Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61

Thread: What do you think of the pfm??

  1. #41
    Senior Member mrcharlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    402
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked 220 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    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.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by mrcharlie View Post
    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
    Last edited by kirchh; January 25th, 2015 at 11:33 AM.
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 379 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    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

  4. #44
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,031
    Thanks
    1,504
    Thanked 510 Times in 344 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    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.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    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
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  6. #46
    Senior Member mrcharlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    402
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked 220 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcharlie View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,711 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    IIRC there was also an accordion fold one, but I'm old and may be wrong.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 379 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    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.

    Regards
    Hugh
    Last edited by HughC; January 26th, 2015 at 02:43 AM.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HughC For This Useful Post:

    Jeph (January 26th, 2015), mrcharlie (January 26th, 2015)

  10. #49
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,711 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by HughC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by jar; January 26th, 2015 at 10:31 AM. Reason: appalin spallin

  11. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 379 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    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

  12. #51
    Useless mhosea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,580
    Thanks
    440
    Thanked 1,819 Times in 786 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by HughC View Post
    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.
    --
    Mike

  13. #52
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,031
    Thanks
    1,504
    Thanked 510 Times in 344 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    - 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.
    Last edited by welch; January 26th, 2015 at 08:56 PM.

  14. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    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
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  15. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 379 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    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

  16. #55
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,031
    Thanks
    1,504
    Thanked 510 Times in 344 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    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.

  17. #56
    Useless mhosea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,580
    Thanks
    440
    Thanked 1,819 Times in 786 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by HughC View Post
    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.
    --
    Mike

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to mhosea For This Useful Post:

    welch (June 1st, 2020)

  19. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    - 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, with some wonderful photos of prototypes and test-market pens.

    --Daniel
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to kirchh For This Useful Post:

    welch (June 1st, 2020)

  21. #58
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,031
    Thanks
    1,504
    Thanked 510 Times in 344 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    - 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, 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.

  22. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    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
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to kirchh For This Useful Post:

    welch (June 1st, 2020)

  24. #60
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,031
    Thanks
    1,504
    Thanked 510 Times in 344 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: What do you think of the pfm??

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    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.
    Last edited by welch; January 30th, 2015 at 09:20 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •