PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of the pfm??



tarheel1
September 10th, 2014, 05:57 PM
I have the urge for a Pfm 1 in blue with an italic broad nib. I would like to hear what you think of the pfm and if there are any quirks with it. You cal also post pics if you want. I have the nib sorted but just need to find the pen. I think i have a lead on one from Michael of Northwest pen works, just waiting on confirmation.

gregamckinney
September 11th, 2014, 10:10 AM
For me, PFM is one of the very best vintage pens from performance and visual perspectives.
I find them very reliable and durable. The looks are great, and they have a much thicker gripping section than many pens (most vintage pens.)
Also, pretty much any restorer will work on snorkel model pens, so no searching for someone for an arcane fix to an unknown model pen.

I have a collection of 22 of the 25 main models and colors.
However, the II is by far my favorite. My gray II never leaves my pocket.

http://gergyor.com/images/pfm_2_colors.jpg

Best Regards, greg

kirchh
January 22nd, 2015, 03:46 PM
For me, PFM is one of the very best vintage pens from performance and visual perspectives.
I find them very reliable and durable. The looks are great, and they have a much thicker gripping section than many pens (most vintage pens.)
Also, pretty much any restorer will work on snorkel model pens, so no searching for someone for an arcane fix to an unknown model pen.


I agree with Greg, though some folks prefer a flared section on their pens. I'll also mention that there are at least two different PFM V caps -- the "spire" and "block" versions:
http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Sheaffer_PFM_V_Cap_Versions_3.jpg

"Spire" cap has central spike on top of long block, interspersed with medium-length grounded blocks; the "block" cap lacks the spire on its slightly wider long blocks, and the alternating shorter blocks are small and floating. I believe these variations are seen on Imperials as well.

--Daniel

david i
January 22nd, 2015, 05:41 PM
It might have been Richard who used North Tower and South Tower years ago for the different patterns. Old news, though fun.

I quite agree with Greg. Great pen to use. The essentially continuous barrel-section gives great ergonomics.

One of the most charming bits in the Lore of the PFM is that i had the chance more than ten years ago to photograph one of the rarest and most oomphy PFM's, English production in solid 9k gold.

That I'd get to buy it when I coordinated the buy out of a big chunk of Steve-O's collection a decade later? Priceless (!)... except that the pen had a price that was not insignificant.

Davey's solid gold PFM


Here's the shot from when I didn't own this one.

Getting it a decade later was one of my major Happy David moments. Are even three known today?

I didn't manage to get the smooth finish pen though.



http://vacumania.com/penteech2/sheafferPFMgoldspread.jpg

regards

-d

HughC
January 22nd, 2015, 06:39 PM
At most 3 is all I can say I've heard about. Yours, Gary E. photoed one in London a few years ago and one turned up on FPN. The last two could be the same pen though, still that leaves 97 or 98 still "out there" if the touted run of 100 is correct. Given this number comes from people involved with Sheaffer UK at the time and are still alive it has significant credability.

Regards
Hugh

manoeuver
January 23rd, 2015, 07:58 AM
PFM is big and awesome. Ended up selling mine but I'd pick one up again if it called to me.

kirchh
January 23rd, 2015, 09:25 AM
Though it was the bottom-of-the-line model, I like the minimalist appearance of the PFM I -- not even a White Dot to clutter things up.

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Sheaffer_PFM_I_Gray.jpg
--Daniel

david i
January 23rd, 2015, 10:08 AM
Perhaps I'll do a modern reshoot of the solid gold PFM.

Probably time

regards

-d

kbrede
January 23rd, 2015, 10:49 AM
I was searching for a fine nib for my Sheaffer Targa and came across this pen. I love the looks of the inlaid nib and the ergonomics, with no step down.

They don't appear as common as some pens. From what I've gathered there's 5 different models? What should I expect to pay for a decent writer?

Thanks,
Kent

david i
January 23rd, 2015, 10:56 AM
Five relatively commonly found models the PFM I,II,III,IV, V.

The Autograph is an additional model, one a bit off the main sequence and one that often falls under the radar for many collectors.

The usual pricing caveats apply. You might find a nice one at a flea market for $10 or overpay for a flawed poorly presented pen.

Buuuut, a clean restored pen sold retail with warranty likely will start in the $225-250 range. Bargains can happen.

The solid gold one will cost a bit more ;)

-d

kirchh
January 23rd, 2015, 11:08 AM
Here's a quick shot of a PFM I in my favorite color; I like the simplicity of the look:

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Sheaffer_PFM_I_Gray_2.jpg

--Daniel

david i
January 23rd, 2015, 11:17 AM
I suppose I could dig up a photograph of an Autograph. A rather special pen. Not everyone has one.

regards

-d

mhosea
January 23rd, 2015, 12:01 PM
I would like to hear what you think of the pfm and if there are any quirks with it.

I have a PFM-III, black with gold trim. As a user, I had to get one to see how I liked it. Unfortunately, the geometry doesn't quite suit me somehow. It's not the girth itself, as I like a lot of pens in the same range, but I think I prefer longer pens if the girth is that wide. I might like the ones that have metal caps better, since the plastic cap seems to add extra girth where it contacts the webbing of my hand. As it stands, I prefer the Targa to the PFM-III.

Having said that, the only "quirk" I can think of is that it's hard to clean out the secondary feed adequately if you're changing inks or preparing it for dry storage. For me to use it more, I'd feel like I'd need to pick just one ink to use with it...and then pretty much keep it inked. Neither is consistent with my customary modus operandi.

Jon Szanto
January 23rd, 2015, 12:20 PM
I was only mildly curious about the PFM until I happened to be very fortunate and find a set for what can only be called a truly reasonable price. What I found is that it is one of the most comfortable pens for me to write with, and it has become one my favorite pens for writing letters. I like the simplicity (mine's a III in black) and it is smooth and reliable. Had I tried one and needed to pay top dollar, I probably would have passed. I consider myself lucky with this pen.

david i
January 23rd, 2015, 12:48 PM
Hi Jon,

Yeah, I'm fond of PFM. Note too that the more recent Sheaffer Legacy pens offer PFM heft, that same appealing gripping zone, and a plethora of appealing finishes. Then there are the Imperials, which ran for decades, skinnier than PFM though similar, also offering many finishes. Here are some Legacies.


http://vacumania.com/websitesalespics/tray1016sm.jpg

regards

d

Jon Szanto
January 23rd, 2015, 01:53 PM
Actually, David, I covet one of the Jim Gaston models, the Cobalt Blue (first seen by me when Jar posted photos of his). But, as always, resources are the issue. Dammit, Jim, I'm a drummer, not a doctor! (In a contorted version of "Bones" usual retort to Cap'n Kirk...)

david i
January 23rd, 2015, 02:14 PM
Actually, David, I covet one of the Jim Gaston models, the Cobalt Blue (first seen by me when Jar posted photos of his). But, as always, resources are the issue. Dammit, Jim, I'm a drummer, not a doctor! (In a contorted version of "Bones" usual retort to Cap'n Kirk...)

I'm insulted that you felt the need to provide reference for your final remark. ;)

-d

david i
January 23rd, 2015, 02:25 PM
I'm a Doctor...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MULMbqQ9LJ8


-d

Jon Szanto
January 23rd, 2015, 04:46 PM
Actually, David, I covet one of the Jim Gaston models, the Cobalt Blue (first seen by me when Jar posted photos of his). But, as always, resources are the issue. Dammit, Jim, I'm a drummer, not a doctor! (In a contorted version of "Bones" usual retort to Cap'n Kirk...)

I'm insulted that you felt the need to provide reference for your final remark. ;)

It's an international forum, and just in case that didn't translate too well across the pond, or wherever. Or Wearever.

jar
January 23rd, 2015, 05:16 PM
Actually, David, I covet one of the Jim Gaston models, the Cobalt Blue (first seen by me when Jar posted photos of his). But, as always, resources are the issue. Dammit, Jim, I'm a drummer, not a doctor! (In a contorted version of "Bones" usual retort to Cap'n Kirk...)

Even a drummer who lives long and prospers can ...

While I'm really fond of my PFMs I seem to find my Legacy family pens getting far more pocket time.The filling system of the PFM always struck me as somewhat of a Rube Goldberg invention.

kirchh
January 24th, 2015, 10:59 AM
Actually, David, I covet one of the Jim Gaston models, the Cobalt Blue (first seen by me when Jar posted photos of his). But, as always, resources are the issue. Dammit, Jim, I'm a drummer, not a doctor! (In a contorted version of "Bones" usual retort to Cap'n Kirk...)

Even a drummer who lives long and prospers can ...

While I'm really fond of my PFMs I seem to find my Legacy family pens getting far more pocket time.The filling system of the PFM always struck me as somewhat of a Rube Goldberg invention.
Though by comparison with the Intrigue, the PFM is simplicity itself!

--Daniel
Current host of TEGWAR/LW

david i
January 24th, 2015, 11:25 AM
I have so many spare PFM's...

-d

jar
January 24th, 2015, 11:46 AM
Actually, David, I covet one of the Jim Gaston models, the Cobalt Blue (first seen by me when Jar posted photos of his). But, as always, resources are the issue. Dammit, Jim, I'm a drummer, not a doctor! (In a contorted version of "Bones" usual retort to Cap'n Kirk...)

Even a drummer who lives long and prospers can ...

While I'm really fond of my PFMs I seem to find my Legacy family pens getting far more pocket time.The filling system of the PFM always struck me as somewhat of a Rube Goldberg invention.
Though by comparison with the Intrigue, the PFM is simplicity itself!

--Daniel
Current host of TEGWAR/LW

Yup, WORD!


http://www.fototime.com/80AE7FAEAE7B1D1/large.jpg

kirchh
January 24th, 2015, 12:06 PM
Actually, David, I covet one of the Jim Gaston models, the Cobalt Blue (first seen by me when Jar posted photos of his). But, as always, resources are the issue. Dammit, Jim, I'm a drummer, not a doctor! (In a contorted version of "Bones" usual retort to Cap'n Kirk...)

Even a drummer who lives long and prospers can ...

While I'm really fond of my PFMs I seem to find my Legacy family pens getting far more pocket time.The filling system of the PFM always struck me as somewhat of a Rube Goldberg invention.
Though by comparison with the Intrigue, the PFM is simplicity itself!

--Daniel
Current host of TEGWAR/LW

Yup, WORD!


http://www.fototime.com/80AE7FAEAE7B1D1/large.jpg


There you go! You have to appreciate the effort Sheaffer put in on that one. I believe the original name for the Intrigue was "Carrera," but perhaps the fact that Montblanc had already used that label caused Sheaffer to pick a new one before the product got to market. Sometimes these things are unpredictable, and other times reactions are compulsively fast. One could almost make a game of it (and the Internet makes it possible for many to participate these days). Something new comes out, then folks predict how quickly it will elicit a reaction. "Intrigue" is a good name, actually; what's with the sponge cake? I heard it's a lie...

--Daniel
^91/1

Nashua Pen Spa
January 24th, 2015, 12:12 PM
It might have been Richard who used North Tower and South Tower years ago for the different patterns. Old news, though fun.

Actually, it was Daniel Kirchheimer who invented the North Tower/South Tower terminology, back in 2006. I wanted to adopt it into my PFM profile, but everyone I consulted was horrified because of the tremendous emotional baggage those two names carried at the time. Now, with One World Trade Center standing, I might have to go ahead with the adoption. Food for thought.

david i
January 24th, 2015, 12:19 PM
It might have been Richard who used North Tower and South Tower years ago for the different patterns. Old news, though fun.

Actually, it was Daniel Kirchheimer who invented the North Tower/South Tower terminology, back in 2006. I wanted to adopt it into my PFM profile, but everyone I consulted was horrified because of the tremendous emotional baggage those two names carried at the time. Now, with One World Trade Center standing, I might have to go ahead with the adoption. Food for thought.

Good to know. We wee dabbler's had been discussing the pattern variation for years of course-- hardly anything new there-- but when you used those terms over drinks, you didn't cite source. Naughty Richard. ;)

Good to see Danny is following this chat so closely, as I knew he must. Bonus.

-d

welch
January 24th, 2015, 01:00 PM
(1) I am old enough to have seen TV commercials for the Snorkel. Suggested that the snork works like a mosquito...or one of those evil bugs in a 1950s horror movie. Bad association.

(2) The PfM and the Parker 61 show the different design directions the Big Two took toward the end of the "Golden Era". Goal, probably, was to minimize ink spills, to reduce messiness so a fountain pen could compete with ballpoints. Sheaffer designed a complex system -- many moving parts, the fiddly-weird Rube Goldberg quality that JAR mentions. "Takes the dunk out of filling", a slogan that Sheaffer put on their ink boxes. Parker went for simplicity, and the capillary system is nearly perfect. No moving parts. I suppose you could make a large mess by breaking off the capillary tube, but an owner would not have done that by accident. Parker then moved to the cartridge / converter, a system so good that it is used 65 years later.

(Consider: about 1963, Sheaffer was selling the snorkelized PfM, cartridge-only school pens, and soon Imperials with a touchdown filler, cartridge-only Imperials, and c/c Imperials. It looks as if Sheaffer was "thrashing": computer database jargon. They probably should have adopted one filling system, and stuck with it)

Ah, if Eversharp had been able to market a pen with their wonderful nibs but using the cartridge and converter rather than lever-and-sac. Eversharp might have survived, or, at least, survived longer.

kirchh
January 24th, 2015, 01:46 PM
(1) I am old enough to have seen TV commercials for the Snorkel. Suggested that the snork works like a mosquito...or one of those evil bugs in a 1950s horror movie. Bad association.

(2) The PfM and the Parker 61 show the different design directions the Big Two took toward the end of the "Golden Era". Goal, probably, was to minimize ink spills, to reduce messiness so a fountain pen could compete with ballpoints. Sheaffer designed a complex system -- many moving parts, the fiddly-weird Rube Goldberg quality that JAR mentions. "Takes the dunk out of filling", a slogan that Sheaffer put on their ink boxes. Parker went for simplicity, and the capillary system is nearly perfect. No moving parts. I suppose you could make a large mess by breaking off the capillary tube, but an owner would not have done that by accident. Parker then moved to the cartridge / converter, a system so good that it is used 65 years later.

(Consider: about 1963, Sheaffer was selling the snorkelized PfM, cartridge-only school pens, and soon Imperials with a touchdown filler, cartridge-only Imperials, and c/c Imperials. It looks as if Sheaffer was "thrashing": computer database jargon. They probably should have adopted one filling system, and stuck with it)

Ah, if Eversharp had been able to market a pen with their wonderful nibs but using the cartridge and converter rather than lever-and-sac. Eversharp might have survived, or, at least, survived longer.

The 61 may have had not moving parts, but it had plenty of parts (actually, there is a moving part -- the valve in the rear of the barrel), as restorers know all too well. And the Snorkel was a great success, while the capillary-filling 61, not so much. The absence of a built-in way to force liquid through the filling/feeding channels was a serious defect.

I would condense your characterization of Sheaffer's filling systems; the PFM is an enhanced Touchdown, and I'm not sure what a cartridge-only Imperial is, though I'm no expert on all the models being offered in '63, so fill me in on that. And the school pens, I believe, could use a converter, though they weren't sold with one due to their positioning low in the line, price-wise. So there was a Touchdown system (with a Snorkel variation) and there was a C/C setup, really (barring a true cartridge-only setup).

I also don't consider the Snorkel to be fiddly; properly restored, they can work without repair for a decade or more. As for the part count, a Vacumatic "51" had plenty of bits, too, though it's not considered a complex pen.

--Daniel

david i
January 24th, 2015, 02:02 PM
Found it.

A rare PFM. See if you spot the good stuff.

http://vacumania.com/penteech2/sheafferPFMautographset50pe.jpg


regards

d

Nashua Pen Spa
January 24th, 2015, 05:03 PM
Good to know. We wee dabbler's had been discussing the pattern variation for years of course-- hardly anything new there-- but when you used those terms over drinks, you didn't cite source.

In most disciplines, the person whose discovery is documented to the earliest date is the one who gets credit for it. You may have been discussing the variation for years, but it wasn't with me. I have no memory of discussing PFM cap patterns with anyone until I discovered the difference in 2006 and asked Daniel about it. A couple of emails went back and forth concerning the loan of a cap in the pattern I didn't have (the block pattern), and in one of them Daniel mentioned the North Tower/South Tower names. So I hereby award credit for this one to Daniel. :thumb:

welch
January 24th, 2015, 05:07 PM
(1) I am old enough to have seen TV commercials for the Snorkel. Suggested that the snork works like a mosquito...or one of those evil bugs in a 1950s horror movie. Bad association.

(2) The PfM and the Parker 61 show the different design directions the Big Two took toward the end of the "Golden Era". Goal, probably, was to minimize ink spills, to reduce messiness so a fountain pen could compete with ballpoints. Sheaffer designed a complex system -- many moving parts, the fiddly-weird Rube Goldberg quality that JAR mentions. "Takes the dunk out of filling", a slogan that Sheaffer put on their ink boxes. Parker went for simplicity, and the capillary system is nearly perfect. No moving parts. I suppose you could make a large mess by breaking off the capillary tube, but an owner would not have done that by accident. Parker then moved to the cartridge / converter, a system so good that it is used 65 years later.

(Consider: about 1963, Sheaffer was selling the snorkelized PfM, cartridge-only school pens, and soon Imperials with a touchdown filler, cartridge-only Imperials, and c/c Imperials. It looks as if Sheaffer was "thrashing": computer database jargon. They probably should have adopted one filling system, and stuck with it)

Ah, if Eversharp had been able to market a pen with their wonderful nibs but using the cartridge and converter rather than lever-and-sac. Eversharp might have survived, or, at least, survived longer.

The 61 may have had not moving parts, but it had plenty of parts (actually, there is a moving part -- the valve in the rear of the barrel), as restorers know all too well. And the Snorkel was a great success, while the capillary-filling 61, not so much. The absence of a built-in way to force liquid through the filling/feeding channels was a serious defect.

I would condense your characterization of Sheaffer's filling systems; the PFM is an enhanced Touchdown, and I'm not sure what a cartridge-only Imperial is, though I'm no expert on all the models being offered in '63, so fill me in on that. And the school pens, I believe, could use a converter, though they weren't sold with one due to their positioning low in the line, price-wise. So there was a Touchdown system (with a Snorkel variation) and there was a C/C setup, really (barring a true cartridge-only setup).

I also don't consider the Snorkel to be fiddly; properly restored, they can work without repair for a decade or more. As for the part count, a Vacumatic "51" had plenty of bits, too, though it's not considered a complex pen.

--Daniel

- Sure, the snorkel was a successful system in that Sheaffer sold many of them. However, the several steps needed to fill are a long way from a simple design: twist the blind cap to extend the ink-sucker, then pull out the touchdown part, whoosh it in, and retract. It is among the cleanest filling systems, which was a big selling point in the '50s to people who had completed high school about 1940 using inexpensive lever/sac fountain pens, had seen (and experienced) sacs breaking, had survived WW2, had begun buying houses and having kids in the late '40s and '50s. They knew about ink-stained shirts and the ballpoint appealed to them: especially after ballpoint-makers learned to make a writing ball with many crevices to scrape ink from ballpoint paste. Ballpoints became more reliable.

- The 61 solved the same problem in a simpler way, but had a show-stopper design flaw. Sheaffer's design got more complex while Parker's became simpler.

- Both the snorkel PFM and the 61 depended on a selling and support system -- a supply chain -- that began to fade away after about 1960. Pen counters began to disappear from department stores and department store chains began to fail. The owner of a PaperMate ballpoint could unscrew the cap and replace the writing / ink paste unit...without smearing ink on themselves unless they did something foolish. If your PfM had a problem with the ink-intake tube or the touchdown component, Sheaffer expected you to take the pen back to the dealer, which had Sheaffer repair people or would send the pen to a Sheaffer repair center. The ballpoint made that unnecessary. Similar problem for Parker, which designed the 61 about 1955, when the fountain pen supply chain was about the same as it had been when they sold the Vacumatic. Maybe a worse problem if the 61 dried out.

- the solution, of course, was the Parker 45. I think the 61 is a beautiful pen, but the Parker 75 was easier for an owner to maintain: an upscaled gift pen, a high-end pen that let the owner replace a nib or a barrel or a converter.

- Sheaffer filling systems: I used a Sheaffer school pen from 4th grade through 6th grade, roughly 1957 - 1960. Never saw a converter before I got a P-45 in 1961. Bought one for nostalgia a few years ago, but could not fit a current Sheaffer converter. Cartridge-only Imperials? I have one that seems to be an Imperial IV (gold nib, says Imperial IV on the box) but won't take a Sheaffer converter. Modern cartridges will work, but a modern twist converter won't fit and neither will an older squeeze converter -- from a Sheaffer 330.

david i
January 24th, 2015, 05:13 PM
Good to know. We wee dabbler's had been discussing the pattern variation for years of course-- hardly anything new there-- but when you used those terms over drinks, you didn't cite source.

In most disciplines, the person whose discovery is documented to the earliest date is the one who gets credit for it. You may have been discussing the variation for years, but it wasn't with me. I have no memory of discussing PFM cap patterns with anyone until I discovered the difference in 2006 and asked Daniel about it. A couple of emails went back and forth concerning the loan of a cap in the pattern I didn't have (the block pattern), and in one of them Daniel mentioned the North Tower/South Tower names. So I hereby award credit for this one to Daniel. :thumb:

Straw man. You are arguing positions that are not in debate, as if they are in debate.

Following your revelation as to where you heard the cited terms, I made no assertion about credit that required any further response from you *to me*. Generally speaking, "Good to know" is an acknowledgement of a point, not something to be argued *against* ;)

And, you appear to have misread my sentence. I did not say that you and I were discussing the variants for years, so you neither confirm nor refute anything by saying you and I hadn't been discussing the subject for years (or, more specifically, for years prior to your gaining awareness of the jargon in question). My sentence reads specifically, "We wee dabblers had been discussing...", not "You and I had been discussing...".

Best to keep details clear so as not to mislead readers.

I do rather enjoy that Danny is kept so involved.

regards

David

HughC
January 24th, 2015, 07:18 PM
It should be noted the 61 ended up being offered in c/c form which solved the capillary issues.

'63 did see the introduction of cartridge Imperials, these where labeled "Lifetime" on the clip as well as the Dolphin 1000 ( 1962) , a higher end model, and the Compact Cartridge pens from the same period (?) . This late '50's early '60's was a productive period for Sheaffer when you look at the models available , the following come to mind :Lady Sheaffer, Skripsert cartridge, Imperial ( the first TM TD style) , Target, Imperials ( I-VIII, Triumph, Masterpiece) Craftsman 52, Cadet 23, Craftsman/Cadet tip dips, Compact, Dolphin, PFM and TM Snorkel (up to '62 in Aust.) I tend to agree with Daniel that the snorkel should be considered as an enhanced TD for the sake of simplicity despite the differences. I'm not sure I find filling a Snorkel or a TD any more demanding than a converter ( even changing a cartridge requires a few steps ) , a capillary or a piston. I do find a lever the simplest though.

I have to agree with Welch, the P45 was a groundbreaking pen ( even if originally conceived by Eversharp) and something Sheaffer never quite managed to match ....but I do prefer Sheaffer regardless.

Regards
Hugh

kirchh
January 24th, 2015, 08:30 PM
(1) I am old enough to have seen TV commercials for the Snorkel. Suggested that the snork works like a mosquito...or one of those evil bugs in a 1950s horror movie. Bad association.

(2) The PfM and the Parker 61 show the different design directions the Big Two took toward the end of the "Golden Era". Goal, probably, was to minimize ink spills, to reduce messiness so a fountain pen could compete with ballpoints. Sheaffer designed a complex system -- many moving parts, the fiddly-weird Rube Goldberg quality that JAR mentions. "Takes the dunk out of filling", a slogan that Sheaffer put on their ink boxes. Parker went for simplicity, and the capillary system is nearly perfect. No moving parts. I suppose you could make a large mess by breaking off the capillary tube, but an owner would not have done that by accident. Parker then moved to the cartridge / converter, a system so good that it is used 65 years later.

(Consider: about 1963, Sheaffer was selling the snorkelized PfM, cartridge-only school pens, and soon Imperials with a touchdown filler, cartridge-only Imperials, and c/c Imperials. It looks as if Sheaffer was "thrashing": computer database jargon. They probably should have adopted one filling system, and stuck with it)

Ah, if Eversharp had been able to market a pen with their wonderful nibs but using the cartridge and converter rather than lever-and-sac. Eversharp might have survived, or, at least, survived longer.

The 61 may have had not moving parts, but it had plenty of parts (actually, there is a moving part -- the valve in the rear of the barrel), as restorers know all too well. And the Snorkel was a great success, while the capillary-filling 61, not so much. The absence of a built-in way to force liquid through the filling/feeding channels was a serious defect.

I would condense your characterization of Sheaffer's filling systems; the PFM is an enhanced Touchdown, and I'm not sure what a cartridge-only Imperial is, though I'm no expert on all the models being offered in '63, so fill me in on that. And the school pens, I believe, could use a converter, though they weren't sold with one due to their positioning low in the line, price-wise. So there was a Touchdown system (with a Snorkel variation) and there was a C/C setup, really (barring a true cartridge-only setup).

I also don't consider the Snorkel to be fiddly; properly restored, they can work without repair for a decade or more. As for the part count, a Vacumatic "51" had plenty of bits, too, though it's not considered a complex pen.

--Daniel

- Sure, the snorkel was a successful system in that Sheaffer sold many of them. However, the several steps needed to fill are a long way from a simple design: twist the blind cap to extend the ink-sucker, then pull out the touchdown part, whoosh it in, and retract.

This characterization puzzles me. It is identical as far as the number of steps needed by the user to the ordinary Touchdown system, which can hardly be considered "far from simple," and it is simpler than, say, the Vacumatic system.


- Sheaffer filling systems: I used a Sheaffer school pen from 4th grade through 6th grade, roughly 1957 - 1960. Never saw a converter before I got a P-45 in 1961. Bought one for nostalgia a few years ago, but could not fit a current Sheaffer converter. Cartridge-only Imperials? I have one that seems to be an Imperial IV (gold nib, says Imperial IV on the box) but won't take a Sheaffer converter. Modern cartridges will work, but a modern twist converter won't fit and neither will an older squeeze converter -- from a Sheaffer 330.

Well, in fairness, your not having seen a converter doesn't bear on whether, around 1963, Sheaffer pens that took cartridges could also use a converter. You have a couple of pens from the time that you say won't take a current Sheaffer converter or a squeeze converter, but Sheaffer converters from the mid-'60s might fit perfectly.

So again, I'd say Sheaffer had two filling methods around 1963: the Touchdown (and it's equal-number-of-filling-steps Snorkel version) and the cartridge/converter design.

--Daniel
t-1:37

david i
January 24th, 2015, 09:09 PM
And, too, there is that Burgundy Autograph.

regards

-d

HughC
January 24th, 2015, 09:22 PM
Did Sheaffer have converters in 1963? A lack of factual documentation leaves this open, personal opinion is often not the best to rely on.

kirchh
January 24th, 2015, 09:31 PM
Did Sheaffer have converters in 1963? A lack of factual documentation leaves this open, personal opinion is often not the best to rely on.

A good question, Harry. Worth digging into!

--Daniel

david i
January 25th, 2015, 02:47 AM
I'd thought I'd shot it, but perhaps not.

Soon...

-d

HughC
January 25th, 2015, 02:55 AM
Did Sheaffer have converters in 1963? A lack of factual documentation leaves this open, personal opinion is often not the best to rely on.

A good question, Harry. Worth digging into!

--Daniel

Indeed, the obvious answer is yes (therefor questionable) but the lack of anything concrete does make it questionable. I used Sheaffer school pens ( in the '60's in Aust.) and never saw a converter but the cartridges where so cheap it negated the need. I only have one cartridge pen from the early days, a Lady Sheaffer ( clipless like an early Tuckaway, also an ideal woman's pen as you've noted previously), it takes standard cartridges but neither a slim (Targa) nor standard converter fit. Perhaps this point can be discussed in a civil and factual manner as it's relevant. You have the '63 catalog, does it mention converters ? It may be possible Sheaffer was late to use converters which in some ways negate the benefit of a cartridge and perhaps seen as pointless as they offered a variety of similar TD models. It's worth pointing out this is something Parker stopped doing making converters more relevant to them.

Hugh

HughC
January 25th, 2015, 02:59 AM
And, too, there is that Burgundy Autograph.

regards

-d

I've seen the photo...and it's pretty !! Now the history of that would be nice to know....a true rarity indeed.

Regards
Hugh

Edit to add: From the old days....probably ended up with a lot of tats and tits and no pen in sight.....

mrcharlie
January 25th, 2015, 08:42 AM
I don't know when Sheaffer started making the squeezy converters; that is something I'm curious about also.

But I do know that they fit into the old student market "Sheaffer Cartridge Pens", including the original rounded end versions which initially were called Skripserts. I have about 20 of these (maybe closer to 30) and use them frequently. I've fitted the old Imperial/Targa squeezy converters in them with no problem. They don't fit into the student market pens that have the shrouded nibs and are now most commonly called "Skripserts" online and were called Skripserts in advertising copy after the original open nib cartridge pens stopped being called that. Or rather, they "fit" into the shrouded nib pens but get easily stuck in the barrel. This, despite that these pens have a larger outside diameter than the "Cartridge Pens". It is possible they were meant to fit but my pens' plastic has shrunk just a tiny bit over the years and that causes the converters to stick in the barrel.

The current piston converter does not fit into the original open nib student market Cartridge Pens/Skripserts, which I'm sure is not new information to the collectors discussing things in this item, but FYI for anyone else reading this. Only the old squeezy converters fit.

There is at least one Imperial that takes carts but has a short barrel; it doesn't have the void at the end of the barrel past the shoulder that stops the end of the cartridge, and that void is needed for the squeezy converter to fit. This is why that Imperial is "cartridge only" and not C/C. I have one of these, unused NOS with case and original box of carts and everything (purchased a couple years ago from Peyton St).

Given my experience with those two, it would not surprise me if the old converters don't fit some or all the Lady cartridge pens/Skripserts, but I don't have any of them so no experience or testing.

kirchh
January 25th, 2015, 11:28 AM
There is at least one Imperial that takes carts but has a short barrel; it doesn't have the void at the end of the barrel past the shoulder that stops the end of the cartridge, and that void is needed for the squeezy converter to fit. This is why that Imperial is "cartridge only" and not C/C.

Could be, but there was also a button converter that, I believe, was somewhat more compact. Have you tried one of those in these pens?

--Daniel
LLTR:5:16

HughC
January 25th, 2015, 02:32 PM
The button converter doesn't fit my Lady Sheaffer either, I believe it's the earliest converter Sheaffer produced. It does fit the late '60's Stylist while the standard squeeze doesn't. The button filler is slightly longer than a cartridge, just long enough that the cartridge stop prevents it fitting if it's not got a big enough opening to accommodate the button.

Regards
Hugh

welch
January 25th, 2015, 06:19 PM
Sheaffer converter in 1963 or so? That Sheaffer IV (named on the box) has "Lifetime" on the clip. Its barrel is too narrow and too short to accept a Sheaffer 330 squeeze converter. Won't take a current Sheaffer twist converter, either. Sam Fiorella once mentioned a converter that might, but only might, work in the Lifetime / Imperial IV. The converter was from a later Sheaffer pen, although I can't remember the name. I got one, having been born stubborn. I think the "Lifetime" had a gold nib...thought it might make a better pen than a 330.

The issue with Sheaffer offering several different and incompatible filling systems at roughly the same time: it suggests that Sheaffer was unsure. The technical phrase: "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks". The Intrigue might be a late example of uncertainty about the core of a product: trying to make a cartridge pen that also wants to be a piston-filler.

On design: a simpler solution is usually better. Fewer subsystem or components that might fail. The 61 capillary refills in a simpler way than the PfM. If the late '50s were the end of the golden age of fountain pens, then comparing the PfM to the 61 shows Sheaffer and Parker taking different approaches to solving the same business problem.

I own two PfMs, and both were bought from reliable people within the last four years, and both have problems. A black PfM I shows ink streaks on the outside of its touchdown rod when extended. Not a lot of ink, but any ink hints at a leak. I have a blue PfM I with an ink-sucker that has turned about 180 degrees. Neither pen has been abused; they have sat empty most of the time I've had them.

A quick comparison: I have two 61 capillary pens that I almost never use, since the 61 cartridge / converter is easier to clean. Inked one of the capillary pens out of curiosity. After some juggling, it wrote...leading to an obvious question: how long would the 61 capillary last, assuming that the hood and barrel did not crack? There is no filling system to twist, extend, pull, etc.

kirchh
January 25th, 2015, 07:24 PM
Sheaffer converter in 1963 or so? That Sheaffer IV (named on the box) has "Lifetime" on the clip. Its barrel is too narrow and too short to accept a Sheaffer 330 squeeze converter. Won't take a current Sheaffer twist converter, either. Sam Fiorella once mentioned a converter that might, but only might, work in the Lifetime / Imperial IV. The converter was from a later Sheaffer pen, although I can't remember the name. I got one, having been born stubborn. I think the "Lifetime" had a gold nib...thought it might make a better pen than a 330.

This leaves open the possibility that your pen would take the roughly contemporaneous converter -- the button converter.


The issue with Sheaffer offering several different and incompatible filling systems at roughly the same time: it suggests that Sheaffer was unsure. The technical phrase: "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks".

Again, there seems to have been two basic systems -- Touchdown and C/C, with certain models not accepting a converter.


On design: a simpler solution is usually better. Fewer subsystem or components that might fail. The 61 capillary refills in a simpler way than the PfM.

This characterization doesn't really mean anything. A simpler solution than one that fulfills all the requirements isn't better if it does not fulfill the requirements. As Roger Sessions said, paraphrasing a remark he attributed to Einstein, "everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler." The 61 did not have a mechanism for flushing the fluid passages, which might well have contributed to its poor sales compared to the Snorkel. And a Snorkel could be emptied of ink by its owner, for storage or to change colors. A 61, not so much.


I own two PfMs, and both were bought from reliable people within the last four years, and both have problems. A black PfM I shows ink streaks on the outside of its touchdown rod when extended. Not a lot of ink, but any ink hints at a leak.

That sounds like a sac failure, and it might be due to the installation of a defectively-formulated sac. That leak is probably destroying the spring. A sac failure is not a problem that is peculiar to the PFM; it could affect any pen with a sac.


I have a blue PfM I with an ink-sucker that has turned about 180 degrees. Neither pen has been abused; they have sat empty most of the time I've had them.

The Snorkel tube will become 180 degrees out of alignment from the pen being disassembled and then reassembled improperly. I can't think of any way the tube can be turned upside-down through normal use.

In my experience, properly-restored PFMs give years of trouble-free service and start right up.


A quick comparison: I have two 61 capillary pens that I almost never use, since the 61 cartridge / converter is easier to clean. Inked one of the capillary pens out of curiosity. After some juggling, it wrote...leading to an obvious question: how long would the 61 capillary last, assuming that the hood and barrel did not crack? There is no filling system to twist, extend, pull, etc.

Do you mean, how long would it last before the owner had to take it to a dealer to flush it?

--Daniel

mrcharlie
January 25th, 2015, 08:40 PM
There is at least one Imperial that takes carts but has a short barrel; it doesn't have the void at the end of the barrel past the shoulder that stops the end of the cartridge, and that void is needed for the squeezy converter to fit. This is why that Imperial is "cartridge only" and not C/C.

Could be, but there was also a button converter that, I believe, was somewhat more compact. Have you tried one of those in these pens?

--Daniel
LLTR:5:16
I have not; I have never had the button converter. I've only had the squeezy with opaque rubber sac, same with clear sack, and the current piston unit.

jar
January 25th, 2015, 09:16 PM
IIRC there was also an accordion fold one, but I'm old and may be wrong.

HughC
January 26th, 2015, 02:38 AM
IIRC there was also an accordion fold one, but I'm old and may be wrong.

It would seem you're correct !! Penhero quotes it as the earliest converter and around '63 for use in the Lifetimes models. He also notes it's uncommon ( I haven't seen one ) and generally non working due to the plastic tearing, so now days they are cartridge only pens in reality ( unless the button converter actually fits...). '66 or so for the button filler and late '60's for the standard squeeze filler. See here (http://www.penhero.com/PenInHand/2005/PenInHandMay2005.htm).

Regards
Hugh

jar
January 26th, 2015, 07:19 AM
IIRC there was also an accordion fold one, but I'm old and may be wrong.

It would seem you're correct !! Penhero quotes it as the earliest converter and around '63 for use in the Lifetimes models. He also notes it's uncommon ( I haven't seen one ) and generally non working due to the plastic tearing, so now days they are cartridge only pens in reality ( unless the button converter actually fits...). '66 or so for the button filler and late '60's for the standard squeeze filler. See here (http://www.penhero.com/PenInHand/2005/PenInHandMay2005.htm).

Regards
Hugh

Neat. Yup, that looks like what I remember. Makes sense too since I do own some Lifetime Imperials I bought about then. That was an early career period when I was a optician.

HughC
January 26th, 2015, 05:43 PM
Sheaffer converter in 1963 or so? That Sheaffer IV (named on the box) has "Lifetime" on the clip. Its barrel is too narrow and too short to accept a Sheaffer 330 squeeze converter. Won't take a current Sheaffer twist converter, either. Sam Fiorella once mentioned a converter that might, but only might, work in the Lifetime / Imperial IV. The converter was from a later Sheaffer pen, although I can't remember the name. I got one, having been born stubborn. I think the "Lifetime" had a gold nib...thought it might make a better pen than a 330.

The issue with Sheaffer offering several different and incompatible filling systems at roughly the same time: it suggests that Sheaffer was unsure. The technical phrase: "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks". The Intrigue might be a late example of uncertainty about the core of a product: trying to make a cartridge pen that also wants to be a piston-filler.

On design: a simpler solution is usually better. Fewer subsystem or components that might fail. The 61 capillary refills in a simpler way than the PfM. If the late '50s were the end of the golden age of fountain pens, then comparing the PfM to the 61 shows Sheaffer and Parker taking different approaches to solving the same business problem.

I own two PfMs, and both were bought from reliable people within the last four years, and both have problems. A black PfM I shows ink streaks on the outside of its touchdown rod when extended. Not a lot of ink, but any ink hints at a leak. I have a blue PfM I with an ink-sucker that has turned about 180 degrees. Neither pen has been abused; they have sat empty most of the time I've had them.

A quick comparison: I have two 61 capillary pens that I almost never use, since the 61 cartridge / converter is easier to clean. Inked one of the capillary pens out of curiosity. After some juggling, it wrote...leading to an obvious question: how long would the 61 capillary last, assuming that the hood and barrel did not crack? There is no filling system to twist, extend, pull, etc.

Your comments about Sheaffer being unsure is reasonable, always a good idea to leave options open until the best direction becomes clear. Still Sheaffer had had excellent sales success with TD type pens during the '50's so a natural reluctance to leave it to head down a completely a new path understandable. The problem is that looking at it now may well give a different take than what was occurring in '63. Different filling systems because they couldn't decide or different systems for different markets? Interestingly the PFM may have decided the issue as, apparently, it wasn't a sales success, I don't know how the the TD Imperials performed in the market place but history shows they disappeared and I would suggest two possible reasons 1. Poor sales 2. Cost of production made cartridge pens more appealing. I'm not sure about Parker and Sheaffer taking approaches that varied all that much, the 45 was an Eversharp idea they purchased with the company, the 61 (capillary) had issues with ink drying inside, the 51 retained a fixed filler into the '70's, the English Duofolds likewise well into the '60's and the VP had an odd one. No doubt the 45 ( and the 75) was a great pen ( durable, problem free, easily changed nibs and cheap) that marketing and with cosmetic changes managed to achieve remarkable longevity. Sheaffer appear to have missed the chance early in the '60's to produce a long lived workhorse to rival the 45 yet they had models to do it like the Imperial II/III ( couldn't have been hard to put a screw in nib in them especially as Sheaffer had been making them for a decade by then) and the "Dolphin" line ( the basic 500 is every bit as good if not better than the 45 as a user). Anyway both ended up reliant on the cartridge !!

I'm not convinced the capillary offered any real advantages, other than marketing something new, for Parker. The aerometric has proven to be the most reliable and long lived filling system from that era leaving the clogging capillary and TDs way behind from a practical point, still the capillary probably would have a long life just with more maintenance, which leads me to think the 61 with an aerometric would have been far better. While Sheaffers TDs could not match the reliability of the aerometric I, personally, think of them as a relatively user friendly filler after cartridge and lever.

On design, TDs (with or without snorkel) aren't that complicated in real terms with a snorkel having 3 replaceable parts ( excluding spring) and the TD 2 which to my mind is not that many. Plastics seem to create more issues with age than design.

Regards
Hugh

mhosea
January 26th, 2015, 07:07 PM
I'm not convinced the capillary offered any real advantages, other than marketing something new, for Parker. The aerometric has proven to be the most reliable and long lived filling system from that era leaving the clogging capillary and TDs way behind from a practical point, still the capillary probably would have a long life just with more maintenance, which leads me to think the 61 with an aerometric would have been far better.

I think the capillary system can be finicky even when kept clean. There's something more going on there than just being prone to clogging.

I do like the contour of the 61 fountain pens, and the 61 ballpoints with a modern Parker gel refill are compact and convenient, easily operated with one hand. As for wishing the 61 fountain pens had been this or that, I don't know what would have been the winning combination at the time, but for me, now, many years later, I wish they had updated the "51" to the 61's shape, kept the aerometric filler, and stayed with acrylic. If using acrylic means that I can't have the arrow in the hood, so be it, though I do like that arrow.

welch
January 26th, 2015, 08:46 PM
- design simplicity: of course a product has to work. Any product that fails is infinitely more expensive than a product that sells at a higher price and does what a customer wants; a design that does not meet requirements is a waste.

- typical reasons a product might not meet customer requirements:

(1) "time boxed" product release might force a product to be put into production before it has been adequately tested ("time boxed" means that a product manager has told the market that product ABC will be available on April 1). Development group argues that certain requirements are unnecessary or might force quality assurance to limit testing. ("Lets stop testing while it still works").

(2) Implementation group, including QA, develop the product under ideal conditions. Real world is harsher.

(3) Marketing does not spend enough time to learn what the customer wants

(4) Customers raise new requirements once they begin to use the product

I've seen failures from all four reasons, and from a fifth that is more a product of big organizations that punish "failure": engineers and testers spot a show-stopper but each layer of management minimizes the problem in reporting upward.

Assumption: Sheaffer and Parker competed to have the cleanest filling system. Both competed against the ballpoint as it became more and more reliable in the late '50s.

The Parker 61 might be hard to flush, but was "must flush easily" a market requirement in the mid-50s? That seems unlikely. My memory (and, yes, I was in grade school) says that people usually had one fountain pen and used one ink. They refilled with the same ink over and over, day after day. In the US, people used Skrip and Quink, in blue, blue-black, and black. Grownups used permanent, school kids used washable ink. (I've read about Carter's ink, but don't remember seeing it. Same with Waterman) Ink-makers did not offer 100 different colors.

The 61 would seem to have been almost a perfect design, but a design with a single killer flaw. If the pen dried out, an owner probably took the pen back to the store: fountain pens had never been do-it-yourself products (although a ballpoint was: makes the P-45 design the best solution, although I wouldn't criticize either company for failing to predict the future). Did Parker's engineering and marketing group spot the problem but decide to ignore it? We would need Parker's internal correspondence, but it would be interesting to read pre-release test reports. Parker tested the P-51 for about a year in Latin America before making the pen generally available. What did they do with the 61?

The snorkel filling system might look like an enhanced touchdown, but Sheaffer advertised the snorkeling quality...thus, my association with mosquitoes (= bad). See the PFM commercial from the Jimmy Durante Show, which boasts that the PFM's exclusive snorkel filling system drinks up Skrip "like soda from a straw": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE7xaKZf9Ew

(My two leaky PFM's came from reliable people. I have a touchdown from the late '40s that is balky, and four or five newer TDs -- "Dolphin" nib and Imperials -- that are smooth.)

Aha: on the original question, this is a long-winded way of saying that I will have someone else repair the PFM's and sell them, keeping a Sheaffer Legacy.

kirchh
January 27th, 2015, 10:32 AM
We know from the variety of 61 prototypes and test-market models, and from associated information in the Parker archives, that the 61 did have a test-market (or test-use) phase or phases. Indeed, in pre-production versions of the pen, the user didn't even need to unscrew the barrel to fill it -- it absorbed its load of ink right through the nib.

It's hard to characterize the design of the 61 as nearly perfect with a killer flaw, when the flaw is a direct consequence of the (over?) simplicity of the design. I agree that typical consumers wouldn't need to change inks.

Re your PFMs: there was a batch of defective sacs that failed prematurely and messily; your dealer might have installed one of those in the pen hat now has an inky plunger tube. For the other pen, if the Snorkel tube was properly oriented when you received it, and it is now rotated 180 degrees, it almost certainly has been disassembled and improperly reassembled at some point.

--Daniel

HughC
January 27th, 2015, 07:18 PM
Whether a design is good ,bad or indifferent depends, to a degree, on how you look at it and expected outcomes. From a user perspective the 61 is a good pen to use and easy to fill and clean, there's not a lot wrong from that viewpoint. Dried ink is a serviceable issue ( bearing in mind Mike's comments about the system as a whole) so hard to call it a killer flaw, inconvenient though. How problematic was the capillary filler in reality given it had a 13 yr run? Parker had alternatives ( which it eventually used) from a much earlier date than 1969.

I think calling the capillary filler simple is wrong. True it's simple to use but from a manufacturing point was considered complicated ( according to the Parker Pen site) and I imagine taking apart, fully cleaning and reassembling ( as opposed to flushing which I doubt would restore it to 100%) would also be difficult making complete restoration near impossible. A cartridge is simple as is an eyedropper, next level is a bulb filler then it's downhill from there as far as future servicing needs go.

Regards
Hugh

welch
January 27th, 2015, 07:59 PM
We know from the variety of 61 prototypes and test-market models, and from associated information in the Parker archives, that the 61 did have a test-market (or test-use) phase or phases. Indeed, in pre-production versions of the pen, the user didn't even need to unscrew the barrel to fill it -- it absorbed its load of ink right through the nib.

It's hard to characterize the design of the 61 as nearly perfect with a killer flaw, when the flaw is a direct consequence of the (over?) simplicity of the design. I agree that typical consumers wouldn't need to change inks.

Re your PFMs: there was a batch of defective sacs that failed prematurely and messily; your dealer might have installed one of those in the pen hat now has an inky plunger tube. For the other pen, if the Snorkel tube was properly oriented when you received it, and it is now rotated 180 degrees, it almost certainly has been disassembled and improperly reassembled at some point.

--Daniel

- A big design risk is to put too many innovations into a new release. My instinct / experience (34 years as computer programmer / system designer / project manager / requirements engineer and a dozen other titles that were trendy at the time): do one new thing, maybe two. Biggest problem with the P-61 was that it was so different from the evolution of fountain pen filling systems. Like starting from point zero.

- If there are test records from the P-61 beta, it would be interesting to know if Parker spotted the dry-out problem, and, if they did, was it considered a minor flaw? Parker was not a big company; I would not expect it to have had many management layers, each with an interest in under-reporting a bug.

mhosea
January 27th, 2015, 10:39 PM
From a user perspective the 61 is a good pen to use and easy to fill and clean, there's not a lot wrong from that viewpoint. [snip] How problematic was the capillary filler in reality given it had a 13 yr run? Parker had alternatives ( which it eventually used) from a much earlier date than 1969.


Indeed, I like the concept of the capillary filler rather a lot. I thought it would be great for using ink samples, but I ran into some sort of snag. I am certain that mine were squeaky clean on the inside when I filled them, and I am likewise certain that they soaked up a lot of ink, and yet I had flow issues resulting in hard-starting...or not writing at all. My suspicion is that it is that last step to the plastic feed that does or doesn't happen properly, depending on the ink's flow properties, surface tension, or what not. The internal gaps were probably designed with Parker's inks and the like in mind, rather than the modern, wet-writing, free-flowing, highly-saturated inks. If a customer were to experience such problems in the past, they might be admonished to use a Parker ink, and then magically the problem might have disappeared.

kirchh
January 28th, 2015, 04:06 PM
- If there are test records from the P-61 beta, it would be interesting to know if Parker spotted the dry-out problem, and, if they did, was it considered a minor flaw? Parker was not a big company; I would not expect it to have had many management layers, each with an interest in under-reporting a bug.

There's a nice write-up of the development of the 61 at Tony Fischier's parkerpens.net site here (http://parkerpens.net/parker61.html), with some wonderful photos of prototypes and test-market pens.

--Daniel

welch
January 30th, 2015, 12:52 AM
- If there are test records from the P-61 beta, it would be interesting to know if Parker spotted the dry-out problem, and, if they did, was it considered a minor flaw? Parker was not a big company; I would not expect it to have had many management layers, each with an interest in under-reporting a bug.

There's a nice write-up of the development of the 61 at Tony Fischier's parkerpens.net site here (http://parkerpens.net/parker61.html), with some wonderful photos of prototypes and test-market pens.

--Daniel

I've read Tony's account. Clearly, Parker invested a lot of effort into the 61, including test samples. What's missing is an account of test results. Did early users complain about clogged pens? It seems that they didn't report the problem; an example of a problem that appears only when a product goes to general availability. The capillary, I think, was a great idea that did not quite work. The problem with hood-arrows dropping is cosmetic. If only someone had considered dry-out and cleaning!

(For a similar problem, my company developed a totally new messaging system in 1998 - 2001. I was project manager on the first release of the message-transaction version...which is used 15 years later by all banks that do cross-border payments. Was soundly beaten up for demanding that critical bugs be fixed before we released, by the way. Next was a file-transfer version based on the classic "FTP". The file-transfer version passed all tests, and successfully transferred about three of every four files. Not good, since it was used to transfer "small value payments". The first half-dozen banks sent it back, because they could not live with "almost correct" accounts. As in, Company XYZ cannot distribute paychecks because they did not receive the money from Company ABC. After a month or so of pilot testing, a group was chosen to make a file transfer system out of multiple transactions. The only thing that saved us was that our telco went bankrupt, so the developers had an extra year to get the new system right.

(A fountain pen equivalent would have been if Parker dropped the capillary filler in 1961 for a cartridge / converter...which they tried briefly on the 51.)

Still, the capillary was an "almost brilliant" idea.

kirchh
January 30th, 2015, 08:42 AM
It is also possible that Parker optimistically waved away the flushing concern by expecting that 61 buyers would bring their pens to dealers for purging with the Whirl-Clean centrifugal pen cleaners Parker supplied; they may even have seen this as a plus, as it would compel consumers to visit Parker shops where they could be enticed into additional purchases.

--Daniel

welch
January 30th, 2015, 09:17 PM
It is also possible that Parker optimistically waved away the flushing concern by expecting that 61 buyers would bring their pens to dealers for purging with the Whirl-Clean centrifugal pen cleaners Parker supplied; they may even have seen this as a plus, as it would compel consumers to visit Parker shops where they could be enticed into additional purchases.

--Daniel

I agree. Best guess: the flushing problem only came to be seen as a problem once the classic sales/repair system evaporated. Maybe: around 1960. I bought most of my school supplies, including Skrip, from a drug store. Vaguely remember that they also sold Sheaffer school pens (the translucent ones) in a "blister pack". Don't remember a dedicated pen shop in the DC area...Fahrney's existed, but I never saw it. My parents probably bought my dear old Parker 45 at a department store, in 1961, but that store had no pen counter by 1963, when I started high school.

welch
June 1st, 2020, 11:50 AM
Having revived a couple of Parker 61 capillary fillers recently, after sticking them away and forgetting them for about ten years: the capillary system seems like an elegant design. Solid design as long as users have patience to soak a '61 if it seems clogged. I soaked the filler one night and the nib-feed all day, and each filled and wrote. No trouble. No extra parts to fill and clean or replace. One had the ordinary old-pen problem of slightly uneven tines. The other is perfect. Nib is too fine for my taste, but it writes enthusiastically even after having been left for a week.

Flawed users, rather than what I called, five years ago, a single flaw in the design.