Esterbrook Base Replacement Feeder Rods

[Danist]

So, I have successfully gotten one 444 dip-less set up and running, with a little elbow grease. And that's a purist restoration, with all original parts. But I'm not a purist restoration type of guy -- I want to restore function, not the ability to take up space as a displayed "Tchotchke." I've taken it to work and run it through the paces -- a great writer and a true pleasure to use. I might even be turning into an Estie-centric dip convert. This is some seriously brilliant quality.

 

But, in my inventory of parts, I have one base which is only missing the little capillary feeder rods. And from my tests, those feeder rods are very important -- they allow the ink to draw up, even when the ink level in the well runs low. It's a very reliable mechanism compared to others I've tested, which use (now aged) rubber to generate suction. Without the feeder rods, it's just a display piece.

 

And yes, I think it is worth it to replace the feeder rods. They look to be about 0.7mm. It's some kind of extruded resin, which is fairly pliable. It only needs to be chemical resistant to, say, iron gall ink... which really isn't that bad, in the great scheme of chemicals. So, we're talking about basic industrial materials which are likely abundant. Substitutes could include just about every modern extruded plastic stock, and also some metal and carbon substitutes of various shapes. A bunch of unknown-composition ball bearings could even work. I could also use the cores of solid copper wire -- of course, if I used modern iron gall ink formulations, I might need to replace those bits of copper... well, probably not in my lifetime.

 

Or what about those cheesy "fiber optic" acrylic rods which tend to get attached to various light sources during the upcoming holiday season? I bet lots of that gets consigned to the industrial dump.

 

But, my point -- this is not rocket science. These are very low tolerances for both the dimension and chemical resistance of the material.

 

Yeah, yeah, you can just buy another base for a few dollars. And waste a perfectly good base I already have?

 

Danger, Danger, Will Robinson, B.S. Detector Alert!

 

Nah, let's use what we have. Tools exist to service us, not us them.

 

We landed people on the moon. We have the technology. (Better, stronger, faster... blah blah blah, etc.)

 

I would wage the honor of a Lady or Gentleman, that I can find some solution to replace lost Esterbrook capillary feeder rods.

 

Of course, if anyone has preceded me in finding a capillary feeder replacement, I would very much like to benefit from their wisdom.

 

Otherwise, anyone who wants to benefit from my experiments, please chime in, because I do intend to share every secret I find regarding these wonderfully designed inkwells.

[Chiro75]

If you can find Micarta rod that small of diameter, I would try that. I'll bet it would work.

[Danist]

Solution: Nylon Monofilament, aka fishing line -- tested and works fine; draws fluid up from minimum levels and charges a variety of Esterbrook nibs; the nibs seat into the nylon sections just as they did the stock rods. It's cheap, readily available, and won't cause damage to nibs. There are fancier options, like Teflon wire, but for the price, fishing line is hard to beat.

 

The raw specs for the rods: 0.7mm diameter x 17.26mm long, or .027" diameter x 0.68" long (probably an even 11/16"). I counted 178 rods in a stock Esterbrook 444.

 

I used nylon monofilament line with a 0.8mm diameter.

 

In case the line doesn't list the diameter (rather the "test" strength), here is a handy chart: http://www.mels-place.com/Contents/ABCs_and_Goodies/Line_Diameters/line_diameters.htm

 

Given that this doesn't have to be very precise, anything in the 30-80 lb test category of non-specialty monofilament line should work just fine. The number of rods you will need to fill the feed unit will vary, of course, based on the diameter.

 

When cutting the line, I found it is better to err on the side of being slightly shorter than the original rod, so as not to bind with the sides of the feed unit. The line will have a slight curve (from being spooled), which would add a tiny bit to its length when straightened; otherwise, the slight curve does not affect its function in the feed unit.

 

Also, I developed a way to quickly mass-produce the rods: 1) measure out a stack of printer paper to the length you want -- the space from the top of the stack to the table will be your depth gauge, 2) cut off several 1' lengths of line (5 or so was right for me), 3) while holding the lengths together in one hand, line them up with paper stack and the table, and 4) cut with scissors, blade also resting on the top of the paper stack. It will take a little bit of experimenting to get the right stack height, compensating for the scissor blade width and such, but after a few minutes of dialing it in, I was able to quickly produce them with a variance "good enough" for their purpose. Oh yes, and the pieces tend to fly off when you cut them -- a few books, or any other barrier, around the cutting area works fine.

[JonSzanto]

I have to admit: I'm having a hard time picturing how you've done this.

 

Mind you, I've only had a 444 base for about a month, and it was NOS, so it is working just fine, and I don't think I should take it apart right now with the ink all in there. Would it be possible for you to either photograph or sketch just how it is you've placed these short lengths of mono-filament?

 

Eh, you made me worry that my old NOS might be failing: I just took the pen out to write with it just to make sure (it's fine...).

[Danist]

I have to admit: I'm having a hard time picturing how you've done this.

 

Mind you, I've only had a 444 base for about a month, and it was NOS, so it is working just fine, and I don't think I should take it apart right now with the ink all in there. Would it be possible for you to either photograph or sketch just how it is you've placed these short lengths of mono-filament?

 

Eh, you made me worry that my old NOS might be failing: I just took the pen out to write with it just to make sure (it's fine...).

 

Sure, picture attached.

 

The main panel is me cutting the line to length with the method I described.

 

The top right panel shows the new rods sections.

 

The bottom right panel shows the feed unit loaded with the new rods. I used small needle nose pliers to load the rods in.

[JonSzanto]

Sure, picture attached.

I don't know why, but the only answer that leaps to mind is Dude! Seriously, thanks - that is what I thought you might be doing, but IIRC, in mine the fins or rods go across. I can see where this would work very well for a capillary action. I may have to bid on a really ugly 444 on eBay or something to try it out.

 

Thanks again.

[Danist]

Sure, picture attached.

I don't know why, but the only answer that leaps to mind is Dude! Seriously, thanks - that is what I thought you might be doing, but IIRC, in mine the fins or rods go across. I can see where this would work very well for a capillary action. I may have to bid on a really ugly 444 on eBay or something to try it out.

 

Thanks again.

 

Cool, hope it works for you. While I was messing around with the 444, I started taking dimensions/specs of the other "fixable" stuff -- the red fill ring, the top sealing gasket, the rubber feed unit, the washer that goes into the feed unit, and the paint on the bottom. I might start working on an "Esterbrook 444 Repair/Cleaning FAQ" -- so as long as the bakelite top and glass inkwell are intact, there could be instructions for cheap and available ways to fix everything else.

[JonSzanto]

Cool, hope it works for you. While I was messing around with the 444, I started taking dimensions/specs of the other "fixable" stuff -- the red fill ring, the top sealing gasket, the rubber feed unit, the washer that goes into the feed unit, and the paint on the bottom. I might start working on an "Esterbrook 444 Repair/Cleaning FAQ" -- so as long as the bakelite top and glass inkwell are intact, there could be instructions for cheap and available ways to fix everything else.

Go for it!

 

Say, with this mono replacement routine, how would you go about cleaning it - a good flush? I'm wondering about when you change to a different ink, and getting that capillary unit completely clean.

[Danist]

Cool, hope it works for you. While I was messing around with the 444, I started taking dimensions/specs of the other "fixable" stuff -- the red fill ring, the top sealing gasket, the rubber feed unit, the washer that goes into the feed unit, and the paint on the bottom. I might start working on an "Esterbrook 444 Repair/Cleaning FAQ" -- so as long as the bakelite top and glass inkwell are intact, there could be instructions for cheap and available ways to fix everything else.

Go for it!

 

Say, with this mono replacement routine, how would you go about cleaning it - a good flush? I'm wondering about when you change to a different ink, and getting that capillary unit completely clean.

 

If I'm just changing inks on a base that has recently been fully cleaned, usually a flush of the feed and inkwell in running water is all that's needed -- all without disassembling the feed unit and capillary rods.

 

But if ink had been allowed to dry sometime in the past...

 

For a full feed cleaning, I know I've seen a cleaning protocol here on the forum before... but I'd have to dig around for it. The only "special tool" I recommend is a blunt syringe, for moving ink to and from the inkwells. Otherwise, dish soap, rubbing alcohol, a soft bristle toothbrush, needle nose pliers, paper towels, and Q-tips, are all that's really needed as working tools. Anyway, here's my full feed cleaning:

 

I remove the feed unit (the cup that hods the rods) from the bakelite top, and apply a bit of pressure to the feed unit's underside, which will dislodge the retaining washer holding the capillary rods in place. It can then be lifted off with needle nose pliers, or even coaxed out with a Q-tip. I recommend you have a glass or bowl ready, under the unit, to pour the rods into, because it would be really annoying if 178 of those flew all over the table (or on the floor, down the sink, etc.). Don't worry about damaging the rods, they are pretty hearty (and so is the feed unit itself) -- worry about losing them and/or making a mess of them. You might want to be gentle with the retaining washer, if your inkwell is in unknown condition, especially if you see corrosion/rust pitting on its face. (If the capillary feed retaining washer is salvageable, any pitting can ultimately be fixed with a coating of steel epoxy later).

 

Once dumped in a glass, the rods and feed unit can be washed in diluted dish soap. That has taken care of all but the nastiest of ink caking. I have cleaned some with heavy carbon and ferrogallic deposits. If the soap doesn't work, the rods -- both the stock rods and my nylon replacements -- can take a warm rubbing (isopropyl) alcohol bath, and some scrubbing with nylon brushes (and fingernail picking, too). I have never needed to use alcohol on the feed units, as the rods tend to soak up the old ink goobers, and separate easily from the feed unit as a clump of ink-goober-nast. I haven't met a 70 year old dried up ink-goober that could withstand this. Just make sure the bakelite tops are kept far away from the solvent adventures.

 

If you're not afraid to dive in, the Esterbrook 444s (and derivatives) are actually pretty easy to take apart, work with, and fully clean.

[JonSzanto]

If you're not afraid to dive in, the Esterbrook 444s (and derivatives) are actually pretty easy to take apart, work with, and fully clean.

Again, thanks for the wealth of info. I confess, even though - to the left - there are a bevvy of pens in a holder, that 444 with a 9668 nib - over to the right on the desk - is just so easy to reach for! Hence, I'll be looking again for more. <sigh>

[Danist]

If you're not afraid to dive in, the Esterbrook 444s (and derivatives) are actually pretty easy to take apart, work with, and fully clean.

Again, thanks for the wealth of info. I confess, even though - to the left - there are a bevvy of pens in a holder, that 444 with a 9668 nib - over to the right on the desk - is just so easy to reach for! Hence, I'll be looking again for more. <sigh>

 

You're quite welcome. I have a 484 (Double 444) at work, running fine manifold nibs w/ Noodler's Heart of Darkness and ESS Registrar's... and this powers through NCR forms which you'd ordinarily never let a vintage pen touch (*gasp*). This Esterbrook stuff is worth a little elbow grease to keep going, since it's always ready to go, right there on your desk whenever you reach for a pen.

[PaFitch]

Great help. Always glad to see something about the 444. One sits on my desk and, if I can just get my desk a little more organized, another will join it. One with a fine nib (using a Sengbusch NibIn right now) for notes and a broad renew point for addressing courier envelopes and the like.