Are Cartridge Pens Dissed?

[Mardi13]

Are the cartridge versions of some of the older classic pens considered inferior? If so, why?

[jar]

Only by the ignorant.

[Mr. Pink]

Are the cartridge versions of some of the older classic pens considered inferior? If so, why?

Dissed, yes. Inferior, no.

[J English Smith]

It's all in how one uses them - use the filling system or systems that work for you. Look, even Pelikan is now offering a c/c version of the 200 series. No shame.

 

I have some of every kind...

[highlander1307]

I prefer pens which accept cartridges and converters. Haven't seen my piston pens in twenty years. The ones with sacs break. Eventually.

[DaveBj]

I prefer converters over cartridges because, in my experience, when the nib dries out, and I squeeze the cartridge, I may or may not get enough ink down into the feed to get it going again, whereas with a converter, all I have to do is screw the piston down far enough to get the ink going.

[KBeezie]

I see it as some kind of Status Symbol, for whatever reason, depending on the brand (most it would seem), piston filling pens seem to echo 'high price'... but when a $20 Noodler pen has a Piston, who really cares? A fountain pen for the most part is a simple device, some place to store the ink, the feed, and the nib, and with everything sealed up tight there's no reason why a piston pen should writer better than a cartridge/converter pen when the only thing that differs between them is the filling method.

 

so... I think Charles said it best, dissed yes, inferior no.

 

 

I prefer converters over cartridges because, in my experience, when the nib dries out, and I squeeze the cartridge, I may or may not get enough ink down into the feed to get it going again, whereas with a converter, all I have to do is screw the piston down far enough to get the ink going.

 

In the context, you're talking bout the same thing, even with a converter in it, it's still a "cartridge" pen that's being dissed. Seems to be more a matter of C/C vs [integrated] Piston, Vac, Snorkel, Touchdown, Button-Filler. Not so much Cartridge vs Converter. Only reason I wouldn't do cartridge is because it's expensive outside of refilling the cartridge (which by the way is pretty nice with pilot cartridges, and I don't get that 'dry up' or flow problem like with standard international fittings).

 

But amazing as it is, some people do prefer to be able to just pop in another cartridge of the ink they always use and not fuss with a bottle, syringe, or wiping their nibs.

Edited May 11, 2014 by KBeezie

[blINK]

I like C/C pens. Easy to flush the section with a bulb syringe. The cartridge or converter is easy to clean and fill with a blunt syringe. I may not be "sophisticated" but the C/C pens work for me and that's my concern. As long as everyone has a good pen experience, I am convinced that the world is a happier place.

Edited May 11, 2014 by blINK

[BT-7274]

Not usually. The cartridge Imperials are really nice writers. Same with stuff like the Parker 45, or, should you be lucky as sumgai, a cartridge 51. Frankly, I find my cartridge 51 writes better and cleans better than both my aerometric and vacumatic 51s.

[zchen]

In a way it's good that they are ignored by certain segment of the fountain pen crowd, that mean more deals are to be had on ebay for cartridge versions.

[Mr. Pink]

"But amazing as it is, some people do prefer to be able to just pop in another cartridge of the ink they always use and not fuss with a bottle, syringe, or wiping their nibs"

 

Makes me wonder - how many c/c pens are used with cartridges only. Except for a couple of cheap Sheaffers,I have converters in all my c/c pens. Of course, if people didn't use cartridges, Waterman et. al. wouldn't sell them.

[jar]

"But amazing as it is, some people do prefer to be able to just pop in another cartridge of the ink they always use and not fuss with a bottle, syringe, or wiping their nibs"

 

Makes me wonder - how many c/c pens are used with cartridges only. Except for a couple of cheap Sheaffers,I have converters in all my c/c pens. Of course, if people didn't use cartridges, Waterman et. al. wouldn't sell them.

 

I tend to use both cartridges and converters with perhaps a slight list towards cartridges daily and a big swing to cartridges when I was traveling. It was just so simple to toss a couple weeks supply of ink in my pocket with them.

[Ernst Bitterman]

My own notions regarding C/C pens are something I consider a bit of a weakness of character. I grew up on them, and didn't discover self-fillers until I was an adult... so I have a lurking impression of C/C pens as "kids' stuff" and built-in fillers as "real, grown up pens". This doesn't stop me from using all of the above, as it's a sad prejudice and should be suppressed when possible.

 

The only defensible reason I have for not liking cartridges is that throwing them away eventually bugs me. I'm no friend to disposability.

[KBeezie]

The only defensible reason I have for not liking cartridges is that throwing them away eventually bugs me. I'm no friend to disposability.

 

Refill and/or Recycle (they are solid plastic after all). Oddly I've actually saved any of the cartridges I've gone thru so far, though I'm using a converter in most of my pens.

[OcalaFlGuy]

If you look at the prices paid for each, CLEARLY, TD filler pens are "worth" a bit more than the same pen in C/C.

 

That I think is Mostly C-Worder driven. For some reason(s), they appear to prefer the TD fillers. [1]

 

OTOH, using the Sterling Imperial as an example, there are some who feel the C/C model presents a cleaner look than the TD filler.

 

If you buy your pens to USE, I say it doesn't matter.

 

If you buy your pens with the secondary thought of getting the higher % of what you paid for it reselling it, get the TD filler.

 

[1] C-Worders would argue a TD filler can be repaired as long as there as sacs and o-ring still being made. I would counter that a cart or converter is always cheaper, easier and quicker to find than a TD filler restoration.

 

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

[RMN]

If you look at the prices paid for each, CLEARLY, TD filler pens are "worth" a bit more than the same pen in C/C.

 

That I think is Mostly C-Worder driven. For some reason(s), they appear to prefer the TD fillers. [1]

 

OTOH, using the Sterling Imperial as an example, there are some who feel the C/C model presents a cleaner look than the TD filler.

 

If you buy your pens to USE, I say it doesn't matter.

 

If you buy your pens with the secondary thought of getting the higher % of what you paid for it reselling it, get the TD filler.

 

[1] C-Worders would argue a TD filler can be repaired as long as there as sacs and o-ring still being made. I would counter that a cart or converter is always cheaper, easier and quicker to find than a TD filler restoration.

 

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

Ehh, excuse me, non native speaker here..... Looking up C-word in the urban-dictionary gives apparently an other meaning (a certain body part) than implied here as far as I understand from the context. Can someone explain (within the limits of our bleep-checker)?

 

D.ick

[OcalaFlGuy]

Collector.

 

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

[Jerome Tarshis]

Nobody seems to have mentioned this point up to now, but it is important to me: With my self-filling pens I don't have trouble with ink hanging up in a converter. No need to twist the piston knob to push down the column of ink when using an integral piston-filling pen. No washing converter with soapy water or otherwise add surfactant. jar says he likes c/c pens for their convenience, and I believe him, but he has also posted instructions for getting converters to behave. With my Parker 51s, no such need. With my Lamy and MB piston-fillers, no such need. With the English Parker Aeros I used to own, no such need.

 

To my mind, not needing to do those things *is* convenience. I enjoy the writing qualities of my c/c pens, but they do not on the average write better than my self-fillers. Granted, with rubber squeeze converters I did not and do not suffer flow difficulties. It is the cylindrical plastic converter, of pretty much any brand, that gives the trouble. Sometimes even with ball bearing inserted. With Japanese pens I am told the wider mouth helps. Outside my experience. Within my experience, self-filling pens are a better way to live. (To answer the obvious question: I bought the c/c pens out of curiosity.)

[RMN]

Collector.

 

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

Thanks, Bruce. A bit more mundane than I expected from the dictionary....

 

 

D.ick

[Oranges and Apples]

Nobody seems to have mentioned this point up to now, but it is important to me: With my self-filling pens I don't have trouble with ink hanging up in a converter. No need to twist the piston knob to push down the column of ink when using an integral piston-filling pen. No washing converter with soapy water or otherwise add surfactant. jar says he likes c/c pens for their convenience, and I believe him, but he has also posted instructions for getting converters to behave. With my Parker 51s, no such need. With my Lamy and MB piston-fillers, no such need. With the English Parker Aeros I used to own, no such need.

 

To my mind, not needing to do those things *is* convenience. I enjoy the writing qualities of my c/c pens, but they do not on the average write better than my self-fillers. Granted, with rubber squeeze converters I did not and do not suffer flow difficulties. It is the cylindrical plastic converter, of pretty much any brand, that gives the trouble. Sometimes even with ball bearing inserted. With Japanese pens I am told the wider mouth helps. Outside my experience. Within my experience, self-filling pens are a better way to live. (To answer the obvious question: I bought the c/c pens out of curiosity.)

Let me know how much money, time, and skill is needed to maintain a broken O-ring, replace a sac, or troubleshoot other problems with self fillers. I am not just speaking about pistons.

 

With a converter, there is the $5 to replace the converter. The time is about a minute. The skill is obviously there.