Piston Or Vac Fill

[amberleadavis]

So, TWSBI is coming out with a VAC fill. I've never used a VAC fill, but love a piston fill.

 

If you have used both, which do you prefer and why?

[jar]

It depends on the actual design and execution of the specific model.

[asaha]

I prefer piston a little bit, because I think this machanism is more reliable and can hold more ink in most occasions

[Vshin]

I think piston fillers are less expensive and more reliable but vacuum fillers may hold a little more ink. There's a double-pump method to fill the Pilot Custom 823 to hold 2.2ml of ink.

[yctbta]

It would depend on the model, but with the TWSBI I much prefer the piston. The vac fill seems like a lot of trouble to fill all the way with the extra vial-looking tool and all.

[georges zaslavsky]

both are good

[ExcaliburZ]

I think the Vac fill will look nicer because more of the body will filled with ink. Otherwise I have not used a vacuum filling pen, I would think the vacuum fill would be easier to use.

[raging.dragon]

I like both.

[acies]

I Have both, and in terms of "easy to use" I prefer the piston, though vac is probably more fun. A practical advantage of plunger fillers may be the ink shut-off. Good for frequent flyers. But piston or cartridge fillers never failed on me either.

[fountainbel]

I'm in favour of piston fillers, being in my experience less sensible for leakage

Francis

[12345Michael54321]

I like them both about equally, although a given example of either may be unusually well done (or poorly done). So I guess that's another "It depends."

 

For example, the TWSBI 540 is a piston filler, but it's ridiculously easy to fill its reservoir from an eyedropper or a syringe (which is sometimes an advantage if there's not much ink left in the bottle, or if one feels that having to "dunk" a pen into ink in order to fill it up is potentially messy or inelegant). Or even to convert it to an eyedropper pen (which could be handy if you need huge ink capacity). So for sheer versatility, I might prefer this example of a piston fill system over a run-of-the-mill vac fill system.

 

On the other hand, I already own several modern piston fillers. (Including a couple of my favorite pens, both Pelikans.) Vac fillers are somewhat less common, and the only one I own is a vintage pen. (Nor is it a pen I particularly like, although that's not particularly due to the fact that it's a vac filler.) So advantage to the piston fillers, since I like the ones I already own. But sort of advantage to the vac fillers too, since vacs are less common, and there's a certain attraction to the unusual pen.

 

Then there's the price thing. Because I don't have a strong preference for one over the other, I'm not usually going to pay a big price premium for one over the other. Not really a big issue with the TWSBI 700; it's going to sell for around $25 more than the 540.

 

And finally, there's reality. Which means that I know full well that unless TWSBI totally drops the ball with the 700 and every reviewer says that it's a terrible pen (pretty unlikely), I'm going to wind up owning both 540 and 700.

 

Now if Noodler's ever comes out with a vac fill Ahab...

--

Michael

[Sagar_C]

Have to use TWSBI's vac before deciding...love the piston a lot.

[fabrimedeiros]

Vac fill, no doubt. Piston fill is my 2nd choice. I love both, but vacuum filler holds almost 2x more ink, more charming and I love smart gadgets.

[mirosc]

For ingenuity the vac.

For classical style the piston (don't ask me why, I just have the irrational feeling that piston is classical...)

 

For practical use: depends on pen and manufacturer.

[Ernst Bitterman]

Based on experience with the troublesome old Sheaffer's vacs and the current TWSBI 540; unless TWSBI does something incredibly stupid with the vac-filler, it's going to be a world-beater.

 

-Ease of operation; pull up, push back. Done.

-Volume; even with the remarkable compactness of the 540 mechanism, there's still a good 30% of barrel devoted to that mechanism. With the vac, all that displaces ink is the very slender piston shaft and the similarly small piston head. People who can't live with a bubble in the pen are apt to go mental because there is always a little "waste", but it's still rather more ink than a crammed-full piston will support.

-Cleaning; the vac system generates a lot more pressure than the piston, which will see more residue out of the feed.

 

Yes, I am shamefully excited at the prospect of the 700 appearing. :clap1:

Edited March 6, 2012 by Ernst Bitterman

[mirosc]

it's still rather more ink than a crammed-full piston will support

that's one more reason why I would prefer the piston filler (if I had any choice at all, usually I choose my pens for other reasons than the filling mechanism - that's just fate and is accepted as it comes).

 

too much capacity keeps me from changing my inks often

[tknechtel]

I never have a problem with my piston fillers working; but my vac fillers can be cranky and take some coaxing to get them to fill (depending on the model).

[Faulkner]

Piston for me. The vacuum fillers do not always work smoothly

[pajaro]

When these are new they are both OK. As they age they become susceptible to leaks. I have never felt confident that I have filled a vac-filler properly. I don't use them much. As far as ink capacity is concerned, I carry several pens of different types, and large capacity is not an advantage and not a disadvantage either. Machts nichts. Increasingly, I avoid both filler types.

[Ernst Bitterman]

it's still rather more ink than a crammed-full piston will support

that's one more reason why I would prefer the piston filler (if I had any choice at all, usually I choose my pens for other reasons than the filling mechanism - that's just fate and is accepted as it comes).

 

too much capacity keeps me from changing my inks often

 

Truth be told, I'm much the same, but a lot of people seem anxious to have a pen that can write a thousand pages. I remain a-quiver with anticipation.