Not Aero-metric. Squeeze, not Aero-metric

[lapis]

Hi Richard.

Okay, I have a 51 from the 60s, which has a squeeze filler. Works perfect up till today.

I have always called it an "Aero" here as that is the designation you yourself once used (I think).

If I should rename same, what would you like to call it now?

 

Mike

PS: I'll use whatever you think best.

[Splicer]

Sorry, I have a dumb question. What about the non-capillary Parker 61s? Are they real aerometrics or just squeeze-fillers?

They're squeeze fillers.

 

Thanks!

 

All the more reason for me to stick with the capillary models.

[Richard]

Hi Richard.

Okay, I have a 51 from the 60s, which has a squeeze filler. Works perfect up till today.

I have always called it an "Aero" here as that is the designation you yourself once used (I think).

If I should rename same, what would you like to call it now?

If it's from the '50s, it was built as a true Aero-metric "51" (Mark I, by the designations assigned in Parker's own service manual) -- but without seeing what it's got inside nowadays, I can't tell you what it actually is. I say this because numerous Mark I "51"s have been refitted over the years, as their sterling breather tubes died, with short breather tubes à la "51" Special, and any such pen is now a "51" Special, not a "51".

[sasurgner]

Not Aero-metric. Squeeze, not Aero-metric.

 

I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but no squeeze converter is, or can be, Aero-metric. Nor are most squeeze-filling pens with fixed sacs Aero-metric.

 

The Aero-metric system requires a breather tube extending the length of the reservoir and fitted with a tiny lateral hole very near the feed to allow trapped air to escape when the pen is taken up in an airplane while being held nib upward (as when clipped in a pocket). The only Aero-metric pens ever made are the Parker "51" Mark I and Mark II, and certain Chinese pens such as the Hero 100 (but not the Hero 329, 616, etc.).

 

I'd really like to start here with correcting this horrible misapplication of the term "aerometric." FPN has enough membership to make an impact on the world. Who's with me?

 

Hello Richard,

First off, I have enjoyed your postings and your business web site. Great stuff. You are obviously the "Go Too" guy on Parkers. I have just purchased a 1950s Duofold (Made in England) and although the description states aerometric, from your postings it must be a misnomer and in fact a squeeze filler. I am including the URL at eBay where the purchase was made and would appreciate your comments and suggestions about the operation of the filling system and general care and feeding of this, my first fountain pen.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=110345870872

 

Best Regards~Scott

[JimStrutton]

Not Aero-metric. Squeeze, not Aero-metric.

 

I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but no squeeze converter is, or can be, Aero-metric. Nor are most squeeze-filling pens with fixed sacs Aero-metric.

 

The Aero-metric system requires a breather tube extending the length of the reservoir and fitted with a tiny lateral hole very near the feed to allow trapped air to escape when the pen is taken up in an airplane while being held nib upward (as when clipped in a pocket). The only Aero-metric pens ever made are the Parker "51" Mark I and Mark II, and certain Chinese pens such as the Hero 100 (but not the Hero 329, 616, etc.).

 

I'd really like to start here with correcting this horrible misapplication of the term "aerometric." FPN has enough membership to make an impact on the world. Who's with me?

 

Hello Richard,

First off, I have enjoyed your postings and your business web site. Great stuff. You are obviously the "Go Too" guy on Parkers. I have just purchased a 1950s Duofold (Made in England) and although the description states aerometric, from your postings it must be a misnomer and in fact a squeeze filler. I am including the URL at eBay where the purchase was made and would appreciate your comments and suggestions about the operation of the filling system and general care and feeding of this, my first fountain pen.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=110345870872

 

Best Regards~Scott

 

Scott,

 

Looks like a great pen at a good price. The clue on how to use it is in the description:

 

Reads 'PARKER TO FILL, PRESS RIBBED BAR THREE TIMES. WIPE FRONT END. PEN POINT DOWN. WITH SOFT TISSUE. THE PARKER PEN CO. LTD. LONDON. ENGLAND.'

 

The key is to fully immerse the nib into the ink, try a bottle of Quink and you won't go far wrong, and firmly and slowly push the ribbed bar as it says. If you are doing it right you shoud see bubbles in the ink. After the third press, wait a second or two to let the sac recover, then remove from the ink, wipe the nib as instructed and off you go.

 

Just use it and enjoy it!

 

Jim

[EventHorizon]

I love this type of thread. I can now regale my friends and aquaintances at cocktail parties and dinner parties on the intricacies of the inner workings of the Aerometric filler versus the squeeze filler. I kid you not, as I love doing this to see the looks on some of their faces not to mention their comments. Keep up the good work; it's great fun.

 

:roflmho: :roflmho:

 

Same here.

 

So my Esterbrook A-101 pens should be Esterbrook S-101 pens?? Fine by me.

 

[gyasko]

I prefer "squeeze" in both cases. After all, it does say "Squeeze 4-6 times" on the 51 filler. You squeeze to fill it. It's a squeeze filler. Squeeze is in the dictionary. It's a real word, but "aerometric" is technojargon/marketspeak.