

Not to dispute you, Ron, but at that point weren't PVC sacs at least in some use? I'm thinking specifically of the Pli-Glass sac first on the Parker 51 and later on several others, and we know that although they are not invincible, the chances of an Aeromatic Parker being ready to ink-clean-go are pretty high(even though I know they often benefit from being gone through still). I suppose, though that Parker could have had a patent on them.

 

Also, out of curiosity, I know you are have identified problems with PVC sacs in celluloid pens thanks to the permeability of celluloid. I also bought a hard rubber Duofold from you that had PVC since you said it wasn't a worry in hard rubber. I know you also tend to use PVC in Snorkels and PFMs. Is PVC(or at least current PVC) not problematic in acrylic also?

[Ron Z]

Good point.  I forgot about the 51.  Sheaffer didn't get around to using them until the red end squeeze converters.

 

The permeability issue is with silicone sacs - air permeability causing flooding in some cases.  The problem that David Nishimura and others brought up with PVC sacs is with the plasticizer leaching out of the PVC sac, and  alleged possibility of it softening the celluloid with which it comes in contact.  That is what is believed to be the reason for why we find soft sac nipples on some of the 51 aerometrics.  I don't know how a PVC sac will effect acrylics.  Some plastics are cross linked in such a way that few solvents have an effect on them.  Others react quite readily to solutions containing methylene chloride, or other industrial solvents.   I'd be inclined to take a risk and install one in a pen, coating it well with talc first.  I have used them in celluloid pens, many years ago.  I still have the pen(s) and haven't seen any problems to date.

 

Note that both the snorkel and PFM have a rubber plug holding the snorkel tube, and a sac guard separating the sac from the barrel.

[es9]

 

10 hours ago, Ron Z said:

I doubt that Sheaffer never imagined that the pens would still be in use 65 years later.  They had a lifetime warranty (lifetime of the original owner) and a big service department to fix them along with a network of dealers with repair shops.  Given the number of pens still found in the wild, I don't think that they were especially concerned about the possible rusted spring hurting their brand.

 

That makes perfect sense.  I guess I am just wondering why they used stainless on the PFM but carbon steel on the snorkel.  For example, is there something about the flat nature of the spring in a snorkel that requires a harder steel?  

 

[Ron Z]

You know, even with the inside track on information that I had before Sheaffer was sold to Cross, I still frequently scratch my head and go "Why in the world did they DO that?"   Some 69 years since the pen was introduced, the  logic for why has faded into the fog of time.