Ink capacities of 1950s MBs

[guyy]

The capacity of the 1950s 149 is often cited as 2.8-3.0mL, or about 2x the capacity of today’s 149. What about the other models? How does the 146 compare to the current one? What about the 144 or 142?

[RobJohnson]

The capacity of the 1950s 149 is often cited as 2.8-3.0mL, or about 2x the capacity of today’s 149. What about the other models? How does the 146 compare to the current one? What about the 144 or 142?

Could this be down to the telescopic filler having a greater swept volume?

[guyy]

Yes, the telescoping piston allows for greater capacity than the single stage pistons MB uses now.

I get 1.5mL for the 144 which seems like a pretty good amount for a pen of its size. (The Pelikan 400 holds more, but it has a longer & thicker barrel.)

I’m curious about the 146. Mine doesn’t seem to take much more than the 144 despite a recent recorking.

[Pterodactylus]

May I ask you why you are interested in the absolute numbers?

I love the 50s pens, and the telescopic pistons, but personal I‘m more interested to write with them than measuring the ink capacity ;)

Honestly at least for me also the modern ones hold more than enough ink for my needs (just for the notes, also a 50s 142 holds quite some ink, I own a 142 and a 144).
And you have to see it from the other side, as sooner a pen runs out of ink as sooner you can ink it up with another great ink as there are so many of them.

But ok, interests and preferences are very personal and different.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/683/22698731081_6bdb5566c1_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/AzNVWr)
Show_response_782 (https://flic.kr/p/AzNVWr) by Ptero Pterodactylus (https://www.flickr.com/photos/117783735@N07/), auf Flickr

(Montblanc 144 - BB ..... Diamine Blue Lightning)

[guyy]

I’m interested in the capacity mostly as a matter of diagnostics. Is everything working as it should?

[Stylo]

@guyy I just happen to be cleaning out an MB 146 celluloid. I get about 1-1/3 ml, measured using a 5 ml capacity sample vial marked in 1 ml increments.

[guyy]

Thanks! I measured by weight and got 26.2g dry & 26.6g full. That works out to 1.4mL, which is just about what you got.

[Stylo]

Thanks! I measured by weight and got 26.2g dry & 26.6g full. That works out to 1.4mL, which is just about what you got.

You're welcome. Nice to know what I got was within range. By the way, regarding the 1.5ml ink volume capacity for a 1950's MB 144 that you got, did you happen to get that by weight as well? Thanks.

[guyy]

Whoops that should have been 27.6g full.

Yes, that 144 measurement was by weight. I just checked again and got 23.4g dry and 24.9g full, so 1.5mL. Both the 144 & 146 are early versions, c. 1950.

Just for comparison, a 1990s 146 measures 29.6g empty and 31.1g full, so also 1.5mL.

[Stylo]

Interesting comparison. It's impressive then that despite its much smaller size a 146 celluloid has the same ink volume as a more recent version.



Whoops that should have been 27.6g full.

Yes, that 144 measurement was by weight. I just checked again and got 23.4g dry and 24.9g full, so 1.5mL. Both the 144 & 146 are early versions, c. 1950.

Just for comparison, a 1990s 146 measures 29.6g empty and 31.1g full, so also 1.5mL.

[guyy]

Since the 1950s 149s are a known quantity this is a bit off topic for this thread, but the capacities of other vintages of the 149 are not as widely known — or at least not in anglophone pendom. Here’s what i get:

1960s
(groove faced feed, friction fit piston)

full: 27.5g
dry: 25.5g

capacity: 2.0mL

1970s
(flat feed, 18c tricolor nib, plastic piston threads)

full: 30.7g
dry: 28.7g

capacity: 2.0mL

1980s
(14c bicolor nib, split ebonite feed, plastic piston threads)

full: 32.7g
dry: 30.4g

capacity: 2.3mL