What is on your bench?

[FarmBoy]

The cork seal may well be the problem. 
 

My Ink View doesn’t have one. 

[Ron Z]

A couple of comments as I haven't checked in on this thread in a while....

 

I sill have my salad spinner centrifuges, includinv V1 which I use for really big pens.  V2 travels with me to pen shows.  The motorized one that I made gets used with nearly every pen repair since I fill and test every pen.  That one is a copy of Parker's, made out of a 12" cake pan, an overturned stainless dog food bowl and an old fan motor.  The holder, like the original, is a 51 desk pen trumpet.

 

Thread sealant.  Mine is made using the formula that Richard Binder and I found when we visited the Sheaffer service center in 2008.  The color is identical to what we saw. 

 

I rather like the Sheaffer plunger fillers.   There was a time when I wouldn't buy them because I thought that they couldn't be fixed (the Fr, Terry method doesn't work!)  But that changed when the right way to fix them got sorted out.  Properly restored,  using the right rubber parts, the only maintenance is a little silicone grease on the plunger rod, and the OS pens in particular hold a ton of ink.  They're about the easiest pen to flush that there is.  Half a dozen strokes of the plunger in a cup of water pretty well flushes the pen clear.

 

Cork in a Inkview?

 

 

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

Sorry, I was thinking of the little rubber gasket. I don't know where to buy the material for it, nor do I have the patience to cut it out to the perfect size if I had it. I am not sure why I said cork; probably had safety pens on my mind.

 

Either way, I didn't restore it, someone else did, and it doesn't fill well.

[es9]

3 hours ago, LoveBigPensAndCannotLie said:

I think the design is fine as far as functionality goes (IMO, far superior to vacs in terms of how easy and efficiently they fill - but I won't lie, I kind of hate the vacumatic filling system so maybe I am biased) but where they really fall apart is ease of maintenance. Sheaffer put zero thought into "future proofing" these. Or at least making them repairable. 

I more or less agree with this take. While I personally really like Vacumatics, I think the Sheaffer filling system offers several distinct benefits. For example, filling with one press certainly beats 10-20. Flushing them is also much easier, and you avoid certain Vac-specific problems like corroded plungers, plastic bushings that have fused to the barrel, etc. And filling the pen effectively cleans the barrel wall. It’s true that the Sheaffer is much more difficult to service. The relative ease of performing basic service on a vac obviously huge plus of the design.
 

A few minor design changes by Sheaffer would have avoided a lot of headaches. For example, the snorkel-style nib collar gives you something to grip onto with section pliers. And I think a Wahl-style horizontal bar would be a more effective way of moving the plunger to the side—those feed tails seem to break off very frequently.*

 

Despite all these challenges, I still like the Sheaffers a lot. Once the packing material is replaced, it will be a long time before the pen will needs to be serviced again. I imagine a diaphram will fail multiple times over before the viton o-ring or buna-n rubber head gaskets needs to be replaced. 
 

*And with a Wahl-style bar, we could now sub steel for ebonite. I keep playing around with ideas to get around the feed tail issue, but no luck yet. 

[Ron Z]

36 minutes ago, LoveBigPensAndCannotLie said:

Sorry, I was thinking of the little rubber gasket. I don't know where to buy the material for it, nor do I have the patience to cut it out to the perfect size if I had it. I am not sure why I said cork; probably had safety pens on my mind.

 

Either way, I didn't restore it, someone else did, and it doesn't fill well.

Does it have a breather tube running the full length (or nearly so) of the barrel?

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

19 minutes ago, Ron Z said:

Does it have a breather tube running the full length (or nearly so) of the barrel?

 

Yup, it has one running about 80-90% the length of the transparent part of the barrel. Nearly to the very top. It's one of the Lady Patricia ones, not full size. For the life of me I was not able to get it to fill more 40%-50% no matter how many times I used the lever. I know these require multiple presses like a vacumatic vs. something like a traditional lever filler, but even after over a dozen times using the lever it would not go past half full.

 

Edit: I guess a possibility is that the breather tube is partially clogged. The pen came back almost as dirty as it was when I sent it in. The nib was dirty and I had to floss it multiple times to get it to write. Not going to name names because the guy who restored it is a pretty well respected member of the community and generally does very good work - but his restoration work is, how do I say this, very minimal. He'll get the filling system working but everything else is up to you.

[Ron Z]

A clogged breather tube could be a problem.  I generally coax them out of the section and clean both the section and breather tube, then use a fine needle inserted in one end to power flush the breather tube and the hole in the feed.  Vac/Inkview/snorkel....  if it has a tube that ink has to go through I use a syringe full of the cleaning solution, and then a syringe of water to rinse.

 

There should be rubber washer under the cone that goes into the end of the Inkview sac.  IIRC I make mine with a small Sheaffer head gasket, enlarging the center hole with a punch so that it doesn't close when tightened. 

 

eta:

I guess a possibility is that the breather tube is partially clogged.

Its also possible that the hole in their gasket is a bit small and closed down when compressed so that the hole there is smaller than it should be.  I've had that happen...

 

[VacNut]

Given the material limitations in the 1930’s-1950’s for transparent materials, I think they did quite well. Making a clear pliable sac or diaphragm that allows the user to see the ink was a technical marvel. I don’t think people would have been happy with the Aerometric if the sac was rubber.

There are a number of Italian pens who used similar celluloid materials with a rubber sac and the effect is not the same.

I think we forget that there were numerous pen technicians in that era and it would have been fairly inconsequential to have the fillers or diaphragms replaced.

Anyone remember taking their cars into the repair shop for a “tune-up” or to lube? How about adding water to car batteries? Those were the days!

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

5 hours ago, VacNut said:

Given the material limitations in the 1930’s-1950’s for transparent materials, I think they did quite well. Making a clear pliable sac or diaphragm that allows the user to see the ink was a technical marvel. I don’t think people would have been happy with the Aerometric if the sac was rubber.

There are a number of Italian pens who used similar celluloid materials with a rubber sac and the effect is not the same.

I think we forget that there were numerous pen technicians in that era and it would have been fairly inconsequential to have the fillers or diaphragms replaced.

Anyone remember taking their cars into the repair shop for a “tune-up” or to lube? How about adding water to car batteries? Those were the days!

 

Yeah, that's fair. I guess I am looking at it through the lens of a modern pen, at the time they had different standards. I'm sure in 50 years vintage electronics collectors will be wondering why the hell we switched to phones that don't have removable batteries and are a royal pain to fix. And have a million different types of cables/connectors.

 

Re: the material, I think it adds a little bit of novelty and functionality but personally it's not a huge thing for me. I recently got a Webster Headliner, made in a similar striated celluloid to Parker's shadowwave vacs except not transparent. Out of all the pens in my collection I think it's probably the most beautiful and it has a dinky little ink window in the section. Nib is horrible but that's besides the point.

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

I'm sure ya'll were waiting with baited breath for my next restoration. Restored a Sheaffer Snorkel, I'm a little peeved at myself. It seems like with every restoration I do, I find a new way to mess something up. Every pen is a new adventure.

 

Everything went smoothly including getting the old o-ring out (usually a pain point for me). Getting the new o-ring took a little more time than usual (got a little overconfident with a Sheaffer Cadet I restored a few days ago where I got the new o-ring in within 10 seconds, this one took me like 10 minutes so I guess it averages out).

 

And then... I tried getting the plug back into the sac protector. Wouldn't go in even with heat so I tried to burnish one of the corners that was folded in a bit. Ended up creating a tear in the sac protector.

 

 

Retracting the snorkel feels very rough. It may not be totally my fault as the spring has some pockmarks from corrosion which is probably contributing to the roughness. Will probably coat it in a little bit of silicone grease in the offending areas after I am done with the current fill of ink. How big of an issue will the tear in the sac protector be? I burnished back into relative shape.

 

On the bright side, it fills very well and wrote instantly after filling unlike the last one I restored (that one may have been NOS though, wrote fine after dipping, albeit with some dryout issues). Feed tail intact as well. Nib is maybe a tiny tiny bit misaligned but still pretty smooth. I think these late generation "long" Triumph nibs used on the Snorkels are probably the best nibs ever made. I'm very picky in regards to nibs so for me this is saying a lot. This is my first non-gold one but it feels exactly like the gold nibs, just with a little less pizzazz.

 

Pen is in pretty good condition (other that the filling system problems I may have introduced), has a deep scratch on the front over the cap band which I do not think is a crack. Didn't want to do any heavy polishing to get rid of it. The body is pretty worn, the imprint is completely gone, but otherwise fairly nice.

[Ron Z]

Hint - Sheaffer either pushed in the edge  of the sac guard in 4 places to hold the plug in the sac guard, or rolled the edge over, or both.  Before you put the plug back in, take a tapered punch  (like a small center punch) and gently stretch the edge of the sac guard back into round and straight at the edge, then take a pair of sharp needle nose pliers and open up the end of each of the keys/ridges so that they are open again at the edge.  This will make it easier to put the sac and plug back into the barrel.  Then (with the snorkel tube out) roll the edge on a metal surface so it rolls in a bit, and if it it was pushed in between the ridges, do that too with a small straight blade screwdriver.  I sometimes will push in a bit at the corner on either side of each ridge so that they are flat.  The sac guard should then move freely in the section.

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

Does heat help at all? I was using the dull edge of the smaller end of a knitting needle to try to push the "keys" out and that was what tore the metal. Barely any pressure. I figure heat might make the metal a little more pliable to avoid this issue in the future. Or no effect?

 

I think I need to be more careful with seeing how it's held in the future. One of the Snorkels I restored had the sac protector crimped in rather than the metal rounded over. The second I am not sure, or at least the rounded over edges were not as pronounced. Didn't have any issues with either but this one seems to have been more rounded over.

 

This one had a perfectly pliable sac (like new, really - had to mark it so I wouldn't get confused with the new replacement) but a completely desiccated o-ring and gasket which makes me wonder if it was partially restored at some point. And the partially rusty spring... On the plus side this is the first one I've restored where the snorkel tube didn't come out of the plug. Small victories I guess.

[Ron Z]

The early ones (first year) were crimped, and are easier to get apart and put back together.  Later ones, and so the majority it seems, are the way described above. 

[IThinkIHaveAProblem]

1 hour ago, LoveBigPensAndCannotLie said:

I'm sure ya'll were waiting with baited breath for my next restoration. Restored a Sheaffer Snorkel, I'm a little peeved at myself. It seems like with every restoration I do, I find a new way to mess something up. Every pen is a new adventure.

 

Everything went smoothly including getting the old o-ring out (usually a pain point for me). Getting the new o-ring took a little more time than usual (got a little overconfident with a Sheaffer Cadet I restored a few days ago where I got the new o-ring in within 10 seconds, this one took me like 10 minutes so I guess it averages out).

 

And then... I tried getting the plug back into the sac protector. Wouldn't go in even with heat so I tried to burnish one of the corners that was folded in a bit. Ended up creating a tear in the sac protector.

 

 

Retracting the snorkel feels very rough. It may not be totally my fault as the spring has some pockmarks from corrosion which is probably contributing to the roughness. Will probably coat it in a little bit of silicone grease in the offending areas after I am done with the current fill of ink. How big of an issue will the tear in the sac protector be? I burnished back into relative shape.

 

On the bright side, it fills very well and wrote instantly after filling unlike the last one I restored (that one may have been NOS though, wrote fine after dipping, albeit with some dryout issues). Feed tail intact as well. Nib is maybe a tiny tiny bit misaligned but still pretty smooth. I think these late generation "long" Triumph nibs used on the Snorkels are probably the best nibs ever made. I'm very picky in regards to nibs so for me this is saying a lot. This is my first non-gold one but it feels exactly like the gold nibs, just with a little less pizzazz.

 

Pen is in pretty good condition (other that the filling system problems I may have introduced), has a deep scratch on the front over the cap band which I do not think is a crack. Didn't want to do any heavy polishing to get rid of it. The body is pretty worn, the imprint is completely gone, but otherwise fairly nice.

Great looking pen

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

22 minutes ago, IThinkIHaveAProblem said:

Great looking pen

 

Thanks! I like it. The clip is a little bent but it's barely visible unless you look from the side. Didn't want to test my luck trying to unbend it. All my other Snorkels are a boring black color so this one's nice.

[VacNut]

Talk about technical marvels, a sheaffer snorkel!  One of the first desk pens I royally messed up before I started collecting pens. I loved how the snorkel would extend and recede into the barrel, that is until I twisted the end a bit too far and the helical spring “sprung” from the pen. 
I still wonder why they developed such a complex mechanism. 

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

Don't really get it myself, they were trying to compete with the simplicity and ease of use of ballpoints with... one of the most complicated to operate pens out there. At least Parker's "dunk it and forget it" system with the capillary 61 kind of made sense from the standpoint of making filling the pen as easy as possible.

 

I love showing these to non-pen people. The people at work have long gotten bored of my vintage pen shenanigans but the Snorkel always impresses.

[IThinkIHaveAProblem]

21 minutes ago, VacNut said:

Talk about technical marvels, a sheaffer snorkel!  One of the first desk pens I royally messed up before I started collecting pens. I loved how the snorkel would extend and recede into the barrel, that is until I twisted the end a bit too far and the helical spring “sprung” from the pen. 
I still wonder why they developed such a complex mechanism. 

 

16 minutes ago, LoveBigPensAndCannotLie said:

Don't really get it myself, they were trying to compete with the simplicity and ease of use of ballpoints with... one of the most complicated to operate pens out there. At least Parker's "dunk it and forget it" system with the capillary 61 kind of made sense from the standpoint of making filling the pen as easy as possible.

 

I love showing these to non-pen people. The people at work have long gotten bored of my vintage pen shenanigans but the Snorkel always impresses.

My limited understanding is that both the 61 and the snorkel were trying to solve the same “problem”: the perceived messiness of refilling a fountain pen. 
 

one company created a system with no moving parts, the “simplest” (ahem..) filling system ever

the other company created the most complicated system ever. 
 

both companies created pens that did not require wiping after filling. 
 

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

14 minutes ago, IThinkIHaveAProblem said:

 

My limited understanding is that both the 61 and the snorkel were trying to solve the same “problem”: the perceived messiness of refilling a fountain pen. 
 

one company created a system with no moving parts, the “simplest” (ahem..) filling system ever

the other company created the most complicated system ever. 
 

both companies created pens that did not require wiping after filling. 
 

 

Ah, I guess this is true. Sheaffer did recommend dipping the tip of the nib after the first time filling though (can confirm for one of my snorkels it wouldn't write until I dipped it, and that happened to be the one that appeared completely unused), but getting it dirty only once is better than every fill.

 

I am enjoying my Parker 61 so far. I've had it inked for a few weeks and I'm impressed at how well the capillary system works. The nib is a touch skippy and I know Parker 61's are notorious for having fragile plastics, but the filling system itself works perfectly. Impressive ink capacity too. Shame that people didn't know how to maintain it and it had to be phased out.

[VacNut]

Parker played around with the capillary system for the 51 without much success.