Parker 100 
2007.09.12 14:50 - Toys, Pens
Parker has been making fountain pens for a pretty long time, and I've already proclaimed a certain fondness for them, but, alas, I find the 100 disappointing.

From 1941 and into the early 1970s, Parker manufactured a pen known as the 51. Now, the Parker 51 has an excellent rep for its robust and reliable design as much as its appearance, and so Parker put out a couple pens designed to recall and capitalize on this nostalgic goodwill. One of these was a limited edition marketed as the Parker 51, and the other, the Parker 100, which looks like a 51 given a contemporary restyling.

I have a couple of vintage 51s, a Vac-filler from 1948, and an Aero-filler from 1952 (I think). They're both excellent writers, though the the Aerometric-equipped pen needs to have a cracked hood repaired. They ran around $100 each, if I recall correctly. The critical thing is that the internals of each pen, even aside from the filling systems involved, is substantially different from the internals of either the 2002 limited edition or the currently-available Parker 100. I won't bore you with the hows and whys, but if you poke around the Internet a bit, you can find all you want to know. Suffice to say that the internals seem to be one of the reasons the original 51s write so well. Anyway, I really like the styling on the Parker 51, and the Parker 100, being an update of that, likewise appealed to me. Given that I've had good luck with cheap, contemporary Parkers, and given that I've had good luck with expensive, vintage Parkers, I figured that the 100 was a safe bet, even without the under-the-hood0 similarities to the 51.

Aesthetically, the 100 is fine: the lines are right, the trim looks nice ... It's a really nice-looking pen all over. Most of the high-end modern pens that I own tend to be a bit heavier than their vintage counterparts, and the 100 is not really an exception.1 The cap doesn't post very securely, but it's no worse in this regard than my Pelikan m100 or the Parker 51s I own. Weight aside, the feel of the pen in the hand is fine, as they've adapted the 51's shape pretty closely. So far, so good.

Where the 100 falls down, and it may just be that I've got a lemon, is that it doesn't write especially well, and I suspect that this flaw is a result of the hooded design. The nib seems to be sufficiently smooth and, once started, it writes just fine. Starting, however, is the problem. Nine times out of ten, the pen just doesn't write the first time it's put to paper. It's not out of ink, and it doesn't seem to matter whether it's feeding from a cartridge (of Parker's blue ink) or it was filled from a bottle (of Montblanc's blue-black). Few pens give me this kind of trouble, and I can't recommend any of them. While I like the 100's looks, I think its performance and price tag, combined with its utterly un-novel internals, keep me from recommending it, or even being wholly satisfied with the purchase. Too bad, that.

0. A pun, but a small one.
1. I think this is because they're intended more as jewelry than as writing instruments. Especially so when so few people do any serious writing with a pen and paper any more.

  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
So ... quiet ... 
2007.09.12 13:59 - Site/Meta
I'm not dead, folks, just feeling kinda low. However, I haven't posted anything recently, and my generous host is cleaning up in the search string lists even without longcat's aid. So, I'll have to see if I can't drum up some content. Please hold ...
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Our bug tickets will block out the sun! 
2007.08.30 13:41 - Miscellanea
Then we shall code in the shade.

Work is busy, as we near the deadline for our current release. Thank heaven for the upcoming three-day weekend.

I have purchased ammunition for an experimental trip to the gun range to find out which brand/load of .40 S&W the Steyr will eat most happily. I've also managed to discover that my left hand/arm does not, at present, have sufficient strength to properly rack that gun. On a related note, my brand-new .40 S&W A-Zooms are looking pretty beat up already. Funny coincidence, that. One of the other devs is making group range trip noises. I'll guess I'll see where that comes out.

In the meantime, I've made my hotel reservations for homecoming. It's the same place I've been the last couple of years, so I hope that the hotel's Wi-Fi still exists and works better than last year. And I just submitted a request for some time off on either side. I have hours to burn, at the moment, so I really do need to take some time off, anyway.

I guess I'm spending some time this weekend upgrading the operating system on Furnace McWindtunnel (hereafter: "the desktop") to Windows XP from Windows 2000. This should be a grand adventure. Expect reports of lost files and etc. on Monday. On the upside, in exchange for the performance hit, I can lose the Linksys WiFi app and get the ability to run games made last year.

I think that's everything of import for the moment. I should probably put together a brief review of the Parker 100 I bought back in April/May since I've finally gotten around to use it. (In brief: save your money and buy a vintage Parker 51 instead.)
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Someone on this server has a significant web presence 
2007.08.25 19:10 - Entertainment, Internet Stupidity, Site/Meta
I'm just going to tell you right now that I'm pretty sure it isn't me. If nothing else, I don't have other bloggers camping the article spawn on my (kinda crummy) blog.

It amuses me that someone else does, though.
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Now, I'm for free speech and all 
2007.08.17 12:00 - News and Politics
Even for our new, corporate overlords. But! I can't help thinking that this is awfully tacky, whatever your political stance. [Story]

(In the interest of full disclosure, I generally support overturning Roe v. Wade, which would return the matter of abortion to the individual states, and strong restrictions on the practice of abortion. This is not because I hate women, or freedom, or whatever. I like to think it's because I respect human life and favor individual responsibility, and because Roe is actually bad law, whatever the moral dimension.

I'm not familiar with the Catholic League, except in the abstract.)

Links stolen from The Corner.
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink

Back Next