Good-bye, old trusty friction-fit

[Barry Gabay]

On 11/29/2023 at 6:01 AM, stoen said:

The Old trusty friction-fit is back (🙂)

 

or, at least, so it seems.

 

After a period of learning and experimenting, it seems I’ve managed fixing the barrel crack(s). So the pen is here again, fully functional as it used to be for 45 years aleady. Describing materials, methods and tools involved would probably go beyond the scope of this thread and focus. Now I also have a spare 1967 screw-in mechanism body, just in case something goes wrong:

Thanks everybody for previous kind and supportive messages.

All the best!

🙂

Very happy for your success. You have the hands of a surgeon, stoen.  Thank you for sharing this interesting & successful repair.  

[Seney724]

On 11/29/2023 at 5:01 AM, stoen said:

The Old trusty friction-fit is back (🙂)

 

or, at least, so it seems.

 

After a period of learning and experimenting, it seems I’ve managed fixing the barrel crack(s). So the pen is here again, fully functional as it used to be for 45 years aleady. Describing materials, methods and tools involved would probably go beyond the scope of this thread and focus. Now I also have a spare 1967 screw-in mechanism body, just in case something goes wrong:

Thanks everybody for previous kind and supportive messages.

All the best!

🙂

Dear @stoen

Impressive, indeed!

Have you shared the repair details anywhere yet?

I look forward to learning from you!

Thanks and congrats!

[stoen]

Hello Everybody,

 

Regarding your possible expectations, please let me put just a few words and one picture:

 

It is about solvent welding consisting of a mix of two solvents, one of which is highly toxic (and prone to decompose to a deadly gas), and only to work with in small quantities in the open air, following strict safety precautions. I have seen other FPN threads about using such solvents, and professional repairpersons refrain from mentioning the names. For the moment, I don’t want to risk being banned by Forum administrators. I will open a thread in Repairs section, asking for Forum rules and opinions. 
 

The mechanical part of the job has to do with Tofflemire dental matrices (one can get them from Pentooling, or for even less on eBay, and a Kerr steel matrix tape:

 

 

Upon sanding and polishing, tiny cosmetical defects may still be there. I fixed them with a tiny drop plain cyanoacrylic glue, applied with the tip of a needle, let it dry for at least four days, and repeted the sanding / polishing procedure until flawless.

 

This was a tedious and minute work. Interesting however is that it worked with this barrel, while did hasn’t worked with another. Therefore I am reluctant about giving recipes, which work only in part. The chemical composition of the “precious resin” might have changed throughout the production age. I have to do more research before posting some serious explanations.

 

Hope you find this satisfying for the moment. Thanks for your understanding.

[Seney724]

7 hours ago, stoen said:

Hello Everybody,

 

Regarding your possible expectations, please let me put just a few words and one picture:

 

It is about solvent welding consisting of a mix of two solvents, one of which is highly toxic (and prone to decompose to a deadly gas), and only to work with in small quantities in the open air, following strict safety precautions. I have seen other FPN threads about using such solvents, and professional repairpersons refrain from mentioning the names. For the moment, I don’t want to risk being banned by Forum administrators. I will open a thread in Repairs section, asking for Forum rules and opinions. 
 

The mechanical part of the job has to do with Tofflemire dental matrices (one can get them from Pentooling, or for even less on eBay, and a Kerr steel matrix tape:

 

 

Upon sanding and polishing, tiny cosmetical defects may still be there. I fixed them with a tiny drop plain cyanoacrylic glue, applied with the tip of a needle, let it dry for at least four days, and repeted the sanding / polishing procedure until flawless.

 

This was a tedious and minute work. Interesting however is that it worked with this barrel, while did hasn’t worked with another. Therefore I am reluctant about giving recipes, which work only in part. The chemical composition of the “precious resin” might have changed throughout the production age. I have to do more research before posting some serious explanations.

 

Hope you findthis satisfying for the moment. Thanks for your understanding.

Thank you for posting this information and for sharing your experience with us.  I am very hopeful that you will provide more, either here or  in the Repair section.

 

I also want to say that I think it would be very wrong for a moderator to ban you just because you named a substance you used in your work.  I realize that some of them make a living doing repairs but I would hope they are decent enough people that they would not shut someone down just because he or she offered a post that could, conceivably, take away some of their (potential)business.

 

There have been plenty of posts about the use of MEK for this sort of work.  I have no idea if that is the substance you used or not but most of the threads that contain mention of MEK, at least that I recall, have one or more posts cautioning members to the significant risk(s) they assume if they employ it.  I'm totally fine if a Moderator insists that such a comment is found within the thread but to actually ban someone who mentions the word is flat out wrong.

[stoen]

With due gratitude for your kind posts, please let me add just a few words, refraining from opening an off-topic debate in a Montblanc thread. The dangerous chemicals handling precautions belongs elsewhere, in the Repairs sub-forum, IMHO.

I’m just trying to post in a legit way. I’ll ask for advice there, no matter of my personal opinions of right or wrong. Safety precautions are what they are.

 

Last, but not least, I don’t earn money with pen repairs, I’m just an educated enthusiast.

 

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

[Seney724]

4 minutes ago, stoen said:

With due gratitude for your kind posts, please let me add just a few words, refraining from opening an off-topic debate in a Montblanc thread. The dangerous chemicals handling precautions belongs elsewhere, in the Repairs sub-forum, IMHO.

I’m just trying to post in a legit way. I’ll ask for advice there, no matter of my personal opinions of right or wrong. Safety precautions are what they are.

 

Last, but not least, I don’t earn money with pen repairs, I’m just an educated enthusiast.

 

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Thanks, please do not get me wrong.  I fully agree about your thought to move this into the Repairs Section.  We are on the same page about that........

It's your mention that you believe you could be banned from FPN for naming the substance you used that bothered me. 

But, maybe I misunderstood your point?

[adamselene]

On 12/9/2023 at 9:39 AM, Seney724 said:

“I fully agree about your thought to move this into the Repairs Section.  We are on the same page about that........

It's your mention that you believe you could be banned from FPN for naming the substance you used that bothered…”

Yikes!  

(Quoting Spenser (not the poet, the private eye).

 

I have used plumber’s Teflon tape, which seems to make even cracked caps functional, although very Wabi-sabi.

Edited December 11, 2023 by adamselene
Spelling

[stoen]

Hello, Everybody,

 

I wish all the Network Members a happy and prosperous 2026.

 

On this occasion, I also like to share my decidion give my old, restored, trusty friction-fit a retro-fit part New Year’s treat.

 

The pen, athough originally purchased way back in 1974, originally fitted with a nib unit consisting of a tri-color 18C nib and a beautiful split-ebonite feed (which, many say so, shouldn’t have originally existed at that time in such a pen), I was very happy with it for more than 50 years. Having been the sole owner of the pen (1974-2025), I dare say so.

Yet, I decided to give it a fair try out, how it would work with a “by-the-book” feed.

 

So, here it is:

[Karmachanic]

Relying on the wonderful pinned Shiriboshi post, it looks like a 1950's feed?

[stoen]

3 hours ago, Karmachanic said:

Relying on the wonderful pinned Shiriboshi post, it looks like a 1950's feed?

Thanks. This feed can be found in both, earlier 60s friction-fit 149 resin pens, as well as in some later 50s celluloid ones.

 

Yet, I’ve mostly seen the 50s celluloid pens fitted with 139-like ski-slope feeds.

 

I’m familiar with the great Shiraboshi 149 dating table:

http://blog.livedoor.jp/whitestar_ftl/部位推移年表201708.08_001.jpg

although I’ve reported few minor inconsistencies, mostly addressing nib-feed combinations.

[Barry Gabay]

Happy New Year to all. Beautiful photos, stoen. I have found that fully-grooved feed on several 1960s plastic 149s with friction-fit piston mechanisms. As noted, it also appears on late-production celluloid 149s. 

[stoen]

As for the great Shiraboshi dating table, I found in practice that solid-ebonite feeds and split-ebonite feeds may have been concurrent in production for some time in the earlier seventies.

I also found that friction-fit mechanism 149s have not been discontinued, pulled from the market and destroyed with the advent of newer screw-in mechanism 149s in 1967, but must have rather existed for as long as the parts stock lasted.

 

The nib unit collars haven’t changed for as long as the feeds were ebonite-made, which is remarkable 40 years.

 

Concerning how split-ebonite and grooved-ebonite feeds compare in writing performance with this particular nib in my pen, I find the grooved ebonite feed somewhat drier, and allowing for a bit more shading.

[Seney724]

36 minutes ago, stoen said:

The nib unit collars haven’t changed for as long as the feeds were ebonite-made, which is remarkable 40 years.

 

I have always been fascinated about this......the ebonite nib unit collars for the celluloid 146 FPs were identical (other than, of course, size) to those used in the celluloid 149s.

However, once Montblanc entered the "resin" era, the nib unit collars for the 146 FPs changed quite significantly whereas, for many years, the nib unit collars remained the same as before (i.e. in the celluloid 149s) in the early version(s) of the resin 149s.

Personally, I do not like the "lip" which the post celluloid 146 nib unit collars create on the section.

[stoen]

12 hours ago, Seney724 said:

However, once Montblanc entered the "resin" era, the nib unit collars for the 146 FPs changed quite significantly whereas, for many years, the nib unit collars remained the same as before (i.e. in the celluloid 149s) in the early version(s) of the resin 149s.

With due respect, while trying not to go off-topic, may I please remark, histories of these two models aren’t easy to compare, AFAIK. There was a 13+ year production gap in the 146, whereas there was almost no production gap in the 149, between celluloid and resin models. 

[Seney724]

7 minutes ago, stoen said:

With due respect, while trying not to go off-topic, histories of these two models can’t be compared, AFAIK. There was a 13+ year production gap in the 146, whereas there was almost no production gap in the 149, between celluloid and resin models. 

With due respect, I do not agree.

 

The nib collar for the 149 remained the same throughout the production gap..... and then for long thereafter.

The nib collar for the 146, however, was significantly changed.

 

Production gap not withstanding, I believe the nib collars are perfectly fine to compare ......and to question.

[stoen]

17 hours ago, Seney724 said:

I believe the nib collars are perfectly fine to compare ......and to question

I do agree with you. It is good to compare and to question, indeed.

Please, also note that I not only never wrote the collars weren’t fine to compare, but also reworded and refined (edited) my possibly misguiding original statement on histories, not collars, of 149 and 146, stating more precisely, that they “aren’t easy to compare”.

 

I may have not been clear enough. To put it even more precisely, I do not know, there has ever been a “friction-fit 146”; this important evolutionary step must have been skipped during the 13-year long 146 production gap, therefore MB “entered the resin era” with respect to 146 13 years later than with respect to 149. In other words, how can one compare between 146 and 149 during the 1960-1973 period, if no 146 has been made during that period? By the time 146 was re-introduced in 1973, it was rather radically re-designed, compared to the celluloid era “model 146”, AFAIK.

Here’s a nice timeline-related thread, that I presume one is familiar with:

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/337490-dating-montblanc-146-legrand/?do=getNewComment

 

Although its “curved grip without collar” dating is incorrect (should be 50-54 instead of 50-60, since ebonite collars were introduced around that time), I believe this belongs to its own thread, where it is being nicely covered and discussed.

🙂

Thanks for your understanding.