Site icon INKED HAPPINESS

Fountain Pen Filling Mechanisms

chawm

It was never easy being a scribe. Imagine carrying your quill (and a penknife to sharpen it at regular intervals) along with a pot of ink to work. Dank. It was only a little better when the holders with their metal nibs were introduced. Well, it did do away with the knife, but it was still a bother, not to mention being messy as hell.

But before we delve deep into the matter, it will be pertinent to remember that in those pre-digital days, even before the dot pens were conceived, and when the whole world was the market for fountain pens. Naturally, there were big players who could invest huge sums on research and development as were individual inventors everywhere, whose combined focus was on creating the best filling mechanism. It was a roughly two-hundred-and fifty-year period that witnessed these huge strides and with innumerable players contributing, it is very difficult to accurately date each invention, or to chronologically list them. I will therefore try to bundle the different filling systems under common types and indicate the rough time period whenever possible.  Finally, there are systems that I will miss out – for the simple reason that they are variations, often even improvements, of some of the systems mentioned here.

Direct Filling

The defining moment was when someone filled the barrel of the pen with ink and fitted a nib at the end. Bingo? Not quite, for despite pushing convenience by a few notches, it was still messy, not to mention the fact that filling the pen used to be a big hassle – one still had to carry an eye dropper. There were two other problems that were major hindrances: one, corrosive inks led to inevitable leakages, especially from around the barrel-section regions; and two, change in air pressure within the barrel brought about by a change in the level of ink led to burping and ink spillage. Ebonite (hard rubber) pens were the way out for tackling the issue of corrosion, but leaks pretty much remained the nuisance.

The safety filler was a giant leap forward in terms of filling systems. In the late 1800s, a pen was perfected in which the nib would retract within the barrel, creating a cavity to fill the ink, this is why such pens are also called retractable fillers. Once the ink filling operation was over, the nib could then be moved back to writing position thanks to a helical screw driven by the rotation of the bottom of the pen. This would also hermetically seal the barrel, taking care of all spillage issues. Waterman in the US and Kaweco in Europe were early adopters and mass produced such safety fillers to popularity.

Moore took the safety filler to the next level by introducing their parented non-leakable filler pens, in which the retractable feature was mechanically operated by a sleeve at the bottom of the pen that could be slid back and forth. This did away with the helical screw mechanism and simplified operations manifold. Montblanc’s  Rouge et Noir models famously used this system and it is believed that Arthur Eberstein, who had previously worked for Moore was responsible for the introduction of the system to Montblanc.

Japanese manufacturers like Sailor and Pilot had taken eyedropper fillers to another level when they had introduced a plunger with a rotating mechanism in the bottom of the barrel that could be screwed to seal off the nib unit thereby blocking any possible ink spillage while the pen was not being used for writing. This was very popular till about the early 1930s.

The Sac and Direct Compression fillers

The search for a one-hand, automatic filling system was on, and in the early 1900s the industry was shaken by the introduction of the rubber sac.  Several filling systems were produced in which the ink was loaded inside a rubber sac fitted inside the barrel from which ink flowed into the nib. Compressing the sac and letting it expand subsequently with the nib dipped into the ink bottle or inkwell allowed the ink to be drawn in. At that time, it was a big advancement as sacs prevented the ink from contacting the barrel walls and corroding the same. Besides, the sac also addressed the problem created by change in temperature and air pressure inside the barrel which used to be a bane with Eye Dropper Fillers. On the flip side, sacs tend to deteriorate over time calling for maintenance and other replacement related issues, apart from decreasing the ink carrying capacity which was limited by the size of the sac that could be fitted within the barrel.

The next leap forward was the introduction of the pressure bar – a metal piece glued on to the sac that could be pressed from the outside of the barrel to compress the sac and facilitate the process of ink filling.

Roy Conklin kind of nailed it when he welded a metal crescent shaped appendage that went out of a slit cut in the barrel of the pen, one that could be pushed to squeeze the sac and pull in ink. Additionally, the protruding crescent also acted as a stopper preventing the pen from rolling off. The mechanism was patented in 1901 and the rest, like they say, was history.

The hump filler was also a variation of the crescent filler in which the sac was compressed using a protruding element from a side opening in the pen. The Wawco filler conceived and parented by William Welty was a notable example, though it did not achieve the success that Conklin did.

 

Holland one of the big manufacturers in those early years patented this system in 1906 in which in the place of a crescent protruding out of the barrel, they had a rod (they called it, a collar) that could be pulled to draw the ink in.

A simple hole in the barrel that aligned to the pressure bar stuck on the tube allowed the insertion of a match stick (or a tooth pick, or any other such stick) to compress the sac and fill in the ink. But matchsticks often broke in the hole, and it was otherwise not only cumbersome, but also aesthetically challenged. Didn’t really cut the ice.

Another introduction by Holland was the sleeve filler in which a sleeve covering the entire barrel could be slid to expose the pressure bar, which could then be compressed by the fingers to complete the inking process. Though Waterman too adopted the system, and continued using it till about 1915, it wasn’t really a winner as the sleeve added to the bulk of the barrel and ebonite (from which most pens were made those days) wasn’t really take the mechanical stress of all that sliding back and forth.

LeBoeuf is known to take tinkered with the system in the 1930s and though they had replaced ebonite with celluloid, the fact that more innovative filling mechanisms had hit the stands by then posed a serious challenge to its success.

Many consider this to be the mother of the aerometric filling mechanism that later revolutionised things through the Parker 51.

The next move forward was to have a slit big enough for a coin to access the pressure bar and compress it. The larger size of the slit however, made the pens look ghastly, as were other practical problems. Waterman took the system a step further when they introduced coin filler pens with customised coins in around the early years of 1910s.

Lever Fillers

Lever fillers were the next big thing, and though they were also about compressing and subsequent expansion of a rubber tube or sac attached to a pressure bar, they were extremely popular. Sheaffer patented and flooded the market with the system in about 1912 and there have been countless variations since then. It should also be mentioned here that there were patents for similar filling mechanisms that were granted way before Sheaffer.

Sheaffer’s offering had a lever that appeared on the external side of the barrel and was attached to pressure bar on the sac. By pulling the lever up, the sac would be compressed and pushing it down into position would suck in the ink.

Whersharp, Conklin, Waterman, Carter, and many others had filling systems that were variations of this basic model.

This was patented by Columbus in 1929 and is so called because the bar resembled a spoon. The point to be noted here is that the system unnecessarily complicated things and in all probability was designed as a means to circumvent Sheaffer’s patent.

As a matter of fact, this was the name given to two different filling systems by two different brands around the same time ( read 1908 to 1912) – one was Holland, the other Crocker. Both were unnecessarily complicated without corresponding benefits.

This essentially incorporates a lever at the bottom of the barrel which can be raised and then pushed to activate the filling mechanism. Though this system is near synonymous with Aurora, Curzon is known to have used it earlier.

This made things much simpler by introducing a button at the bottom of the pen that could be pushed to activate the I Bar, which in turn would compress the sac, releasing which would draw the ink in. Soennecken is said to have taken this system to its apogee in the 1930s. Otherwise also, the system was quite popular despite the obvious technical complexities that it had to overcome and the fact that its capacity for ink was also limited due to its design.

The twist filler had replaced the sack with a rubber tube that was glued to the bottom of the pen. This bottom part, when twisted would compress the rube, which when released would suck the ink in. Waterman had the patent, though Swan is also known to have used a variant.

A variation of the Twist filler in principle, this system sought to take it to the next level, apart from circumventing patent related issues, killing two birds with one stone in the process. However it enjoyed limited success.

This was a system developed by Pilot, though essentially it was a variation of the button filler.

Pneumatic Fillers

This was about the pneumatic compression of a rubber sac inside the barrel that was brought about by creating atmospheric pressure to make the filling system dispel air from within, which was replaced by ink when decompressed.

Seth Sear Crocker first tinkered with this system as early as in 1901, but needless to say, it was very uncomfortable even if one were to ignore the issues relating to hygiene. Seth Croker’s son upgraded it to the Chilton pneumatic system, which, though brilliant as an innovation, was not successful commercially.

In 1924 bolstered with a new patent they came up with another advancement in which an outer barrel with a perforation slid over an inner barrel, forcing the sac inside to compress and suck in ink as the hole was kept covered with a finger creating the vacuum. This Chilton system was not only sturdy and fuss-free, but also allowed for more ink capacity as the inner pressure bars etc. were done away with. Repairing the system, too was easy, which was one of the reasons for its popularity. The only drawback was the large size of the pen, which was necessitated by the requirements of the mechanism. Ink filling here, was necessarily a two hand job.

This was addressed with further improvements and in 1927 an improved version of this system was introduced, which required only one hand.

Montblanc had a similar system in their Compressor fillers in around 1923, which had a limited run, primarily in France.

Sheaffer introduced the Touch Down in 1949. It was essentially an improvement of the Chilton pneumatic filler, differing only in the way in which the pneumatic compression of the rubber sac inside the barrel is performed. How the whole is covered while the ink-filling exercise was performed (as well as the placement of the air sucking hole) also differed in the two.

The Snorkel was, and continues to be one of the most complicated mechanical contraptions in a fountain pen, even though its filling system was no more than an ordinary pneumatic compression touchdown. What made this offering from Sheaffer in 1952 the reigning wonder that it is, is the tube that protrudes from under the nib as the mechanism is turned, obviating the need to dip the nib into the ink well. Naturally it was less messy as was touted in the advertisements. The complications involved in the creation of the snorkel however sacrificed the ink carrying capacity of the pen which has always plagued it.

Breather tube fillers

This filling system was essentially about a breather tube and the multiple performance of a mechanical action (varying according to the myriad sub-categories) which helped draw up the ink by compressing the air inside the tank. Lauded for maintaining the balance between the air pressure inside and outside the barrel, the system was less prone to leakages.

Bulb Fillers

This system was as effective as it was simple and was all about having a bulb (read a kind of a dropper) fitted at the bottom of the barrel that would draw up the ink and fill it directly intp the body of the pen. Though early patents incorporating similar features date back to the beginning of the 20th century, It was Postal in 1925 who really went places with the system. Eversharp and Pelikan were also known to have used them.

Vacumatic

Parker introduced the Vacumatic in 1933, which was heralded as the first sacless filling system. It wasn’t really a fact as Pelikan’s Piston Filler and Onoto’s Plunger fillers predated it. The system was a complicated version of the bulb filler in as much that the filling was fecilitated by the compression of a diaphragm which was operated by pressing a spring located at the bottom of the pen. Initially, they came with a Lockdown version which allowed the closure of the bottom.

The Speedline was an improved version, which debuted in 1937. It essentially tinkered with the closure locking system. Further down the road (in the early 1940s), the bottom part which was screwed, was converted into a celluloid one instead of aluminium.

Aerometric filler

This system had the rubber sac encased in a metal tube inside the barrel. The metal tube incorporated a side opening and could be accessed by unscrewing the pen from the body. This was introduced in the Parker 51 in 1948. The rest, like they say, is history. The Parker 51 went on to sell the most number in units in the history of fountain pens, sealing the fate of this system, which in effect was but a cross between a sleeve filler and a vacumatic filler.

Stantuffo Tuffante

This was a system popularised by OMAS in the mid-1930s which in principle is a breather tube filling system  with a hollow piston that could be accessed through the bottom of the pen and was fairly efficient.

Vacuum fillers

This is about creating a vacuum inside the pen that sucks in the ink. These pens are often transparent as they show the ink inside the pen which is not only convenient in terms of usage, but also aesthetically pleasing. Here too, ink carrying capacity is a big plus, but spillage is a problem in some systems at least, due to the change in the temperature of the air inside the barrel, especially when the ink level goes down. The Pump Filler, the Syringe Filler, the Plunger Filler and the piston filler are notable variations of this system.

Converter & Cartridge fillers

While the Converter and the cartridge are the most ubiquitous these days, I do not feel that they need any further introduction. Suffice it to say that the patent for the first cartridge pen was owned by Eagle Pencil Company of New York in 1890! The Parker 45 (named after the Colt 45) had used a plastic cartridge with limited success. The Converter is understood to have grown out of the cartridge and is of a relatively recent origin.

Capillary Filler

This was introduced by Parker in their Parker 61 in 1956 and had a mesh fabric wrapped inside the barrel that would suck in the ink when the nib was inserted into the ink bottle. Teflon or similar coating on the outside of the barrel prevented leakage and the system offered no way of flushing the pen.

Please Note: all the images are sourced from the net and their copyrihgghts rest with the respective owners.  They are used with an illustrative purpose only.

Exit mobile version