What's new

Fill Mechanisms - What do You Have & What Do You Prefer?

I am just curious what other folks thoughts are on fill mechanisms. Here are mine.

I have around 75 fountain pens, so have a variety of fill mechanisms. I prefer piston fillers. Below are my thoughts.

1. Piston fillers - easy to use, robust mechanism and holds a lot of ink. Many have a sight window to see the ink level - handy. Great for travelers because of the large reservoir.

2. Lever filler - decent ink volume and easy to use. These mechanisms can be more fragile than most other types and when an ink sack goes bad, at best you are out of luck, sometimes that creates a mess. Relatively easy to fix, but maintenance, especially with vintage pens, is predictable.

3. Squeeze fillers - these are a hybrid of lever and converter filler technologies. Found in many Parker 51s. The "converter" is not removable and is filled by pressing and releasing a bar on the side. To access the bar, the barrel of the pen is removed. I have not had a squeeze filler go bad, but it is not unheard of. Relative low maintenance and easy to use.

4. Converter - these come in twist to fill, squeeze to fill and more rarely, push to fill. They are easily replaced, so maintenance is a breeze, but they hold the least ink, so refilling is a, more or less, constant chore. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your pen rotation strategy.

5. Cartridge - simple plastic cartridges that slip into the pen and are punctured by closing the pen. Relatively clean to use and great for travelers. Cons are: lack of ink choice, lack of volume and more difficult to get a dry pen started.

6. Snorkel - Sheaffer made a great snorkel back in the 1950s or so. Fun to use and relatively clean when filling as the retractable snorkel is the only part that hits the ink. The snorkel was mated with a piston filling mechanism. Mine writes very well, but the retracted snorkel mechanism takes up reservoir room, thereby, reducing ink capacity.

7. Eye dropper - these are really old school pens. There are various methods used to retract or remove the nib and you use an eye dropper to fill the reservoir. In mine, the nib retracts for filling AND capping. There is a gasket in the cap to prevent ink loss when carrying the pen which holds copious amounts of ink. Cons - you WILL make a mess with these. Pros - they hold a ton of ink and are a blast to use. Relatively low maintenance.

What do you have? What do you like best?
 
One that is missing from your list is a button filler, easy to maintain and can be taken apart for a new sac very readily, holds a good amount of ink, generally.
 
One that is missing from your list is a button filler, easy to maintain and can be taken apart for a new sac very readily, holds a good amount of ink, generally.

Good point. I might have one of those floating around, but not in my frequently used pens.
 
Different filling systems are definitely one of the most technically interesting things about fountain pens, and I have bought pens, such as my one Parker 61 capillary filler, just to add another one to the collection. But what actually gets me to use a pen frequently is the overall writing experience. Right now I have two vintage lever fillers inked, one modern piston filler, and two cartridge/converter pens, one with a converter in it and the other with a cartridge.


Among modern pens, my favorites include both piston fillers and C/C pens, but that’s most modern pens. I don’t care so much for cartridge pens that have no suitable converter for them, but I do use cartridges sometimes, particularly for traveling. Pilot’s proprietary cartridges are a favorite because they can not only be refilled, but resealed after refilling, and used when you want them.


My most commonly used vintage pens are lever fillers, and Sheaffer’s snorkel and touchdown fillers. That’s not because of the filling systems; it’s the nibs that I have on those particular pens and their overall practicality as daily users.


Besides that, I have:



  • Syringe filler (Morrison Patriot).
  • Crescent filler (vintage and modern reproduction Conklins).
  • Parker Vacumatic.
  • Built in squeeze fillers (Parker Aerometric and other pens which copied it).
  • Capillary filler (Parker 61).
  • Eyedropper. Modern eyedroppers tend to be cartridge pens that are suitable for eyedroppering. The only one I actually use that way is a Stipula Passaporto. I have no vintage eyedroppers.
  • Converter types that I’ve seen include piston (which seems to be most common) squeeze (Pilot CON-20 and some old Sheaffers and Parkers) Syringe (Monteverde and Kaweco mini converters) and vacuum (Pilot CON-70).


There are other types that I don’t have; Richard Binder, as with so many other things, has a list that may be comprehensive.
 

jar_

Too Fugly For Free.
My preferred method is cartridges and piston style converters next. I have almost all types of fillers with one exception; I have never found an eye dropper pen that I wanted.
 

Toothpick

Needs milk and a bidet!
Staff member
I've got the converter - twist to fill. But I'm using the cartridges now. Just for the ease of use.
 
I prefer aerometric types, my first experience with them was with my Parker 51, and I've since put them in all my pens. My Namiki Falcon loves it, it would always dry start with the supplied con-50 - no problems out of it since the switch.
 

nemo

Lunatic Fringe
Staff member
I've got just about every type except a coin filler -- still looking for a nice chased hard rubber one from 100 years ago.

I've got no real preference as it usually doesn't affect the writing experience.
 
I'm still very much a beginner, but I've put the cartridges away in favor of converters. I like trying different inks. Plus if I want to change inks I can just de-ink the pen back into the bottle whence it came, flush and clean, and refill with something else. But I guess that'd be the case with any non-cartridge system.

But really, I guess you could do the same thing with cartridges with some care: Remove the cartridge, hold it upside down over an ink bottle, and shoot air through a hypodermic needle up into the cartridge to force the ink out. Then clean the pen and cartridge out, refill the cartridge with a different ink using the hypodermic needle, and reassemble.

Yeah, so maybe I'm too new to care much yet.
 
I have aerometrics, c/c, piston, touchdown, vac, lever, button, & bulb fillers. Currently in use are 5 c/c, 1 piston, & 4 aerometrics. My preference, I suppose, is c/c for flexibility & ease of user maintenance, followed by aeros for relative lack of need for user maintenance, at least in my personal experience thus far & piston fillers for capacity.
 
I tend to prefer piston fillers, but I really like Pilot's converter system. It's easy to clean and really reliable. I just wish that the large CON70 converter fit in more of their pens. The CON50 works well, I just wish it held more ink.
 
Aside from coin fillers I've got an example or more of the others mentioned thus far.

Piston fillers are my favorite followed closely by Touchdown fillers. I really like the ease associated with TDs. Just wish they held more ink.
 
What I have are the following - no particular order

*Converter - easiest to clean - of 11 pens currently inked, 5 are c/c
*Piston - a favorite - 4 currently inked
*Lever - 1 inked
*Aerometric - 1 inked

The P51 Special (aero) has been inked ever since I got it. Doesn't get as much use as it really deserves, but I can guarantee it will always start up immediately.
The piston fillers (especially the Pelikans) are always dead reliable as well.
 
I guess I generally have converters, but I refill everything with a syringe with a blunt tip hypodermic needle, including Esterbrooks and similar, as well as pens with converters and pens that all I have for are cartridges. It just seems easier that way.
 
You have a slightly incorrect picture of the snorkel filler. It isn't a piston filler at all, it's much more a pneumatic filler (Sheaffer's Touchdown filler). Additionally, the snorkel only retracts into the section itself and is not in the same space as the sac, so it doesn't take away any space or lessen the volume.
 
You have a slightly incorrect picture of the snorkel filler. It isn't a piston filler at all, it's much more a pneumatic filler (Sheaffer's Touchdown filler). Additionally, the snorkel only retracts into the section itself and is not in the same space as the sac, so it doesn't take away any space or lessen the volume.

Point taken and yes, it is like the touchdown. I misspoke. Question for you on the snorkle - does the whole mechanism fit in the section when retracted? My Snorkle holds less ink than other, even smaller barreled, touchdown fillers.
 

jar_

Too Fugly For Free.
You have a slightly incorrect picture of the snorkel filler. It isn't a piston filler at all, it's much more a pneumatic filler (Sheaffer's Touchdown filler). Additionally, the snorkel only retracts into the section itself and is not in the same space as the sac, so it doesn't take away any space or lessen the volume.

Plus Sheaffer made the body of the Snorkel longer to allow a longer sac to make up for the extra space taken up by the spring.
 

musicman1951

three-tu-tu, three-tu-tu
I use piston fillers almost exclusively, so I suppose they're my favorite (although they might just be on my favorite pens - not sure).

For me, the large quantity of ink is a plus. I suppose if you wanted to change inks more often it might be a minus for you.
 
Have them all, and enjoy the variety. But piston fillers seem dead reliable.

As a runner up, I like the Pilot pump convertors for the ink capacity, and the ability to switch to carts when travelling.
 
Top Bottom