Rollerball refill mystery - Auroras

[WDanderson]

Hello all,

 

I have a mystery on my quest for putting my favorite Pilot G2 or Energel rollerball refill into my favorite pen body. This all began with me finally admitting that fountain pens were just not practical for office work with crappy copy paper, post it notes with that damn wax covering, etc. And God forbid the scariest thing, a coworker asking "can I borrow your pen."

 

My absolute all time favorite rollerball writer is the Cross black. It's the blackest and wettest that I have ever found. Problem is of course, that will only fit in a Cross, and I've used Townsends for a decade and want something new.

 

So, I began with trying to put my second favorite refill, a Navy Blue .7 Pilot G2 into an Aurora Optima rollerball, and it seemed to work just fine, at first. The fit was fine, but the thing wrote WET. I mean, like an arm chopped off and bleeding out of a shoulder kind of wet. It was more or less broken. There was no added pressure, and when I placed the refill back into the disposable Pilot G2 body, it returned to normal writing. I put it back into the Aurora and it did the same thing and I waited to see if it would settle out and dry some. It did. An hour later I uncapped it to write,...and it wouldn't write at all! Again, placing it in its former home fixed it.

 

*perplexed*

 

I thought maybe I had a QC outlier, even though it wrote fine when returned to its normal disposable barrel. So, I tried 3-4 other Pilot G2s...same results. I gave up and looked for alternatives such as Schmidt 888 and 5888, which I didn't care for. They looked flat and washed out, but they did work in the Aurora Optima. Aurora and Visconti refills seemed dry and faded black, especially the Aurora refill. To date, the only refill I've found that I like is the Pelikan M in black, but it's still not as black as a Pilot G2 or Cross. 

 

Note that I have Waterman Experts which easily take the Pilot G2 with no issues. I've been using them for most of the past year. Apparently Aurora is just slightly different, somehow, to make these things write horribly wet and then not at all. I don't understand what could possibly be happening here. If it's a case of trying to use a capless rollerball in a capped pen, then why do they work fine in a Waterman Expert? And, for the most part they work fine in an Aurora Ipsilon, (so far, so good.)

 

it seems I am doomed to be stuck with Pelikan, Schmidt 888, or Aurora rollerballs in my Optima. I tried an Energel today, same thing in both the Optima AND the Ipsilon, super almost leaky wet, then nothing after capped for 10 mins. 

 

Anyone here with greater knowledge than me tell me what's going on here?

[Anne-Sophie]

Aurora is an Italian brand, so I suggest sharing your experience with the Aurora Optima rollerball in the Italian brands sub-forum.

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/forum/88-italy-europe/

[Number99]

On 1/11/2024 at 4:01 AM, Anne-Sophie said:

Aurora is an Italian brand, so I suggest sharing your experience with the Aurora Optima rollerball in the Italian brands sub-forum.

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/forum/88-italy-europe/

I was following this topic because I wanted to get an expert's opinion if he/she replied.

Based on the symptoms, I suspect that the vent hole in the refill or the vent in the barrel is blocked, what do you think?

If that applies, would proper deformation of the shape of the refill top or other place where the vent hole exists, or the refill that is blocking the vent hole in the barrel, solve the problem?

I do not have the same pen as the OP and could not run it and confirm.

Just a curiosity based interest about it.

Please note that the location of the blockage is hypothetical since there is no pen available.

 

 

 

[AceNinja]

what OP describes here is really bizarre and really doesn't make sense to me.   Want to hear expert's opinion as well.

 

It sound's like OP's Aurora Optima has some DRM checking ability, only genuine refills shall works...?  Sounds like something HP inkjet printer will do.

[mr T.]

On 11/28/2023 at 8:15 PM, WDanderson said:

 Note that I have Waterman Experts which easily take the Pilot G2 with no issues. I've been using them for most of the past year. Apparently Aurora is just slightly different, somehow, to make these things write horribly wet and then not at all. I don't understand what could possibly be happening here. If it's a case of trying to use a capless rollerball in a capped pen, then why do they work fine in a Waterman Expert? And, for the most part they work fine in an Aurora Ipsilon, (so far, so good.)

 

it seems I am doomed to be stuck with Pelikan, Schmidt 888, or Aurora rollerballs in my Optima. I tried an Energel today, same thing in both the Optima AND the Ipsilon, super almost leaky wet, then nothing after capped for 10 mins. 

 

Anyone here with greater knowledge than me tell me what's going on here?

There seems to be an issue with the inkflow of the Pilot G2 refills, so it is likely that the problem is caused in the lower part of the refill between the (tungsten/metal) ball and the part of the refill that contains the ink. While the length of a Pilot G2 rb-refill and a Euro Format rb-refill is the same, there is some difference because of the plastic housing around the metal tip shaft. That means that in pens with enough clearance (like the Waterman Expert) a Euro-Format style refill and a Pilot G2-refill can be interchanged/exchanged. The Aurora Optima rb is specifically designed for 'eurostyle' or 'Euro Format'-refills like the Schmidt 888/5888. or the Schneider Topball 850. The Aurora Optima rb has a (very) tight interior clearance and therefore a (Japanese) Pilot G2 and a 'eurostyle' of Euro-Format refill are not interchangeble. Using a (Pilot) G2-size rb refill in a rb like the Optima can result in ink flow problems or in damaging the G2-refill.

[Number99]

According to the Standards and Compatibility Table Japanese ballpoint pen refills lists, LVKRF-10F-(B,R,L) (water-based ink, not gel ink) is the model number of Pilot refills compatible with SCHMIDT 888/5888. The refill for the PILOT G2 roller ball is 0.5mm longer.

However, refills with this model number (LVKRF-10F-(B,R,L) ) have the following note: "The nib circumference is slightly different from the exact dimensions specified in the standard.”

 

On the other hand, according to the PILOT JAPAN website, it is listed as a refill for PILOT V-cone knock.

 

※All the linked articles are in Japanese.

https://www.pilot.co.jp/products/pen/ballpen/vcornknock/

LVKRF-10F-(B,R,L)

https://www.pilot.co.jp/products/pen/ballpen/spare/water_based/refill4/

Please note that refill model numbers seem to differ between Japan and some other countries.

From ボールペンManiax wiki.

https://ballpointpens.wiki.fc2.com/m/wiki/規格#note-JISS6054-refill-C

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2024 by Number99

[mr T.]

8 hours ago, Number99 said:

According to the Standards and Compatibility Table Japanese ballpoint pen refills lists, LVKRF-10F-(B,R,L) (water-based ink, not gel ink) is the model number of Pilot refills compatible with SCHMIDT 888/5888. The refill for the PILOT G2 roller ball is 0.5mm longer.

However, refills with this model number (LVKRF-10F-(B,R,L) ) have the following note: "The nib circumference is slightly different from the exact dimensions specified in the standard.”

Even between various Pilot G2-style refills seems to be differences as one can see on this picture. (source)

 

[Number99]

12 hours ago, mr T. said:

Even between various Pilot G2-style refills seems to be differences as one can see on this picture. (source)

 

I am confused. The Pilot G and G2 replacement refills are the two below.

The left side of the image in the link is very similar but the right side is completely different... What is the definition of "Pilot G2 style"?

BLS-G2

https://www.pilotpen.co.uk/en/gel-ink-rollerball-pen-refill-bls-g2-fine-tip.html?master_product_id=4329

LG2RF

https://www.pilot.co.jp/products/pen/ballpen/spare/gel_ink/refill2/

LG2RF is available as a refill of the same standard. (Not recommended by the manufacturer.)

https://www.pilot.co.jp/products/pen/ballpen/spare/gel_ink/refill2/

This standard corresponds to the shape specified as "Type symbol L" in "JIS S 6061:2020 Gel ink ballpoint pens and refills 6 Shape, dimensions and structure of refills".

“JIS S 6061:2020 Gel ink ballpoint pens and refills" is commonized in response to "ISO 27668-1:2017 Gel ink ball pens and refills - Part 1: General use.” and “ISO 27668-2:2009 Gel ink ball pens and refills - Part 2: Documentary use (DOC)”

 

Interestingly, the site explains the standard for Euroformat rollerball refills as "ISO 12757-1 RB states that a standard rollerball refill should be 6.3mm in diameter and 110mm in length." 

https://penvibe.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-euro-format-rollerball-pen-refills/#Fifth_Sub_Point_17

However, the Pilot G2 refill falls under the JIS standard "Type symbol L" with a length of 111mm (±1) and an outer diameter of 6.0mm (±0.15).

On the other hand, SCHMIDT 888/5888 is 110mm (±1) in length and 6.3mm (±0.15) in outer diameter, which is the same as the Euroformat rollerball refill standard, and falls under JIS "Type symbol C".

In the JIS standard, the two refills are classified into different formats.

Including the length tolerance, they differ by as much as 3mm.

 

*Deepl translations are used, it is very likely that the wording of technical terms in each standard will differ from the actual official translation.

 

 

[mr T.]

On 1/19/2024 at 12:18 PM, Number99 said:

However, the Pilot G2 refill falls under the JIS standard "Type symbol L" with a length of 111mm (±1) and an outer diameter of 6.0mm (±0.15). On the other hand, SCHMIDT 888/5888 is 110mm (±1) in length and 6.3mm (±0.15) in outer diameter, which is the same as the Euroformat rollerball refill standard, and falls under JIS "Type symbol C". In the JIS standard, the two refills are classified into different formats. Including the length tolerance, they differ by as much as 3mm.

This is probably the reason why there is a problem using a Pilot G2-refill in the Aurora Optima rb. It is a known issue with Pilot G2 refills. According to this UK based seller, a Pilot BLSG2 Gel Rollerball Pen Refill is "110mm long, 6mm diameter. Suitable for many pens using 'euro-format' refills, but the 1mm length difference compared to most can make a difference to some pens.". Some good advice about Euro Format refill compatibility is given here: "Avoid using Japanese refill brands. Japanese manufacturers make some of the best pens and refills in the world. However, generally speaking, Japanese plastic euro refills from brands such as Pilot, Pentel, and Zebra are not very compatible with other brands of pens." 

[Number99]

7 hours ago, mr T. said:

This is probably the reason why there is a problem using a Pilot G2-refill in the Aurora Optima rb. It is a known issue with Pilot G2 refills. According to this UK based seller, a Pilot BLSG2 Gel Rollerball Pen Refill is "110mm long, 6mm diameter. Suitable for many pens using 'euro-format' refills, but the 1mm length difference compared to most can make a difference to some pens.". Some good advice about Euro Format refill compatibility is given here: "Avoid using Japanese refill brands. Japanese manufacturers make some of the best pens and refills in the world. However, generally speaking, Japanese plastic euro refills from brands such as Pilot, Pentel, and Zebra are not very compatible with other brands of pens." 

What you quoted is my explanation of JIS "Type symbol L", not LG2RF.

In my previous post, I explained that LG2RF (Pilot G2 Rollerball Refill) is 0.5mm longer than 110.0mm (SCHMIDT 888/5888), but I never stated that it is 1mm longer. 

The manufacturer's published value in this link states a length of 110.5mm.

This is within the JIS official tolerance of the standard and indicates that the manufacturer is manufacturing to exactly 110.5mm.

https://www.pilot.co.jp/products/pen/ballpen/spare/gel_ink/refill2/

 

P.S.

I haven't looked into this and gotten results yet, but it says that JIS has a corresponding ISO, which I believe indicates that JIS and ISO have already merged or are in the process of merging.

Just as JIS has a standard for PARKER G2, ISO has a standard that includes Mitsubishi patents.

I can only read ISO by comparing the inaccurate Google translations with the original text, so I am quoting JIS written in the authentic Japanese text, which can be read quickly.

So you just need to confirm my description with ISO and that's the end of your business. ( I am referring to the doubts you raised regarding the length of the refills.)

Then the link you quoted was already quoted by me in my previous post.

You are the first person to quote the same article I quoted in my post in a reply.

 

P.S. to this thread.

I am not interested in the compatibility of refills from different pen makers, but rather in the cause of the problems that have occurred with the OP's pens.

However, the premise is that there are problems related to refill compatibility.

I myself have always used genuine refills in my pens under the current circumstances. Therefore, I am not advocating the use of refills from other companies that may be compatible.

 

 

Edited January 21, 2024 by Number99