This is a large eyedropper pen made of hard rubber. One could not as for much more of an atavism. I have a couple of issues with this pen, one ephemeral and the other more permanent. The former stems from the material it’s made of– new hard rubber is, it seems, very forthcoming about its nature, and this thing reeked of vulcanization for the first year or so that I had it. The first couple of loads of ink put into it changed colour dramatically, and I didn’t put a third in until it had aired out for a few months. I don’t suggest this is a fatal drawback, but the prospective buyer of a brand new ebonite pen might want to keep it in mind (and not just from this company).
The other issue is the placement of the vent holes in the cap, or I might even say their existence. There is no inner cap in this pen, so the vent holes’ main role is to let the point slowly dry out. They are also so high up the cap that any effort to retrofit an inner cap would block them, rendering them useless. Either the guy doing vents wasn’t fully briefed on the reason behind them, or this is an example made on a particularly hung-over Monday.
That complaint aside, which is after all based on a single sample, I will say that the finish was certainly quite good, and the machining was without fault. I mentioned in the page describing the maker that the model name is of the importer’s inventionm, and of the various possible meanings I like the implication of “creativity beyond all restraint” the best.
Production Run: Uncertain of strart– certainly in production in the first decade of the 21st century.
Cost When New: I paid $32 for one in 2008, which would be considerably more than it would go for in the home market. Update— 2018 price on the Fountain Pen Revolution site is $64.00 with a post-production Schmidt point/feed unit.
Size: 14.3 cm long capped, 16.8 cm posted, 12.3 cm uncapped.
Point: Plated steel
Body: Hard rubber.
Filler: Eyedropper, capacity approx. 2.8 ml.
If you are relying on the preceding information to win a bet or impress a teacher, you should read the site’s scholarly caveat. Remember, this is the internet, and it’s full of bad information.