Why "fountain" Pens

November 17, 2009

We know there was a time when FP's were just 'pens'. When the atomic (ballpointt) pen became ubiquiotous, why were FPs names "fountain" pen. They do not resemble a fountain, there is no huge leaking, etc. Something like "nib pens", or "blade pens" (the nib resembles a blade) would be better, more natural... right?

I passed on this when it first came up, but there are a couple of clarifications to make.

For one thing, I don't think fountain pens were ever just 'pens'. Maybe there was a period in the mid 20th Century when someone asking for a 'pen' expected nothing other than a fountain pen, but for a much longer period a 'pen' was something that you dipped in ink. From the early 1800s to around the 1930s or 40s a 'pen' was either a feather, or what we would call a nib for a dip-pen. The thing that we now call a dip-pen was called a 'pen holder'. Some 'pens' or 'pen-holders' had appendages or feed-structures to hold extra ink with each dip, and these were called 'reservior pens'.

A 'fountain pen' was so called to distinguish it from dip-pens. A fountain-pen carried a 'fount' of ink inside it.

All this took place long before the ballpoint appeared on the stage. In fact,the first ballpoint patents in the 1940s referred to ballpoint pens as "improvements in fountain pens" or "automatic fountain pens of the roller ball-tip type". So ball-points were originally considered a form of fountain pen, and only later did we decide that fountain-pens referred to those things with metal nibs. This makes sense, as a ball-point also carries ink in an internal reservior, albeit with a different delivery system.

But this does get back to you original question - why did a "nibbed" fountain pen remain a fountain pen, wheras a "ball-point" fountain pen became not-a-fountain pen, despite the fact that it still holds its ink in an internal reservior?

John

So we need a term for fountain nib pen (or, which is the same thing, non-dip nib pen).