Japanese Pens

January 26, 2015

If you haven't experienced better converters, then the Con 50 might seem acceptable.

Perhaps I haven't, I really couldn't say.

All I know is that the ink flows from my CON-50s as well as from any other converter I've had - including Faber-Castell - or from any piston-filling pen I've had. So I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to be missing out on.

January 26, 2015

@ maxdog and others,

I mistakingly took your comments on the con-50 for the con-70. Don't know why, you clearly wrote con-50.

However, I haven't had any problems with the con-50 either, unless I leave ink in it for a long time without using it, but that is true with all converters.

January 26, 2015

If you haven't had issues with the Con 50 then that is fortunate. I am using the newest Con 50 with agitator and is working OK for me now. It has the smallest ink capacity in any converter I've used so far.

My point here is not to go down a Con 50 converter discussion but rather that compared to the variety of good converters, piston filling systems etc from western manufacturers, I find Japanese pens are more limited to small converters. Always exception to the rule as a few Japanese models do have built in piston filler, but those seem fewer.

If I were to summarize Japanese pens, I would say great nibs, but could improve on more/better ink filling system options.

January 26, 2015

For comparison here is the Pilot Con 50 and Sailor converters vs a western converter. Notice the smaller capacity of the Pilot and Sailor converters:

Pilot Con 50

[/url]">http://

Sailor converter

[/url]">http://

Faber Castell converter

[/url]">http://https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/uploads/imgs/fpn_1422249840__faber_castell_converter.jpg'>

January 26, 2015

For comparison here is the Pilot Con 50 and Sailor converters vs a western converter. Notice the smaller capacity of the Pilot and Sailor converters:

Yes, I'm aware of the difference, thanks. I have and use all three converters you illustrate.

I never disputed the fact that some converters have a smaller capacity, merely that it was a big deal in practice. I even happily use one of my CON-50s with the 6.0mm Pilot Parallel, which would challenge an eyedropper.

I understand the difference is between something like 0.5ml for the Pilot and Sailor converters (as well as others like Waterman) and something like 0.7ml for the Faber-Castell. Especially given the extra ink that will be in the feed/collector, this extra 0.2ml isn't something that makes refills noticeably less frequent, at least for me. A jump to the 1.5ml of a long cartridge or one of the bigger piston-fillers, yes, that would be noticeable, but not this.

You clarified your initial post about one converter being "a joke" and the other being pejoratively small by saying you were actually looking for feedback from Japanese pen users about how their converters compared. And that was my feedback. I hope it is helpful to you.

January 26, 2015

Yes, I'm aware of the difference, thanks. I have and use all three converters you illustrate.

I never disputed the fact that some converters have a smaller capacity, merely that it was a big deal in practice. I even happily use one of my CON-50s with the 6.0mm Pilot Parallel, which would challenge an eyedropper.

I understand the difference is between something like 0.5ml for the Pilot and Sailor converters (as well as others like Waterman) and something like 0.7ml for the Faber-Castell. Especially given the extra ink that will be in the feed/collector, this extra 0.2ml isn't something that makes refills noticeably less frequent, at least for me. A jump to the 1.5ml of a long cartridge or one of the bigger piston-fillers, yes, that would be noticeable, but not this.

You clarified your initial post about one converter being "a joke" and the other being pejoratively small by saying you were actually looking for feedback from Japanese pen users about how their converters compared. And that was my feedback. I hope it is helpful to you.

The hook on the connector actually hold another ~0.1ml of ink so it moves the total capacity close to the STDs.Just you need some tricks to fill it fully.

January 26, 2015

I disagree that there should an issue with the wide openings on all the Japanese converters (Sailor, Pilot or Platinum). On the contrary, it is this feature that lessens the possibility of ink starvation to their feeds.

Though my German Schmidt K5 holds a greater volume of ink, this type of converter's narrow opening may actually restrict the ink's flow. In my experience, there has always been some ink stuck in this lower area of my K5s, which makes this style of converter harder to keep clean.

Edited January 26, 2015 by tinta

January 27, 2015

I disagree that there should an issue with the wide openings on all the Japanese converters (Sailor, Pilot or Platinum). On the contrary, it is this feature that lessens the possibility of ink starvation to their feeds.
Though my German Schmidt K5 holds a greater volume of ink, this type of converter's narrow opening may actually restrict the ink's flow. In my experience, there has always been some ink stuck in this lower area of my K5s, which makes this style of converter harder to keep clean.

If you've ever taken a McDonalds straw and dipped one end in into the coke, and blocked the other end with your thumb and lifted it out. You would know what I am talking about. The liquid gets stuck in the straw and will not come out until you take your thumb off. That is what happens with Con 50 or any similar converter with a big open end. The ink gets trapped in the converter and air pocket forms at the bottom at the nib end. I've had that happen numerous time with my Namiki Falcon and Con 50 converter. I had to push the piston down to get the ink into the feed. What an awful design!!

If you look at a faber castell converter, it is like a cartridge forming a closed environment. As ink is drawn out by the nib, air is allowed up into the chamber displacing the ink. The air pocket tends to float to the top not stay stuck at the bottom allowing ink to flow due to the closed environment of the chamber. Look at a cartridge and you will know what I mean.

Fortunately the new CON50s have an agitator that disrupts the air pocket and forces the air pocket out of the bottom and it works much better now.

Edited January 27, 2015 by max dog

January 27, 2015

Yes, I'm aware of the difference, thanks. I have and use all three converters you illustrate.

I never disputed the fact that some converters have a smaller capacity, merely that it was a big deal in practice. I even happily use one of my CON-50s with the 6.0mm Pilot Parallel, which would challenge an eyedropper.

I understand the difference is between something like 0.5ml for the Pilot and Sailor converters (as well as others like Waterman) and something like 0.7ml for the Faber-Castell. Especially given the extra ink that will be in the feed/collector, this extra 0.2ml isn't something that makes refills noticeably less frequent, at least for me. A jump to the 1.5ml of a long cartridge or one of the bigger piston-fillers, yes, that would be noticeable, but not this.

You clarified your initial post about one converter being "a joke" and the other being pejoratively small by saying you were actually looking for feedback from Japanese pen users about how their converters compared. And that was my feedback. I hope it is helpful to you.

Thanks for the info. I haven't taken measurements of the converters so I will take your word for it. I expected a bigger difference in capacity between the Con 50 and Faber Castell. In the picture, the long ink chamber of the Faber Castell looks like would hold twice the capacity of the Con 50, especially if you take the latters agitator into account.

Anyway, I am happy with the new CON 50 with the agitator in my Pilot Falcon. Maybe next time I will get the metal Falcon that uses the nicer/bigger CON70.

From the feed back it doesn't look like most people here are too concerned or bothered at all by the small ink capacity of the typical Pilot or Sailor converters as I am. I guess a good nib makes up for it.

Edited January 27, 2015 by max dog

January 27, 2015

Thanks for the info. I haven't taken measurements of the converters so I will take your word for it. I expected a bigger difference in capacity between the Con 50 and Faber Castell. In the picture, the long ink chamber of the Faber Castell looks like would hold twice the capacity of the Con 50, especially if you take the latters agitator into account.

Anyway, I am happy with the new CON 50 with the agitator in my Pilot Falcon. Maybe next time I will get the metal Falcon that uses the nicer/bigger CON70.

From the feed back it doesn't look like most people here are too concerned or bothered at all by the small ink capacity of the typical Pilot or Sailor converters as I am. I guess a good nib makes up for it.

Pilot makes plenty of pens with interesting filling systems, that utilize many of their nib options. Sailor makes piston fillers as well (though as some have noted, their ink capacity is less than spectacular). Pilot is also the biggest of the three Japanese brands. Many of their custom lines can take the con-70, which definitely holds around the same as some piston fillers. Pilot also makes vacuumatic fillers.

Furthermore, as interesting as the filling systems on some Western pens may be, a cartridge converter is, in my opinion, inherently more practical in terms of ease of cleaning, replacing parts, and travel (where you can pop in a cartridge). Two cartridges from any of the big three companies easily holds more than most piston fillers.

The analogy with the straw has not been an issue for me (and fyi, that has to do with air pressure and relies on the fact that the straw was initially submerged. Thus, as far as I know and if I remember my physics correctly, it should not apply. I've found that the wider opening allows for more consistent flow. The issue with the con50 before the agitator was actually surface tension since it's a little stout, and that's what the agitator is there to break up), and I actually find more of an issue with ink flow on western converters in terms of air pockets (at the very least the schmidt one). Keep in mind that Pilots also offer a con20 aerometric (which holds closer to 1mL, which I definitely recommend over the con-50) and that most of the Japanese converters are very easy to take apart and clean (except con20 and con 70, which are both easy to clean in their own right). If you look around for measurements of converters and such, you'll find accurate measures on FPN that show that the ink capacity difference really isn't as big as people make it out to be (not to mention the tendency of japanese pens to be inherently finer, so that ink lasts longer!

And of course, the nibs are consistent and reliable!