The Conid's "Bulkfiller" - Why?

[FredRydr]

If you've ever wondered about the purpose behind the filling system named The Bulkfiller, go to Sia's interview of Francis Goossens (https://www.vintagemontblancpens.com/francis-interview) and scroll down to: What inspired the design of the Bulkfiller and what are it’s key design features? I was pleasantly surprised to learn his goal was more than just increased ink capacity, but rather eliminating shortcomings of existing filling systems. He wanted:


A- High ink intake
B- Allow the integration of an ink shut-off valve
C- Easy and efficient flushing in one or two actuation strokes.
D- Filling in one filling movement.
E- Postive displacement filling system
(Courtesy of vintagemontblancpens.com)

He also resolved to eliminate what he calls "stick-slip," a problem suffered by piston-fillers.

To the Conid users: Do you believe Francis has succeeded or failed in all or any of his goals? Have you found drawbacks in the Bulkfiller (other than price)?


47031

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I had read somewhere that the design is not new or innovative, and is in fact a revamp from fountain pen history. As such I would be interested to know about the fate of the original design and designers.


Something about pens with sacs in them always troubled me. Why not have a screw-in section and dispense with buttons and levers and hanging bars and so on? Just unscrew, dip into ink, squeeze with fingers and reassemble. Takes seconds, doesn't require any fancy devices, and the barrels can remain unblemished. To ponder.

[silverlifter]

I had read somewhere that the design is not new or innovative, and is in fact a revamp from fountain pen history. As such I would be interested to know about the fate of the original design and designers.

See the end of the article:

we learned during the patent process a basically similar system was already patented in 1898! This system was however never produced...

[FredRydr]

I had read somewhere that the design is not new or innovative, and is in fact a revamp from fountain pen history. As such I would be interested to know about the fate of the original design and designers....
Based on your post, you didn't first read (or understand) the interview, since Francis specifically mentions the 1898 patent that never made it into production. I guess it's a quick put-down of Francis without any facts.

[dapprman]

It is the latch system that is original in Francis's design, not the bulkfiller itself. I've read else where that there ere bulkfillers produced in the early days, but that article offered no direct proof, so they could ahve been referring back to the original patent. I do get the impression that the Conid mechanism was independently designed without knowing about the previous versions, and I I started off with, the way the Conid latch works is original and is a core part of the design.

[Robert]

I've owned a Bulkfiller (Regular size/flattop/demonstrator) for about 18 months now, and I think Conid has largely succeeded in its goals. Flushing may take more than one or two actuation strokes, depending on the ink/time since last cleaning, but a couple or three extra strokes is no biggy for me. As for filling, the pen will take up a lot of ink in one "filling movement" - but only to about 80% or so (again, that's enough for me). If one wanted to go to the trouble, one could coax a higher fill - but I don't bother with it.

For me, the elegant fit and finish of the pen are things of beauty. As for service after the sale - superb! Conid offered to set up a Skype session for me if necessary (I can be a real klutz with mechanical things), but the detailed emails provided were all that I needed to solve my little problem.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I had read somewhere that the design is not new or innovative, and is in fact a revamp from fountain pen history. As such I would be interested to know about the fate of the original design and designers....
Based on your post, you didn't first read (or understand) the interview, since Francis specifically mentions the 1898 patent that never made it into production. I guess it's a quick put-down of Francis without any facts.


I was simply reporting what I vaguely remember reading. My interest here was in why the system was not produced at the time. Why it had to wait for so long for someone else to run with it. This is a perfectly legitimate point for discussion.

Personally I think the system (both original and current) is overly complicated, and bears costs in production that are not reflected by worthwhile gains to the user.


You misinterpreted my post, which I thought was abundantly clear from this part - "As such I would be interested to know about the fate of the original design and designers".


So, you guessed wrong.

Again.

[FredRydr]

Well, I really appreciate the shut-off mechanism the isolates the reservoir from the outside world, the ample flushing of the feed (like piston and plunger-fillers), and the ease in disassembly for cleaning. I suppose Conid's tight fabrication tolerances help quite a bit in furthering the intent of Francis's design. The issue of stick-slip and his cam action never occurred to me, though in retrospect, I know what he means. I am about due to refill my pen, and I will watch carefully for the axial cam movement when "un-latching the parked piston" to see its impact.

My only gripe is, and it's my own fault, one must be precise when engaging and disengaging the piston before attempting to press the rod back into the barrel. The strength of the pen has prevented me from doing any damage before I realized my error.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

In terms of filling ease, volume to actuation, and yes let's face it, cost: compare Conid to Pilot's Custom 823. Different filling systems but attempting to (obviously) achieve the same end. Is it fair to say that at heart both are still vacuum fillers? I think so. The designation of being (for Conid) a hybrid of both piston and vacuum doesn't work for me. The "piston" part seems to be nothing more than a space saving device rather than a pumping one (if you see what I mean).

Assuming that there is a reason why the original patent never led to production, nor why nobody else (the major tooled up manufacturers for example) picked up the patent, is rather interesting. I suspect, as noted earlier, that the cost to engineer and produce would have pushed up the selling price beyond a reasonable level for a company wanting to make a profit from a broad user base (as opposed to the narrower, luxury oriented one).


Just because I am not a fan boy of Conid does not mean that I am automatically a foe. I am neutral, and find what they've done is interesting.

[silverlifter]

compare Conid to Pilot's Custom 823

For one, the Conid barrels aren't prone to cracking...

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Neither are the 823s, but nothing is perfect. User error counts large in the anecdotal tales of cracked 823s. :) I reserve opinion on cracked Conid barrels until the time that they have sold similar volumes to the 823s and have been used for a similar time period. Statistically that would be more robust.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Something about pens with sacs in them always troubled me. Why not have a screw-in section and dispense with buttons and levers and hanging bars and so on? Just unscrew, dip into ink, squeeze with fingers and reassemble. Takes seconds, doesn't require any fancy devices, and the barrels can remain unblemished. To ponder.


Now that I think on it this is pretty much how any "aerometric" pen is filled, and yet the addition of a hoop or other metal containment thing for the sac seems unnecessary to its function. Parker, for example, could have cut costs and not bothered with the sac housing. It would not have affected the filling of the pen.

While there is, I'm sure, some satisfaction in solving a particular engineering puzzle, not all such solutions are actually required or needed in real world application. That's kind of how I see the Conid filling system. A neat engineering trick, but somewhat redundant in real terms.

[silverlifter]

Neither are the 823s, but nothing is perfect. User error counts large in the anecdotal tales of cracked 823s. :)

Uh, a simple search will pull up a pretty comprehensive list of complaints about cracked barrels. I take your point about the difference in numbers in use, but I can't see Conid barrels cracking. And I also don't think it is reasonable to blame users for what is clearly a design flaw. If a tool can't handle being used (and yes, people have had barrels crack without disassembling them), then it is not fit for purpose.

[silverlifter]

yet the addition of a hoop or other metal containment thing for the sac seems unnecessary to its function. Parker, for example, could have cut costs and not bothered with the sac housing. It would not have affected the filling of the pen.

While there is, I'm sure, some satisfaction in solving a particular engineering puzzle, not all such solutions are actually required or needed in real world application. That's kind of how I see the Conid filling system. A neat engineering trick, but somewhat redundant in real terms.

The Parker 51 was an engineering marvel, with a number of patents filed, that revolutionised the industry. To idly suppose that a key part of the pen, the filling system, contained a superfluity, based on what? suggests that you aren't really prone to critical thinking and that your musing on the Conid are similarly uninformed.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/148135-pilot-custom-823-design-flaw/#entry1471939

Covers most of the argument.


I take your point about the difference in numbers in use, but I can't see Conid barrels cracking

Because...?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

yet the addition of a hoop or other metal containment thing for the sac seems unnecessary to its function. Parker, for example, could have cut costs and not bothered with the sac housing. It would not have affected the filling of the pen.

While there is, I'm sure, some satisfaction in solving a particular engineering puzzle, not all such solutions are actually required or needed in real world application. That's kind of how I see the Conid filling system. A neat engineering trick, but somewhat redundant in real terms.

The Parker 51 was an engineering marvel, with a number of patents filed, that revolutionised the industry. To idly suppose that a key part of the pen, the filling system, contained a superfluity, based on what? suggests that you aren't really prone to critical thinking and that your musing on the Conid are similarly uninformed.


To idly suppose that I haven't consider this superfluity suggests that you aren't really prone to critical thinking either. You are dragging in arguments about patents that have nothing to do with what I stated. The sac housing, in a Parker 51, is superfluous. How do I know this? Because I have removed the housing from a 51 and achieved better filling without it.

[silverlifter]

The sac housing, in a Parker 51, is superfluous. How do I know this? Because I have removed the housing from a 51 and achieved better filling without it.

And you know better that the engineers that designed a pen that was awarded patents and is still operable over half a century later? Lol. Yeah, those guys were clueless. Putting thast stupid hoop on only added cost and contributed nothing to the design of the pen. No-one in the team would have considered that...

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I think you have missed the point. Especially between design and functionality. The hoop looks better, it doesn't work better. This is easily verified by you or anyone that has a 51 aero. Did they put the hoop in just for aesthetics? Perhaps they did. I am not saying they shouldn't have, only that it wasn't really needed from a functional perspective.

Similar types of argument could be used regarding the Bulkfiller mechanism. Yes, it is a clever piece of engineering, but is it necessary. Unfortunately with Conid such a neat piece of engineering most likely requires more precision in the making of it. Thus driving production cost up, the consumer base numbers remain small. It is not, obviously, a pen for the masses.


And please don't get me wrong. I do like it when people create interesting things just because they can. :)

[Empty_of_Clouds]

...you aren't really prone to critical thinking and that your musing on the Conid are similarly uninformed....

What is the f***ing matter with you?

You're quoting someone else but using my name? Weird.


What I am noting so far in this thread is people seeing what they want to see rather what was actually written. Lots of knee jerk stuff.


Case in point: the assertion that Parker's engineers knew what they were doing, in adding the sac hoop to the 51 aero, is applicable to my question on why the original bulkfiller patent was not actualised until recently. It lends a little weight to the argument that there are significant drawbacks to either the bulkfilling system itself, or to the ways and means to bring it to market.


Or are people going to argue that clever engineers between the original patent and now have simply missed the opportunity?


The history of why and how these things get made (or not) is just as relevant as whether you like them (or not).

[Empty_of_Clouds]

If you had wanted to start a Conid Fan Club thread, then you could have stated it up front.

I thought we were having a discussion about filling systems. Well, at least I was until people started being personally nasty.


ps. if anyone would like to send me a Conid so I can have a hands-on look at this filling system, please do. (I can't afford NZD$1000 just to check it out)

[FredRydr]

If you had wanted to start a Conid Fan Club thread, then you could have stated it up front.

I thought we were having a discussion about filling systems. Well, at least I was until people started being personally nasty.
So you have to add baseless insults to the thread as well. Shall we tote up all the negative and insulting things you've posted in this thread alone to me and others? And we have to wonder why you persist in this conduct in the two internet fountain pen forums.

Please, just stop it.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Go for it. You were the one who assigned a baseless agenda to me, and didn't have the cojones to admit the error when you were called on it. Still don't.

Elsewhere I have responded using a poster's own words, as that is clearly the way they prefer to be spoken to. Oh wait, perhaps it is okay for them to use such language with me but not the other way around? Status normal I suppose.


Negatives? If you ask for opinions on something/anything you will get positives and negatives. For me there are both regarding Conid (not that you care to acknowledge that), though not enough positives to encourage me to buy one.

[FredRydr]

Congratulations, Empty. You've turned another pen thread into a "feel sorry for me; I've been wronged" thread, and in record time.

[Jon Szanto]

It is not, obviously, a pen for the masses.

Good. They got ripped off by the PenBBS 355 and the masses can buy that instead.

As to all the blather about functionality, I'll take a flying leap and guess that you haven't actually used one. They *are* different from a vac-filler, just as they are different from a piston filler, in small but interesting and important ways.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Oh Jeez, can you not stop with assigning motive, Fred? Did you expect me to not react to the nasty things people have said? How have you reacted? Glass houses much?



To recap, filling system - bullkfiller - questions that come to my mind

1. Who held the original patent?
2. Why did it not go to production either then or between then and now?
3. What significant, if any, advantage does it have over a straight vacuum filler?
4. What will it's failure rate be like over time (as a mechanism)?


What I like about the Conid.

1. The engineering is precise (so I'm told), I always appreciate that.
2. The overall design aesthetic is one that appeals to a sci-fi fan like me (paradoxically as it is a fountain pen of course)

What I don't like about Conid

1. Cost - obviously this is a luxury product price.


A critical question is not always a negative point.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

It is not, obviously, a pen for the masses.

Good. They got ripped off by the PenBBS 355 and the masses can buy that instead.

As to all the blather about functionality, I'll take a flying leap and guess that you haven't actually used one. They *are* different from a vac-filler, just as they are different from a piston filler, in small but interesting and important ways.


I don't get the first point, as I was stating a fact and not an opinion. BTW I read the reddit thread about the copying, which gives a more balanced view of the situation than a simple accusation of rip off.

No, I haven't used a Conid. As noted, spending NZD$1000 simply to try one out is beyond my means (and no, Fred, that is not a "woe is me" thing, just factual). I have no doubt that it is an interesting mechanism - I think I've said that on several clearly unnoticed occasions in this thread already - and has every right to exist (for any reason you or I or anyone cares to append to it).

[arrow]

I have had an Onoto pen with a very similar filling mechanism to the Conid. My closest at the moment is the Pelikan built in piston filler, it has a slighly different mechansim where the plunger is screwed up and down, it takes enough ink to be a major improvement on the standard cartridge converter, but not a much in as this type of filler. I don't think Onoto was the only one of the European brands with this type of plunger filler. I have seen some Japanese versions too. I like the idea, maybe Conid can make a limitied editions in some kind of marblised material, mother of pearl stripes, and even urushi lacquer. I may have to try this one. I have to add, I accept different technology and solutions, it's all about making it work.

There are still few of these plunger fillers in existence, I think they were reasonably common for about two decades and they worked well.

[manoeuver]

I've been talking a little bit about the Conid design with friends in the local Nerd Zoo.

One of our local guys is a big Conid fan and has several. He LOVES them and has each one fitted with a really cool nib.

His Insta is very Conid-heavy, check out @240kar to see his stuff. Pretty cool.

He's lent me one of his bulkfillers for review, and I've got a Minimalistica of my own (that I haven't used much.)

My favorite part of the design is the offset axial cam as they call it-- when you engage the piston head with the rod it moves forward just a bit and eliminates sticking. It helps a lot to be able to see the mechanism when you're using it. I thought my Minimalistica was broken for a while; it was user error.

I actually don't care for the cavernous ink capacity. It takes me ages to empty one of these pens.

The other things that've come up in our local discussions are the design and material choices.

We've tossed around words like overengineered and there are some who think the use of Titanium for the metal bits is not for practicality's sake, and perhaps even a bit daft. But those are silly criticisms, the Conid is not supposed to be a practical pen.

It's intended (seems to me) to be a mechanical marvel, and in my experience, it is.

[Jon Szanto]

It is not, obviously, a pen for the masses.

Good. They got ripped off by the PenBBS 355 and the masses can buy that instead.

As to all the blather about functionality, I'll take a flying leap and guess that you haven't actually used one. They *are* different from a vac-filler, just as they are different from a piston filler, in small but interesting and important ways.


I don't get the first point, as I was stating a fact and not an opinion. BTW I read the reddit thread about the copying, which gives a more balanced view of the situation than a simple accusation of rip off.

No, I haven't used a Conid. As noted, spending NZD$1000 simply to try one out is beyond my means (and no, Fred, that is not a "woe is me" thing, just factual). I have no doubt that it is an interesting mechanism - I think I've said that on several clearly unnoticed occasions in this thread already - and has every right to exist (for any reason you or I or anyone cares to append to it).

1. We tire of the constant references to cost.
2. An obvious point need not be stated, but you feel a need to... about cost.
3. I'm not going to repeat the reddit thread. It is a complete rippoff - I've put the two pens side-by-side.
4. I don't own a CONID nor did I purchase one to try. I simply tried one at a pen gathering. I wouldn't give a lot of opinions on the mechanism had I not.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Cost may be an ugly factor to you, but not to me. It is one of the many factors that go into making any purchase. Usually if I repeat myself in a thread it is because of the clear sense that readers are skimming and cherry picking instead of seeing the whole story.

There are a number of threads, reddit, FPN, Scrivener, other places that discuss the filling system and conclude that it is not a rip off. The filling system, not the design of the pen, which does look like a rip off.


Differences -
They *are* different from a vac-filler, just as they are different from a piston filler, in small but interesting and important ways. What ways? It would be useful to expand for those of us who haven't handled a Conid (for whatever reason).

[arrow]

Doesn't this (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2018-WING-SUNG-3008-Transparent-Gold-Silver-Clip-Fountain-Pen-Fine-Nib-0-5mm/302681225803?_trkparms=aid%3D555018%26algo%3DPL.SI M%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D26a3dd8 c39324157be0276512be921bf%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D3% 26rkt%3D24%26mehot%3Dag%26sd%3D173893873811%26itm% 3D302681225803&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851)look like an economy version of these types of pens?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

My favorite part of the design is the offset axial cam as they call it-- when you engage the piston head with the rod it moves forward just a bit and eliminates sticking. It helps a lot to be able to see the mechanism when you're using it. I thought my Minimalistica was broken for a while; it was user error.

I actually don't care for the cavernous ink capacity. It takes me ages to empty one of these pens.

The other things that've come up in our local discussions are the design and material choices.

We've tossed around words like overengineered and there are some who think the use of Titanium for the metal bits is not for practicality's sake, and perhaps even a bit daft. But those are silly criticisms, the Conid is not supposed to be a practical pen.

It's intended (seems to me) to be a mechanical marvel, and in my experience, it is.


That pretty much sums up what I've been saying, only more legibly and with more detail as you have used one. Will check out the Insta thingy. Always liked good photos.

[arrow]

...We've tossed around words like overengineered and there are some who think the use of Titanium for the metal bits is not for practicality's sake, and perhaps even a bit daft. But those are silly criticisms, the Conid is not supposed to be a practical pen.

It's intended (seems to me) to be a mechanical marvel, and in my experience, it is.

I like the extra effort in making a pen nice and dependable and a bit of luxury is allowed. Technical transparency is nothing wrong with. I wonder how long clear acrylic and plycarbonte plastics last? They can to a degree be polished up later on, but like all plastics, they are nicest when they are new. I don't think it's any thing to complain about though.

[FredRydr]

...My favorite part of the design is the offset axial cam as they call it-- when you engage the piston head with the rod it moves forward just a bit and eliminates sticking. It helps a lot to be able to see the mechanism when you're using it. I thought my Minimalistica was broken for a while; it was user error....
Yes, that is my experience, and after reading the interview, I understand. Thank goodness my early Minimalistica has the transparent barrel to double-check on what I'm doing (and I'm not a big fan of demonstrators).

[Jon Szanto]

Cost may be an ugly factor to you, but not to me. It is one of the many factors that go into making any purchase. Usually if I repeat myself in a thread it is because of the clear sense that readers are skimming and cherry picking instead of seeing the whole story.

No, you simply repeat it so often that it is tiresome. We all long ago took into consideration your economic status. There are many, many friends of mine who buy pens a lot more than I can afford. I don't feel a need to tell them the pens cost too much.


There are a number of threads, reddit, FPN, Scrivener, other places that discuss the filling system and conclude that it is not a rip off. The filling system, not the design of the pen, which does look like a rip off.

Who cares? I've put them side by side and the differences are small enough, with only one that was done because it was too hard or expensive, that it becomes clear: we can't come up with anything new on our own, let's just copy this thing. Flat out.


What ways? It would be useful to expand for those of us who haven't handled a Conid (for whatever reason).

For one, a vac-fill gets ink on both sides of the gasket, so flushing the pen is very laborious. The bulkfiller is easier and more effective than a piston filler to clean. And the ink shutoff, which can be handy (the 823 has this as well, I believe, but no other current or vintage vac-fill pens that I'm aware of).

[catbert]

I like needlessly complex filling systems and elegantly simple ones. That's part of the appeal of Conid for me.

Syringe fillers, which the Conid essentially is, might not be as fun as vac-fillers but filling directly on the upstroke is simple and intuitive. Syringes are quite common in mid-century Italian pens that save their complexity for weird and wonderful nib adjustment methods. Conid's contribution, the rotating latch, neatly solves the main drawback of syringes — all the 'wasted' space taken up by the plunger shaft. Whether Conid design and engineering justifies a premium is up to the buyer. My main quibbles are with the design — the lack of an ink window in the delrin Minimalistica, the typography of the branding. Still, I'm saving up.

[arrow]

There are always precedessors and inspirations for anything, I don't think of it as a drawback, but interesting to know and compare. Here's (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wing-Sung-698-Transparent-Demonstrator-Piston-Fountain-Pen-0-5mm-Nib-Gifts/263220879708?_trkparms=aid%3D555018%26algo%3DPL.SI M%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D0a48ab8 3cfbd417e86200c457999629b%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D4% 26rkt%3D24%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D302681225803%26itm% 3D263220879708&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851) another. It's the regular screw piston filler, but I always thought of them as pretty close. I hope this doesn't take anything way from the inital post.

The Onoto pen. I would love to see it disassembled next to a Conid ;- )

http://fountainpenboard.com/forum/uploads/1349134253/gallery_12727_194_23300.jpg

[Empty_of_Clouds]

We all long ago took into consideration your economic status.

That's funny considering how often "we" recommend that I simply go and buy things.

@JonSzanto

Anyway, yes, it does matter about the rip off thing. The Penbbs version is not the same as the Conid one, in the same way that the Conid one is not exactly the same as the one in the original 1898 patent. If we want to apply some kind of yardstick to these things then we should do so consistently and fairly. Talking about the filling system here only.

I have a Pilot Custom 823. It flushes really quickly and easily. Maybe the ink I'm using (Tsuki-yo)? Why is the bulk filler easier and more effective to clean than a piston filler? If ink doesn't get behind the piston then cleaning is a breeze. I noticed this on the Pelikan pens I once had, and on the Aurora 88P I gave to you.

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand. Without explanation by you or others this is nearly impossible for me.

[arrow]

...For one, a vac-fill gets ink on both sides of the gasket, so flushing the pen is very laborious. The bulkfiller is easier and more effective than a piston filler to clean. And the ink shutoff, which can be handy (the 823 has this as well, I believe, but no other current or vintage vac-fill pens that I'm aware of).

State of the art with all the finer point sorted out.

[FredRydr]

Here's a new image explaining Francis's cam action "stick-slip-breaker ramp." I think it should have been published right-side-up.

https://www.conidpen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/STICK_SLIP_BREAKER.jpg
(Courtesy conidpen.com)

[arrow]

I guess the weakness with any related technology are the seals, some are better than others. This is the older version.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac0vC7GwK5I

[FredRydr]

It may not address your point about seals, but Conid kindly sent a replacement packet of "improved" o-rings from Belgium to Pennsylvania, no charge, knowing I was not the original purchaser of the pen. I had only asked for advice about the seal between the main and small chambers. As I recall, the girth of the o-ring in question was increased slightly.

[catbert]

Why is the bulk filler easier and more effective to clean than a piston filler?

Drawing water directly on the upstroke and expelling on the downstroke imparts more force for flushing than slowly twisting a piston up and down. Pretty much one cycle and done.

[Lloyd]

I have a Minimalistica and like, not love, it. It has one fairly large flaw (to me); in order to save money (according to Francis), the rod comes from a different CONID model (as opposed to being made for the Minimalistica). Due to this, the narrow channel from the tank to the feed is longer than necessary. This long narrow channel often suffers cohesion to the degree that the ink doesn't flow without am initializing shake. Also, if using non-gentle/saturated inks, a few quick flushes will not get it thoroughly clean.
By the way, I don't find it that easy to cleanly fill (I use a Visconti inkpot if I want a full fill or just a till bottle to get a 90% fill). There's always ink on the section after filling. I prefer eyedropper fillers.

[FredRydr]

Lloyd,

It's disappointing that Francis acknowledges that is the cause of your ink flow problem and didn't express an interest in a remedy. I use Diamine Sargasso Sea in my Minimalistica and it flows without complaint. Meanwhile, I'll watch for the same symptom from other inks.

Fred

[Lloyd]

I know, Fred. I had pmed him at FPN regarding this issue and he rationalized it as a way to reduce selling price. If the rod were longer and the channel shorter, cohesion would have been less likely and the pen's volume would have been larger.

If there are any typos in this post, I blame Tapatalk!

[Sailor Kenshin]

Doesn't this (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2018-WING-SUNG-3008-Transparent-Gold-Silver-Clip-Fountain-Pen-Fine-Nib-0-5mm/302681225803?_trkparms=aid%3D555018%26algo%3DPL.SI M%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D26a3dd8 c39324157be0276512be921bf%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D3% 26rkt%3D24%26mehot%3Dag%26sd%3D173893873811%26itm% 3D302681225803&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851)look like an economy version of these types of pens?

I ordered one of these WS pens a while back, still waiting...

To everyone: what's the cost in USD for one of the Conid Bulkfillers?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

They range from about $270 to $1435, depending on model, and not including nib or tools. The nibs range from $16 (steel, not available for all models) to $180 (gold). The tools cost and additional $20. Having the nib ground will cost extra.

[adhoc]

For one, the Conid barrels aren't prone to cracking...

Neither are 823s.


And I also don't think it is reasonable to blame users for what is clearly a design flaw.

Wrong, misuse is not a design flaw.


If a tool can't handle being used (and yes, people have had barrels crack without disassembling them), then it is not fit for purpose.

Wrong, no tool is provided for disassembly, it is explicitly forbidden and will void varranty, and people have not had barrels crack without disassembling them.



As for Conid - I like what they're doing, but I'm not paying 1000 EUR for a bock or jowo nib. Same goes for Visconti, etc. Perhaps if they made their own nibs or had more interesting nibs, but then the price would probably 5000€ or something. I don't know. Belgium is expensive and I'm not really willing to pay for it.

[silverlifter]

and people have not had barrels crack without disassembling them.


Apparently, they have (http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/148135-pilot-custom-823-design-flaw/#entry1471939):


The one in the shop right now, with a crack at the back end AND one that developed at the section end straight down from the first crack, was not taken apart by it's owner for cleaning. The problem is that the 0 ring in the back end puts outward pressure on the barrel. The crack appears to have developed along a seam in the barrel - the cracks are perfectly in line with each other.

I have been responsible for derailing this thread enough by simpley pointing out that the pens are prone to cracking. If anyone else wants to argue the point, start a new thread as it is not germane to this one...

[adhoc]

If, and I doubt it, any 823s cracked without disassembly, it must be due to tightening procedure spread, which is fascinating to me anyway how they’re keeping it so tight. But it’s so easy to misuse the 823, precisely because it’s an engineering work of art. I understand if someone that is not a professional in the field might oversee the details that make it so, though.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Apparently, they have (http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/148135-pilot-custom-823-design-flaw/#entry1471939):


The one in the shop right now, with a crack at the back end AND one that developed at the section end straight down from the first crack, was not taken apart by it's owner for cleaning. The problem is that the 0 ring in the back end puts outward pressure on the barrel. The crack appears to have developed along a seam in the barrel - the cracks are perfectly in line with each other.

I have been responsible for derailing this thread enough by simpley pointing out that the pens are prone to cracking. If anyone else wants to argue the point, start a new thread as it is not germane to this one...

One example does not a case make. From what I've seen nearly all the examples of cracking have happened after disassembly/reassembly. So much so that I now believe that disassembly has occurred in those cases where it doesn't explicitly confirm or deny it.

In terms of being germane, this thread is mostly looking at a pen that can come with tools for disassembly. There will always be the risk that a user will make a mistake. Time will tell if future Conid disassemblers will find barrel cracks.

[FredRydr]

...the rod comes from a different CONID model (as opposed to being made for the Minimalistica). Due to this, the narrow channel from the tank to the feed is longer than necessary. This long narrow channel often suffers cohesion to the degree that the ink doesn't flow without am initializing shake....
So the rod is longer than otherwise would have been necessary, even in this smaller pen? That seems odd, because the main reservoir could have simply been bored out to be longer (towards the feed), thereby shortening the "channel" without changing other dimensions. But wait, then an even longer rod would be required? Even then, a shorter channel and resulting smaller capacity would have to replenished more often by lifting the rod, perhaps to an annoying degree. It'd be a compromise. I don't think I'm seeing the whole picture, since I don't have one of the larger Conids to compare.

[Lloyd]

Shorter. Due to the rod being shorter, the channel is longer.

If there are any typos in this post, I blame Tapatalk!

[peroride]

I think this thread is helpful for those considering a Conid, weighing different aspects.

I for one am in that camp despite enjoying my Pilot Custom 823

I've only been researching so I'll take a 2 cent shot:

1. Original patent: here's an early version http://www.richardspens.com/ref/fillers/syringe.htm#means

2. Why now? I guess like everything niche in this hobby, it took a lot of effort to satisfy a small market. I really respect Conid for actually having a workable and superlative product by the reviews of it. I'd like a Gate City Postal pen (http://www.gatecitypen.com/pens.htm) but just look at this list of companies that are no more http://www.richardspens.com/ref/fillers/syringe.htm

3. advantage does it have over a straight vacuum filler? just by mechanism alone, from videos I can only see that fill time and volume is greater than my 823 or TWSBI which may take several pumps, but the appeal of Conid's filling system is not has great as their build quality execution and versatility with nib/feed combinations given the work of Flexible Nibs Factory.

4. Failure rate? Given the whole pen can be taken apart with the optional tool kit that everyone is griping it should be included, I enjoy the engineering DIY perspective that both TWSBI and Conid markets to its users, unlike say Pilot where the 823 is not as open. Given you can replace the o rings, I would not be surprised if Conid would sell the piston gasket as well. Owners, feel free to verify?

The biggest thing for me is not so much the cost or even more importantly the wait time, but rather the opportunity cost against rival pens and the fact that I really have a nice stable of pens to enjoy so the Conid if purchased might outclass all the rest and rain on the parade :rain: Another thing is I wish the streamline style came back to the Regular size, Kingsize seems a bit heavy jumbo

[dapprman]

I'm not a fan of the actual pens as I find them souless (I have tried 5) and overly expensive (I can understand why - will mainly be down to the core company being industrial and having prices based on big discounts for large bulk orders), but I am of their ethics. I do know someone who's Conid (it was a king size) snapped at the back of the nib section (can't remember if that part unscrews). Conid had a free replacement rapidly out to him even though he openly admitted to dropping it. The following is from his blog based on his experience:
"Conid as a company really do deserve high praise here. Let me remind you that I was responsible for breaking my pen. Conid didn’t have to do anything but they did. They also acted swiftly. Enclosed in the envelope with the replacement part was some silicone grease and Conid branded cleaning cloths – again going that extra mile.

Conid want me to send the broken section/barrel back to them so that they can have a closer look at it for possible weaknesses. For this they enclosed the returns label – which they have paid for. Again this shows a company wanting to use my misfortune to ascertain whether they need to do something different. (I have to say I don’t think that there is any particular weakness in this pen. It was a freak accident and I wager no pen would have survived intact)."

Edit - updated details having checked my friend's blog.

[FredRydr]

...I find them souless....
I remember this was a common description of Japanese motorcycles by those who rode British and American bikes. The latter had "character" and were expected to need more care, repair and maintenance (especially roadside!), while the former were boringly reliable and generated little excitement.

[penwash]

I'm not a fan of the actual pens as I find them souless (I have tried 5)

I'm actually glad that I'm not the only one who think along the same line about the Conid.
Having used and held it in my hand, I feel no "electricity" between the pen and I.

Yes, the pen is well made, well designed, and I even admire Francis as one of the FP genius of our time... but... I can't get excited about this pen, not even a bit.

It's a stark contrast to the feeling I get when I found that cruddy, unkempt vintage pen with that potential that when I'm done restoring it, it'll become a darling of a pen.

[dapprman]

...I find them souless....
I remember this was a common description of Japanese motorcycles by those who rode British and American bikes. The latter had "character" and were expected to need more care, repair and maintenance (especially roadside!), while the former were boringly reliable and generated little excitement.

Not in my case. While I have always said they are extremely well made and you can see the high levels of tolerance in the parts and the fitting, the nibs do not always meet the same level of quality and many of the Japanese makes are just as well made (though not quite to the same extreme level. I just find them soulless, lacking any real character, cold to touch. I've heard it argued that they are better made TWSBIs are 50x the price.

@penwash - we are far from alone, and interstingly enough, most if not all the others I meet or who write about simialr feelings to us also acknowledge the quality of the pens.

[Scrawler]

The fountain pen is no longer an everyday, useful and necessary object. It has evolved into what is in effect hand jewellery, as electronic communication replaces it. All of the thought and research that went into Conid was a long time after it had become obvious the FP was on its way out. By deep thought, analysis and the use of modern materials, the Conid design solves most of the problems of carrying around a substantial vial of ink, in a form ready for it to be used for writing, on demand. I appreciate the Conid, for what it is, a piece of engineering art that reflects a lot of human thought and experimental efforts. Because I have been a designer, and know about the balancing of contradictory factors, these pens stand to me as representations of the pinnacle of human existence. We are at a stage where we can put our powers and desires into things that are not necessary, just to show we can do it. People just don't do that kind of thing when we are grubbing around in the dirt for subsistence. To me, every man made object contains the accumulated thoughts and knowledge of many people, working together and separately. The point of the pen is where our inner thoughts meet reality and can be communicated to others, and it more than any other instrument lead the way to where we are socially and technologically now. So as a symbol of achievement the Conid has an important philosophical place. The Conid is exactly what all thinking people in 1910 needed. I can see exactly why they are worth their price and why someone would consider paying it.

[milkb0at]

I still remember this thread on FPN (http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/287742-conid-bulkfiller-all-the-pen-youll-ever-need/) where the Conid is more than just a luxury.

I still don't own one (and I'm not sure I ever will) but I'm happy they exist.

I don't understand why people keep talking about the Pilot 823. Ok, they both use rods internally, but for me they're different in terms of design, aesthetic, filling mechanism, nibs etc.

[BulkyFiller]

— accidental duplicate

[BulkyFiller]

I have the Conid Antwerppen - Regular.
It is probably my favourite pen, while it has “only” a steel nib. I like the ingenuity of the filling mechanism that holds a tremendous amount of ink, there is the obvious high precision construction, and the nib is tuned perfectly.
I do have other nice pens from the usual suspects, Montblanc, Aurora, Visconti, Sailor... I like them all but at least for me the Conid feels just right.
Would love to add an ebonite with gold nib one day.

Btw, Onoto was mentioned. I don’t think it is the same principle since if I am not mistaken the Onoto fills on the downwards stroke, the Conid fills on the upwards stroke.

Btw 2, out of curiosity I bought a Penbbs 355 to compare. I like Penbbs in general bit frankly don’t buy the 355 as a cheap Conid. Operating its mechanism is horrid.

[catbert]

Btw, Onoto was mentioned. I don’t think it is the same principle since if I am not mistaken the Onoto fills on the downwards stroke, the Conid fills on the upwards stroke.

You're not mistaken.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD2r3FQNCCk

[Scrawler]

Btw, Onoto was mentioned. I don’t think it is the same principle since if I am not mistaken the Onoto fills on the downwards stroke, the Conid fills on the upwards stroke.

You're not mistaken.

(video =snip)



I admire the Onoto design. I have one from pre 1910 era, which makes it one of the first examples to use the mechanism. I have not been able to use it because it needs repacking, but I have had a chance to look at all the hand made pieces that make it up. If you look closely you will see the maker hand cut the tiniest of screws to hold the plunger mechanism together. The curve at the end of the barrel exactly calculated and turned to allow the ink to flow past the plunger at just the right point. The plunger held in place by packing just pressure resistant enough to have ink flow in at just under an atmosphere pressure. It is an idea that has been used by Visconti and even taken a little further by them, as shown in this video.


https://youtu.be/9SbxTkt6faM

[catbert]

The fountain pen is no longer an everyday, useful and necessary object. It has evolved into what is in effect hand jewellery, as electronic communication replaces it. All of the thought and research that went into Conid was a long time after it had become obvious the FP was on its way out. By deep thought, analysis and the use of modern materials, the Conid design solves most of the problems of carrying around a substantial vial of ink, in a form ready for it to be used for writing, on demand. I appreciate the Conid, for what it is, a piece of engineering art that reflects a lot of human thought and experimental efforts. Because I have been a designer, and know about the balancing of contradictory factors, these pens stand to me as representations of the pinnacle of human existence. We are at a stage where we can put our powers and desires into things that are not necessary, just to show we can do it. People just don't do that kind of thing when we are grubbing around in the dirt for subsistence. To me, every man made object contains the accumulated thoughts and knowledge of many people, working together and separately. The point of the pen is where our inner thoughts meet reality and can be communicated to others, and it more than any other instrument lead the way to where we are socially and technologically now. So as a symbol of achievement the Conid has an important philosophical place. The Conid is exactly what all thinking people in 1910 needed. I can see exactly why they are worth their price and why someone would consider paying it.

I have to say my fountain pens are useful and necessary everyday items, and most are as undecorative as possible. With you on the rest, though. :)

[Scrawler]

I have to say my fountain pens are useful and necessary everyday items, and most are as undecorative as possible. With you on the rest, though. :)

To you perhaps, but they are becoming so uncommon in every day life that now even the plainest fountain pen can elicit interest and attention.

[catbert]

I have to say my fountain pens are useful and necessary everyday items, and most are as undecorative as possible. With you on the rest, though. :)

To you perhaps, but they are becoming so uncommon in every day life that now even the plainest fountain pen can elicit interest and attention.

Hooded nibs are a good way to avoid unwanted attention.

[calamus]

Doesn't the 823 require you to unscrew the end cap about 1/8" to be able to write with it? That seems so weird to me that I've never wanted to own one, despite hearing many people rave about them.

[silverlifter]

Conids are the same; it opens the channel between the primary and secondary reservoirs. Their CAISO mechanism is designed to remove that requirement.

[stub]

Doesn't the 823 require you to unscrew the end cap about 1/8" to be able to write with it? That seems so weird to me that I've never wanted to own one, despite hearing many people rave about them.

Only if you are writing for a long while. You can get a paragraph or two out with just the ink in the section and feed, The TWBI Vac 700 is the same I believe.

If you love everything about the 823 (and there is, imo, a lot to like about this pen) but are not keen on the vac fil or shut off valve your remedy is to just get the 743 which is essentially the C/C version of the pen. Same nib and feed and section, just different filling mechanism. Great Great pen. Those Pilot #15 nibs are magic. The 743 is also great in the hand, great balance and ergonomics and comes in some fantastic nib options. Of course it only comes in Black (fist shake at Pilot) and a near black Burgundy.

[pajaro]

I have gathered that the why of the bulk filler is that it carries a large ink reservoir, has a shut off valve for safety and is an elegant solution.

[FredRydr]

A benefit of the design, materials and tolerances is that I have no qualms disassembling the bulkfiller mechanism again and again. Virtually all other pens are manufactured without anticipating it will be routinely disassembled, which I usually opt to avoid where unnecessary, relying instead on "advanced flushing." With the Conid, Francis and Werner have made it a pleasure to tear down and clean between inks, even if unnecessary. It's the concept of the Pelikan nib unit applied to an entire pen.

[blopplop]

I've owned 5 Pilot 823'a and currently own 3 Conid's. I love both. The one huge advantage of the Conid is being able to thoroughly disassemble the pen with ease for cleaning and replacement of seals. Plus, you can swap nibs all day long, which I do frequently.

Dave

[Zou]

compare Conid to Pilot's Custom 823

For one, the Conid barrels aren't prone to cracking...
Not to come to the defence of the 823, because this is actually one of the few Pilot pens I don't like (due to the balance of the pen being atrocious to my hand), but I think this would be a vulnerability in most plastic pens. For people who have problems with barrels cracking, a thicker plastic, a metal pen, a pop cap or a click mechanism might be better for them. My intuition is that people are trying to get a really good seal when they cap the pen, since they are afraid of the nib drying, and overdo it. I have about a dozen Pilot pens and for most of them there isn't much of a gradual increase of friction as you close the pen, it's very sudden the point at which it is fully closed (as opposed to, say, a pen with a spring behind the inner cap which offers resistance just before it is fully closed) and can't be turned anymore. Unlike the lid of a jar of jam, you can damage it. But like fine pottery, it's not designed to handle abuse, it's designed to be used delicately and sensitively. We're talking about a Japanese product here, this is a culture of people who do not tear open gift wrap, but instead methodically and gently unravel it so that the wrapping paper is undamaged.

For my comments on the Conid, I don't have one but it looks really cool. At 18g for the regular, I think that's a bit lighter than the 823? Comparable to the Pilot Decimo, which is a tolerable weight. But I still worry the balance of the pen would be hard on me, as I hold my pens at the section and have thin, somewhat boney hands, so I hate when the weight of the pen rests primarily on the crook between thumb and index finger. Especially bad when I rest the pen at the bottom of my index finger, since that requires the fingers to hold the pen in place and a back-weighted pen is unsuitable for this position. I do think the mechanism in the Conid looks superior to the 823 when it comes to cleaning. The 823 can be a little annoying even when you unscrew the section from the body.

[Gobblecup]

I have become a big fan of Pelikan over time because of my utter frustration and dislike for C/C pens, and most sac filler mechanisms. I have had no interest in an 823, not my style, I just don't feel it. However, with Conid (the Minimalistica), I found more of the ease of use and ink capacity that I love about Pelikan, but a bare bones and tough workhorse that I use everyday. I write a lot, be it in a lab, in classes, or just to journal. I use a lot of ink. And no, I don't think Pelikan makes a bad workhorse pen, they are wonderful and sturdy. However, I run out of ink in under a 5 day workweek with most Pelikan pens. Even with a fine nibbed one. I have an XXF nib on my Conid and it gets me through a full week, but usually less than two, on one fill. This means for me, when I am busy, I don't have to worry about running out of ink or refilling every weekend. I break out my Pelikans as my fun pens and I carry Opus 88s and Lamy 2000s as backup pens. With usually lots in rotation, I rarely feel the worry that I will run dry when I forget to fill a pen. I suppose this is all just my own way of saying, I love my Conid as a daily driver, but it is not my favorite pen ever. That probably is a hard question to answer anyways since I have a lot of pens I enjoy.

Conid has in my opinion a second to none filling system. I will someday purchase another too I believe. This one carries a bit of scuffing and really has a loved look to it. One of the demonstrators that I believe ages well. I have nothing bad to say about these pens. I think that you get even more than you pay for with them.