New Pen 
2011.01.12 13:48 - Toys, Pens
I was gifted a Levenger L-Tech at Christmas. (After enough nagging, even I can generate a Christmas list, it turns out.)

As writing instruments go ... it's okay. I've got it filled some WatermanMont Blanc blue-black, which I like as inks go, but I'm not sure it gets along well with this pen.

I like the way the pen looks, which appears to be a mix of matte chrome and polished stainless steel. With Rotring out of the US market, there's not a lot of choices for industrial-ish fountain pens, so I'm glad this is as nice as it is.

It writes well, but is a hard starter. Most of the time, it takes some finagling to get the pen going, which seems to be a function of a nib geometry not agreeing with me and a cap that may not seal as well as it ought. I'm also not sure the nib and feed hold onto enough ink. The nib is not very flexible (normal for a modern pen, really), so the pen "writes like a nail" (to borrow a phrase picked up from the long-passed Rambling Snail forum), but the tip seems smooth and ink flow is consistent.

The section of the pen is knurled in accordance with the look of the pen, and provides a lot of grip. This is a little more aggressive than I'd like, but I've yet written written with it long enough for it to be uncomfortable. It is next to impossible to clean up after filling from a bottle though: once ink gets down into the crevices in the knurling, it's just not all coming out.

The cap screws on over the nib, but posts on the rear by friction. The threads are smooth, but a little more positive engagement would be welcome to keep the pen closed (as when it's in, say, a jacket pocket). The clip is pretty stiff, and difficult to get over thick fabric (like on a knit polo shirt, let's say).

On the whole, I'd give it a B-.

[Updated 2011-05-03: Mont Blanc, not Waterman ink. I don't own any Waterman ink, actually. Also, I've an update after a couple months of using the same pen with Noodler's black.]
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
2009.09.30 16:24 - Meatspace Stupidity, Toys, Pens, Whining
I started cleaning up a handful of fountain pens languishing by the spare sink on Monday. Most of them seem to be fine, but I did find a lot of dried-out ink in the Namiki Bamboo, and some ink residue in the converters of the Waterman Phileas and Parker Vector. The Bamboo is still soaking, but the Phileas and Vector got filled with some Mont Blanc 'green', which seemed likely to be the safest and most detergent-rich ink available to me. I have discovered a couple things:

1. The Namiki push-button converter holds a lot of ink, but is still an enormous pain to clean out.
2. Mont Blanc's blue-black ink stains surprisingly well. Better than anything else I have, actually.
3. Based on (1) and (2), using Mont Blanc blue-black in the Namiki Bamboo is contraindicated, and any pen filled with the ink should be flushed out as soon as it is empty.
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Okay. This interests me. 
2009.02.19 20:51 - Toys, Pens
Pilot MU/M90

Limited edition, but it seems like it might be fairly affordable.
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Conklin Mark Twain Crescent Filler 
2007.09.13 14:17 - Toys, Pens
My most recent pen purchase has been one of Conklin's Mark Twain Crescent Filler fountain pens. Conklin has been making pens since the end of the 19th century, and, early in the 20th, they notably acquired an endorsement from Mr. Twain for their particular filler design, the crescent filler. I'm too lazy to produce the exact quote, but I seem to recall that he called it a 'profanity saver', as the crescent on the side of the pen kept it from rolling off his desk and onto the floor.0

A few years back, Conklin decided to capitalize on this all over again by resurrecting the distinctive filler mechanism for a pen with Twain's name on it. I can't recall the details, and it may have happened before I waded into pen collecting around 2003/2004. In any case, the modern Crescent Filler is probably far from identical to any one of the vintage models, from the large, spring-loaded clip engraved with the manufacturer's name to the comparatively stiff, modern nib. That's not all bad, though, as I'm really not prepared to try caring for a vintage Conklin just now.

The modern version of this pen has, as noted, a large, stiff, spring-loaded clip, weighted cap and a nib that is, I think, slightly oversized. The round-topped cap's got a broad band with Twain's signature engraved on one side, and the company's name on the other. Clip and cap band are sterling silver. Not sure what the crescent is made of.

The eponymous crescent filler is probably the most distinctive part of the pen, as the crescent is an arc of metal stuck in the side of the pen over a bulging ring. Inside the body of the pen, the crescent is attached to a metal plate which squeezes the air and ink out of the rubber ink-sac inside the pen when the crescent is pushed in. The bulging ring under the crescent prevents it from being pushed in unintentionally, so it won't vomit ink all over your shirt, pocket, or the page you're writing on. Filling the pen requires that the right be rotated around the pen until a slot in it lines up with the crescent.

In practice, the filler seems to work reasonable well, if neither especially better nor worse than some similar mechanisms. The nib is smooth, and slightly wet. It starts easily and my only complaint is that I should probably switch to Noodler's Black from the 2:1 mix of Eternal Brown and Black that I'm using at the moment. The cap posts fine, though it makes for a relatively long pen. The balance when posted seems just fine, though. Size-wise, it's a bit large, but not so absurdly outscale as, say, the Stipula Da Vinci nor so awkwardly proportioned as the Namiki Bamboo. I find it a comfortable size, actually.

On the whole, I'm pretty satisfied with this one. It remains true to both the critical aesthetic and critical internal bits of the pens it recalls, it is distinctive in appearance, and, perhaps above all, it works. I think it would probably hold up okay as a daily writer, though there are more suitable (and less expensive) choices that would be better and more appropriate. As power-jewelry, it's less flashy and impressive than some of my other pens. As a pen, though, it's one of the best.

0. And, of course, Conklin has the story here. So, there you are.

  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
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

Back Next