Pen Filling Systems

[RobJohnson]

This was originally a side topic in the Guess the Pen thread.

We were talking about which pen company produced the largest number of different filling sytems, I suspect that it is Parker. Can you think of a company that might beat them?

[bunnspecial]

Just thinking through Parker-

Eyedropper
Button
Lever(not many, but a few)
Vacumatic
Aeromatic
Capillary
C/C

Then there are some others that I'm not sure where you'd lump them

For example-the VP was meant to be a "clean" filling system that's sort of an aeromatic filler that can be separated from the pen(like a converter). Given how fragile the filling unit is, I use my VP like an Aeromatic-type filler, and I understand later ones even came from the factory with the filler shellaced in.

At that as I understand it to truly be an "Aeromatic" filler you need the side-drilled breather tube to help equalize pressure. Pens like the 51 Special/21, Duofold, and other "squeeze" fill pens are technically a different system from the true 51 Aeromatics. Even on true Aeromatics, do we call the "squeeze" filler like used on later 51 Demis a different design from the "press design" used on full size 51 Aeros and the early Demis.

Then there are the red band 51s. I will fully admit to never having had one in my hands so can't speak first hand, but the diagrams I've seen sure look like it's a fancy button filler. I know there are some differences, though, in how exactly the pressure bar

[RobJohnson]

That is the figure I was thinking of also, I know that there is more than one type of Vacuum filler and some take the view that the 51 was the only aerometric system and all others were squeeze bar fillers.

Seven is a fair target.

Thank you for your contribution.

[christof]

Montblanc:

- sliding barrel filler (most probably a sleeve filler)
- safety filler
- pump filler („Vakuumfüller“) 1924 (!!)
- eye dropper filler
- pusknob filler (and "stossfüller")
- lever filler
- "compressor" filler
- piston filler (differential and telescopic)
- cartridge filler
-...

[bunnspecial]

That is the figure I was thinking of also, I know that there is more than one type of Vacuum filler and some take the view that the 51 was the only aerometric system and all others were squeeze bar fillers.

Seven is a fair target.

Thank you for your contribution.

We can really get into the weeds with it, but I think more of functional differences.

There were 3 types of vacumatic filler. The "speedline" and last version plastic filler are effectively identical aside from their construction. The lock-down filler is functionally the same aside, obviously, from the filler locking into the down position.

As I mentioned, the key difference on the earlier 51s and the later squeeze type filler(which was also used on later 51s) is the small side hole in the breather tube just above the feed. When then pen is nib up, the side hole should-in theory-give an easy path for expanding air(from heat or changes in ambient pressure) to escape and prevent leaking. How much of a difference it makes in the real world, I don't know.

[RobJohnson]

Agreed, I think a seven for Parker is fair and reasonable,

I don't know enough about Mabie Todds and Watermans to know if they can beat the target of the Montblanc nine.

[SlowMovingTarget]

PenBBS:

• cartridge/converter
• magnet filler
• piston filler
• vac filler
• syringe filler (their own version of a bulk filler)
• spring filler
• eyedropper

They're missing a few filling systems, but it'd be interesting to fill out the list of known systems:

• Sac-based
  
  • Lever
  • Knob (twists an internal bar)
  • Crescent
  • Sac-based vacuum filler (like SBRE Brown's Armando Simoni Club; he has a video where he talks about the system) I forget if this is similar to the Parker "vacuumatic" system
  • Button?
  
  
• Draw filler (Edison Pen Co. offers this in their custom editions)
• Safety
• Pump filler (not sure it's distinct but you get them on Noodler's Ink Ahab pens, for example)

What did I miss?

Please feel free to ignore if this diverges too much from the original topic.

[RobJohnson]

Not too many SMT. Capillary from the Parker 61 is one, there are also some variations on a theme such as the Onoto.

It will be interesting if there is a single manufacturer who has produced more than the nine systems as shown above.

[christof]

Waterman's:

- Eye dropper
- Safety
- Sleeve Filler
- button filler
- Coin Filler
- Lever Filler
- Pump Filler
- combination of Lever and Bulb Filler (Inkview)
- Glass Cartridge Filler
- Piston Filler
- Cartridge/Convertor Filler
- Capillary Filler
-...

[Seattleite]

Just thinking through Parker-

Eyedropper
Button
Lever(not many, but a few)
Vacumatic
Aeromatic
Capillary
C/C

Then there are some others that I'm not sure where you'd lump them

For example-the VP was meant to be a "clean" filling system that's sort of an aeromatic filler that can be separated from the pen(like a converter). Given how fragile the filling unit is, I use my VP like an Aeromatic-type filler, and I understand later ones even came from the factory with the filler shellaced in.

At that as I understand it to truly be an "Aeromatic" filler you need the side-drilled breather tube to help equalize pressure. Pens like the 51 Special/21, Duofold, and other "squeeze" fill pens are technically a different system from the true 51 Aeromatics. Even on true Aeromatics, do we call the "squeeze" filler like used on later 51 Demis a different design from the "press design" used on full size 51 Aeros and the early Demis.

Then there are the red band 51s. I will fully admit to never having had one in my hands so can't speak first hand, but the diagrams I've seen sure look like it's a fancy button filler. I know there are some differences, though, in how exactly the pressure bar

I will add the Click Filler, but it is really a variant of the earliest sac filler, The Conklin Cresent, as are most sac filled pens that use a pressure bar. How many filling systems are really just a variant of a bar pressing against a sac? The Click fill is the earliest self filling Parker.

How about the Pencopen? These are Parker-made BULB FILLERS that were sold by J.C. Penny's in the 1930's. i have a couple that use Parker Deluxe Challenger celluloids with a transparent barrel.

Bob

[RobJohnson]

That is remarkable Christof, several more than I had thought.

Thanks

[Seattleite]

Waterman's:

- Eye dropper
- Safety
- Sleeve Filler
- Matchstick Filler
- Coin Filler
- Lever Filler
- combination of Lever and Bulb Filler (Inkview)
- Glass Cartridge Filler
- Piston Filler
- Cartridge/Convertor Filler
- Capillary Filler
-...

I would place the safety under the heading of eyedropper, as far as filling goes.

Not familiar with Waterman matchstick, but i do have a matchstick that I think is an Aiken Lambert (Waterman sub-brand).

Waterman Pump-filler. I will have to take a pic of mine with the pump removed. These turn of the century pens were Watermans first self-filler. Their scarcity is a testament to their functionality.

I didn't know that they made a piston filler, but I don't pay much attention to pens post Y2K.

[christof]

I didn't know that they made a piston filler, but I don't pay much attention to pens post Y2K.

Not many people know that Waterman's made piston fillers in the 1950's







PS: maybe I was wrong with the match stick filler. need to research....

[RobJohnson]

Learning quite a lot from you guys, thank you for your contributions.

If I had thought about whether Waterman would have been a contender it would probably have been a negative. I have owned only a few, glass cartridge, modern cartridge, lever and .....thats all.

[RobJohnson]

That looks so neat, simple and functional Christof, just an O ring and a little periodic lubrication.

It is a pity that Waterman didn't continue with the idea, perhaps it was just too expensive to make when compared to a plastic cartridge.

[christof]

That looks so neat, simple and functional Christof, just an O ring and a little periodic lubrication.

It is a pity that Waterman didn't continue with the idea, perhaps it was just too expensive to make when compared to a plastic cartridge.

To be honest Rob, this piston isn't the best engineering I have ever seen. It needs the correct amount of friction between the seal and the barrel. If this is out of balance, it doesn't work anymore (have a couple of in my parts box...).

[Seattleite]

That looks so neat, simple and functional Christof, just an O ring and a little periodic lubrication.

It is a pity that Waterman didn't continue with the idea, perhaps it was just too expensive to make when compared to a plastic cartridge.

To be honest Rob, this piston isn't the best engineering I have ever seen. It needs the correct amount of friction between the seal and the barrel. If this is out of balance, it doesn't work anymore (have a couple of in my parts box...).

I have never seen one of these. very nice! I guess I don't pay much attention to pens post mid-century!

There is nothing other than friction keeping the piston from just rotating with the knob? A joy to restore with the need to do it often! I have some old cork piston pens of this design. Note the shallow pitch of the threads, compared to the steep pitch allowed by a typical splined piston filler design.

Very neat pen. Is it English?

Bob

[dneal]

That looks so neat, simple and functional Christof, just an O ring and a little periodic lubrication.

It is a pity that Waterman didn't continue with the idea, perhaps it was just too expensive to make when compared to a plastic cartridge.

To be honest Rob, this piston isn't the best engineering I have ever seen. It needs the correct amount of friction between the seal and the barrel. If this is out of balance, it doesn't work anymore (have a couple of in my parts box...).

I have never seen one of these. very nice! I guess I don't pay much attention to pens post mid-century!

There is nothing other than friction keeping the piston from just rotating with the knob? A joy to restore with the need to do it often! I have some old cork piston pens of this design. Note the shallow pitch of the threads, compared to the steep pitch allowed by a typical splined piston filler design.

Very neat pen. Is it English?

Bob

Never seen that either, and the threads per inch on the shaft does seem excessive. Seems like it would be a lot of turning...

Since the section comes off, I'm guessing it's a mechanism similar to later Omas.

christof - what's the inside of the shaft look like? Is it hollow and/or keyed?

[Chrissy]

I looked in the Pen Repair Manual and didn't find it in there. Looks fascinating and fairly simple but from what christof says it actually isn't.

[christof]

Never seen that either, and the threads per inch on the shaft does seem excessive. Seems like it would be a lot of turning...

yes, that is correct.

Since the section comes off, I'm guessing it's a mechanism similar to later Omas.

also correct.

christof - what's the inside of the shaft look like? Is it hollow and/or keyed?

which part du you mean with "shaft"? the piston spindle? it is solid, not hollow.