Storing fountain pens with ink in them?

BL a écrit :

virgiliopoeta wrote:

... gold was far too dear to use much of it in
fountain pen nibs..

Virg... Well, I don't know how to break this to you, but they used
more gold on fountain pens back then than we do now.

I am happy to be able to agree with you on a few points. It is not so
difficult to agree with other people, when they happen to be right.

You are quite correct that the amount of of gold used in any one pen
would not have been so unaffordable, at least for the middle and upper
classes, where a 14k gold nib would add 'only' $50 or so to the price
(in current dollars). However, the fact remains - there is no doubt
whatever about this - that the great majority ( 95% plus) of pens sold
at all periods have had no gold whatever in them other than perhaps a
little gold plating. I am surprised that you would argue the contrary,
though given your extremely combative nature coupled with a general
ignorance of pens, perhaps I should not be. After a while, this becomes
more comic than intimidating, you know.

Actually, there has been little utilitarian justificatin for gold nibs
since the invention of stainless steel; indeed, stainless stell points
take a higher polish than 'iridium' points.

virgiliopoeta wrote:

You are quite correct that the amount of of gold
used in any one pen would not have been so
unaffordable, at least for the middle and upper
classes, where a 14k gold nib would add 'only' $50
or so to the price (in current dollars).

yawn Prove it. Post an example of a pen that offered a choice
between gold and steel nibs and then cite the actual difference in
price. Let me give you an example, the price of replacement nibs for
Parker 51s was as follows (from the 1960 Parker parts list) --
Octanium = 65 cents
14k gold = $50.65......
just kidding ... it was $1.50

-- B

In article wbx6h.649$v93.618@trnddc06,
"BL" wrote:

yawn Prove it. Post an example of a pen that offered a choice
between gold and steel nibs and then cite the actual difference in
price. Let me give you an example, the price of replacement nibs for
Parker 51s was as follows (from the 1960 Parker parts list) --
Octanium = 65 cents
14k gold = $50.65......
just kidding ... it was $1.50

And not only that, but I conducted a little experiment on a Pelikan 14K
gold nib from a 100N. The entire nib assembly (nib, feed, ring, threads)
weighs 0.003 oz. Since I wasn't about to take it apart with the nib
knockout block I just made the convenient assumption that the entire
assembly was made of 14K gold. It may be similar in weight to just the
nib of a modern Pelikan, but again I am not going to take apart a
perfectly good nib assembly.

So, 0.003 oz;
14K is 58.5% gold,
giving us 0.001755 oz;
Today's price of about $600.00/oz means it would cost $1.05 in materials.
However, the nib is from the 1930s, so if we apply $20.00/oz we get
$0.035 cents for the whole shebang. There's no way 3.5 cents in 1936 was
exorbitant or reserved for the high rollers. The nib in question was
from my father's Pelikan 100N which he received as a high school
graduation present from his father. My grandfather was a schoolteacher
in Hungary -- pretty staunchly middle class, not a high roller or a
spendthrift.

JF

--
jon fabian
looked good on paper
f a b i a n "at" p a n i x "dot" c o m

jon fabian wrote:

... I conducted a little experiment on a Pelikan
14K gold nib from a 100N. The entire nib assembly
(nib, feed, ring, threads)weighs 0.003 oz.

That's one sensitive scale you've got there, Jon. If that's what an
entire Pelikan 100N nib/feed assembly weighs, can you imagine what a
wispy little Conklin #2 nib weighs?

So, 0.003 oz;
14K is 58.5% gold,
giving us 0.001755 oz;
Today's price of about $600.00/oz means it would
cost $1.05 in materials. However, the nib is from
the 1930s, so if we apply $20.00/oz we get $0.035
cents for the whole shebang. There's no way 3.5
cents in 1936 was exorbitant or reserved for the
high rollers. The nib in question was from my
father's Pelikan 100N which he received as a high
school graduation present from his father. My
grandfather was a schoolteacher in Hungary --
pretty staunchly middle class, not a high roller
or a spendthrift.

Very cool story... and lucky you that you now have that pen. Thanks
for taking the time to do the weighing and stuff. -- B

virgiliopoeta wrote:

... there is no doubt whatever about this - that
the great majority ( 95% plus) of pens sold at all
periods have had no gold whatever in them other
than perhaps a little gold plating. I am surprised
that you would argue the contrary, though given
your extremely combative nature coupled with a
general ignorance of pens, perhaps I should not
be.

By saying things such as "there is no doubt whatever about this ...
the great majority ( 95% plus) of pens sold at all periods have had no
gold whatever in them other than perhaps a little gold plating" and
then referring to another collector as being ignorant of pens, you are
establishing yourself as an authority. Wouldn't you agree? As an
authority, you shouldn't be surprised if members of the ignorant
masses (such as myself) ask you questions. Here are a couple of
questions for you, Sensei. If Waterman, Parker, Sheaffer, and Wahl
essentially split 5% of the fountain pen market, how did they come to
be known as "The Big Four?" Which companies manufacturing fountain
pens during the early days produced 95% of all fountain pens made to
Waterman, Parker, Sheaffer, Conklin, and Wahl's 5%? -- B

mz a écrit :

Hi Virgil,

I've been following this thread and thinking about some of the
points raised. I'm not a cognoscente nor am I part of the
intelligentsia but would like to contribute some thoughts.

virgiliopoeta wrote:

It is incorrect to assert that modern pens are designed
to be stored nib up. In fact, most pens if stored nib up, will slowly
clog up even if tightly sealed. Certainly the great majority of pens if
left nib up, will not start at once, which is a sure sign of partial
clogging. Enough ink adheres to the feed to slowly clog it as
successive layers of dried ink accumulate. When you turn a pen nib up,
and leave it, not all the ink flows back into the bladder or reservoir.
A small part dries in the feed. This is the simplest explanation which
accounts for the observed facts, and is therefore most probably the
correct one.

To my mind, it does not follow that a poor starting pen after being
left nib up is a sure sign of partial clogging. It seems more likely
the cause is the ink flowing back into the fountain, i.e.,
reservoir, which you note as a minor factor.

I have noticed that pens stored nib-up, whatever their seal, require to
be soaked periodically in order to maintain their proper ink flow. I do
not see how any other explanation other than dried ink in the feed will
explain the observed facts.

jon fabian a écrit :


And not only that, but I conducted a little experiment on a Pelikan 14K
gold nib from a 100N. The entire nib assembly (nib, feed, ring, threads)
weighs 0.003 oz. Since I wasn't about to take it apart with the nib
knockout block I just made the convenient assumption that the entire
assembly was made of 14K gold. It may be similar in weight to just the
nib of a modern Pelikan, but again I am not going to take apart a
perfectly good nib assembly.

You are asserting then that the entire nib assembly of your Pelikan
weighs three thousandths of an ounce or roughly 3/1000 of 28 grams?
This would be 84/1000 of a gram, or about 1/12 gram. I am afraid that
this is out of the question, A roundel of gold the size of a dime
weighs about 7 grams (gold is rather more than thrice as dense as
copper). So you are asserting that a piece of gold 1/84 of the volume
of a dime will correspond to the entire feed?????

You must be reading your scale wrong (or beyond its tolerance) for this
is quite impossible.

virgiliopoeta a écrit :

jon fabian a écrit :


And not only that, but I conducted a little experiment on a Pelikan 14K
gold nib from a 100N. The entire nib assembly (nib, feed, ring, threads)
weighs 0.003 oz. Since I wasn't about to take it apart with the nib
knockout block I just made the convenient assumption that the entire
assembly was made of 14K gold. It may be similar in weight to just the
nib of a modern Pelikan, but again I am not going to take apart a
perfectly good nib assembly.

You are asserting then that the entire nib assembly of your Pelikan
weighs three thousandths of an ounce or roughly 3/1000 of 28 grams?
This would be 84/1000 of a gram, or about 1/12 gram. I am afraid that
this is out of the question, A roundel of gold the size of a dime
weighs about 7 grams (gold is rather more than thrice as dense as
copper). So you are asserting that a piece of gold 1/84 of the volume
of a dime will correspond to the entire feed?????

You must be reading your scale wrong (or beyond its tolerance) for this
is quite impossible.

I forgot, my dear sir, to mention that the true figure would be an
order of magnitude greater for the nib alone. This, allowing for the
alloy (reduces the values) and the usual hefty markup for golden
objects (increases the values), gives the added $50 for a gold nib that
I mentioned, with gold at the historical average of roughly $1500/oz in
current dollars. The current gold price is quite low historically, as
it is fixed articially low by the same banks that wish to preserve the
fiat dollar and pound. That however is of little relevance to this
newsgroup.

virgiliopoeta wrote:

You are asserting then that the entire nib
assembly of your Pelikan weighs three thousandths
of an ounce or roughly 3/1000 of 28 grams? This
would be 84/1000 of a gram, or about 1/12 gram. I
am afraid that this is out of the question.

I just weighed an entire Conklin 20 sans cap. So, we're talking a hard
rubber barrel, hard rubber section, nib-feed assembly,
crescent/pressure bar assembly (much heavier than the wispy little
nib), hard rubber lock ring, and rubber sac, and the whole shebang
weighed in at a whopping .2 oz (or 5 grams) using a digital postal
scale. So, I don't think Jon's number (1/12 of gram for his nib-feed
assembly) is much of a stretch at all. -- B

virgiliopoeta wrote:


I have noticed that pens stored nib-up, whatever their seal, require to
be soaked periodically in order to maintain their proper ink flow. I do
not see how any other explanation other than dried ink in the feed will
explain the observed facts.


For decades my fountain pens, except for desk pens, have been stored
nib up, and none have required periodic soaking for proper ink flow.
They have been flushed on occasion, as all pens should be regardless
of how they are stored. However our experiences are anecdotal, and
neither may be representative.

Since my pens have not had problems, there has been no need to
investigate further. With your problems, have you disassembled any
of the pens to determine the exact cause? If not, the cause may not
be as you suspect. One culprit may be the ink you use. If it's not
impertinent, what do you use?

Mark Z.