The Conid's "Bulkfiller" - Why?

[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 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 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 ;- )

[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.


(Courtesy conidpen.com)