I remain with the following claims:
1) No one has offered fresh evidence that Sheaffer's Snork (TD, etc) offers consistently drier and finer point than pens of other makes, which is the only thing that would give them better word count than other pens with equal sac size and still probably not better word count than pens with much larger sac size.
2) I have noted wet writing broad point Snorks and ultra fine dry writing "other bigger pens" and I have seen the opposite. I find it is the ink capacity of the pen and the particular-to-the-given-pen wetness and point width that drives word count, not the brand name.
3) I remain with difficulty figuring why the intrinsic "Snorkel-ness" of a pen would contribute to random specimens writing longer than random examples of pens with heftier sacs.
I think this thing has blown to mythic proportions due to Frank's emphatic nature back in the day. I want to hear some actual evidence about the pens.
regards
-d
Can’t you just wait for 25-something years till I’ll be retired?
I stand by your points as quoted above, with the exception of the third (which is the more vague btw). I’ll try to put down better my points to see if we could agree.
My claims are:
- When assessing the performance of a pen, it’s important to measure how long the fill last (i.e. the so call “word count”) and therefore it is interesting to make some speculation on what pen could write more based on its characteristics;
- The Word Count is influenced by several factors, some of them are controllable, like point grade and the amount of ink stored, and others are not controllable (more on those later). Therefore it is impossible to come up with a valid rule (true for any instance of similar pens), but it is possible to predict which set up is more “ink efficient” or to justify some (even non-scientific) test that came with some non-expected result (like Frank’s test, in defense of whom we must agree that 1) he was a fair and honest person, even if he has some preference for Snorks he tried to work with a set of equal test conditions (nib grade, regular ink flow, same ink, paper and user…), 2) he had a long experience in pens, so we must concede that he not only wanted but even was able to create those equal test conditions, with the obvious limit of the empiric experiment; 3) the Snork did not win the test);
- Inefficient ink delivery system. As Hugh pointed out before, the 40’s Sheaffer’s still relied on an old generation simple feeder. The “younger” pens all had breather tubes (51 and Snork), collectors (51), and sacs (51 Aero and Snork) which better compensate for the ink loss when writing ensuring an even flow during the writing experience;
- Open/hooded nib. As I said before, (in my opinion) an open nib is more prone to evaporation both during the long writing sessions and when the pen is left for a long time unused (even capped; my Sheaffer’s FT all require some work in the morning to work as expected). In this case I believe there must be considered that a Triumph nib is somewhat in between an Open nib and a full hooded nib. (No big difference between Snork and Vac Fill here but clear advantage for P51). P.S. David is speculating less than 2% my guess is higher but…
- Ink temperature. Ink is a fluid, the more heated the fluid is, the more flowing it will be. The more flowing the more wet it will result the point, increasing the amount of ink left on paper, and more ink will go to the feed, increasing the evaporation rate. Anyhow this is bad because the pen can be adjusted for optimal flow only at one given ink temperature at times. So if the pen is adjusted for the “cold” ink it will not work optimally when the ink is warm and if it is adjusted for a warm ink, it will not work optimally when the ink is cold. Now the celluloid piston fill pens are prone to increase the ink temperature in long writing session because of the direct contact between the warmth of the hand and the liquid, only mediated by the celluloid that is a good conductor of warmth and thinner (compared to the polymethyl methacrylate resin used in 51 Vacs);
- Do all P51 will outlast all Sheaffer’s VacFill? No
- Do all P51 will outlast all Sheaffer’s VacFill once granted that the nib grade is the same and the ink flow is as expected (standard for the pen)? No
- Do some P51 will outlast some Sheaffer’s VacFill once granted that the nib grade is the same and the ink flow is as expected (standard for the pen)? Yes, it is possible
- Will I provide some evidence for this? Yes, in 25 years or something
Ciao, Andrea