P 65 Ad..on Vacumania!!
#2
Posted 31 August 2011 - 02:26 AM
This is listed on Vacumania as having a non removable aerometric filler, my understanding is that all 65's had a removable filler. Is Isaacson wrong !!....or am I wrong again
Regards
Hugh
Hey, I live for being wrong. I often cannot tell apart a converter from an aerometric style filling unit (fixed) just by appearance, especially on English pens. A little pull did not budge the thing. I'm hesitant to force it for fear of doing a Parker VP-like destruction. I certainly can use ultrasound to see about loosening it, and I can shoot picture soon to show the unit, but it seems fixed on first pass.
Thoughts?
david
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net
#3
Posted 31 August 2011 - 11:37 AM
Hey, I live for being wrong. I often cannot tell apart a converter from an aerometric style filling unit (fixed) just by appearance, especially on English pens. A little pull did not budge the thing. I'm hesitant to force it for fear of doing a Parker VP-like destruction. I certainly can use ultrasound to see about loosening it, and I can shoot picture soon to show the unit, but it seems fixed on first pass.
Thoughts?
david
There are indeed "65s" with a VP-style filler, so be careful. Here's an image of the two filler styles.
/Tony
#4
Posted 31 August 2011 - 09:21 PM
If for no other reason than to give hope to the rest of us that he is human....
#5
Posted 31 August 2011 - 11:00 PM
One can only hope that David can be proven wrong...
If for no other reason than to give hope to the rest of us that he is human....
Geez... TOUGH CROWD
Or, to quote River Song...
Hellooooo Boys.
Thoughts?
regards
David
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net
#8
Posted 01 September 2011 - 11:32 AM
John Danza
"Positive attitude makes for good decisions, but bad decisions make for great stories."
#10
Posted 01 September 2011 - 10:05 PM
Regards from the heart of rural England.
Ian
#11
Posted 01 September 2011 - 11:11 PM
IOf course this does open up the debate as to what distinguishes a converter from an 'aerometric' unit. For instance is it a converter because it pushes on and pulls off and is not 'mechanically' attached to the pen as a whole whereas an Aerometric filler is 'mechanically fixed to the pen in some way. IMHO if David has the screw in unit then he would be correct in calling it an Aerometric filler as a threaded union is, in engineering terms, a 'mechanical' attachment..
Richard Binder once expertly addressed this topic, however I can't find a link to the article. I'll try to paraphrase and summarize it. In a nutshell, a converter isn't an Aerometric just because it's screwed in or permanently attached to the pen. A converter is basically a sac of ink, such as this one in question. An Aerometric filler has a breather tube up through the sac as a way to control the air and ink exchange as the pen is used. The issue has nothing to do with how the thing is attached to the pen.
Hopefully Richard will see this thread and chime in.
John Danza
"Positive attitude makes for good decisions, but bad decisions make for great stories."
#12
Posted 01 September 2011 - 11:22 PM
Richard Binder once expertly addressed this topic, however I can't find a link to the article. I'll try to paraphrase and summarize it. In a nutshell, a converter isn't an Aerometric just because it's screwed in or permanently attached to the pen. A converter is basically a sac of ink, such as this one in question. An Aerometric filler has a breather tube up through the sac as a way to control the air and ink exchange as the pen is used. The issue has nothing to do with how the thing is attached to the pen.
Hopefully Richard will see this thread and chime in.
This might be a tangential element though.
My recollection is that Richard's nitpick was about what "aerometric" means, not about whether a pen has a converter or not.
Tony's filling units shown clearly are converters. They are removable.
The unit I showed might not be an aerometric unit (depending on how one defines that) but if it were correctly originally permanently attached (or threaded?) it would not be a converter, whether or not it is aerometric. To take to an exteme, a button filling pen is not an "aerometric", but clearly the button is not a converter
-d
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net
#13
Posted 02 September 2011 - 12:18 AM
One similiar to the one in David's pen at the bottom, I find it interesting that the first Parker/Eversharp converter ( with the red end and still working...or was last time I tried it) is essentially the same as the modern Parker deluxe ( on the right). Having gone and refreshed at Tony's site, the threaded VP filler pen wasn't a cartridge pen but the filler was removable, suffice to say David's is a c/c (noting the pen made in the UK and the filler in the US) even if the converter prefers to remain firmly in place now , I guess you could argue that by virtue of not coming out it is a non-removable filler!!...not that I'd buy that line of reasoning.... I think caution is required though as I seem to recall the connectors in these pens break easily (??), or had problems of some description .
Regards
Hugh
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users