Cross Stylographic Repair

I'm attempting to repair a Cross Stylographic, circa 1890. The pen is in
overall great condition except the needle is missing. Who knows, it could
have been broken off sventy years ago.

I've found that a Rapidograph 0.80 needle is too small, (the ink almost
drips) and a 1.20 is too large.

I'm going to try the 1.00, however, the chances of Cross building a pen to
metric standards in the 1890's is ???

I'm also assuming the Cross operated with a gravity needle. Big assumption.

Does any know what the original needle looked like and how it operated?

"Andrew Perlow" writes:

I'm attempting to repair a Cross Stylographic, circa 1890. The pen
is in overall great condition except the needle is missing. Who
knows, it could have been broken off sventy years ago.

Or more. ;-) I enjoy stylographs!

I've found that a Rapidograph 0.80 needle is too small, (the ink
almost drips) and a 1.20 is too large.

You may need to round off the end of the needle to make it a smooth
writer. Rapidographs have a squared-off end as they are designed to
be used perpendicular to the page, stylographs have a rounded end for
a normal writing angle.

I'm going to try the 1.00, however, the chances of Cross building a
pen to metric standards in the 1890's is ???

Nil. But that doesn't mean it won't work!

I'm also assuming the Cross operated with a gravity needle. Big
assumption.

Not necessarily. I've got a no-name BCHR stylo with a gravity
needle. Lovely pen, would be a nice writer if it had a cap.

Does any know what the original needle looked like and how it
operated?

I would think that if it was a stiff or spring needle style, there
wouldn't be room in the section for a sliding weight. If the stylo
tube is in a removable cone, into which you can load the needle and
weight, I'd think you've got the right of it. Frank's diagrams in Da
Book make it look like the construction of the stiff or spring
mounted needles would preclude having room for a sliding weight.

That's exactly what I thought about the gravity feed when I examined Frank's
drawings. The Cross has a central shaft which would be the upper barrier to
a gravity feed weight. It would prevent the needle and weight from falling
down the length of the pen if the pen where held point side up. The central
shaft it has a number of horizontal bores, whose purpose I can't figure out.
Perhaps they aided with ink flow, but they are too big for capillary action.

In 'The Book of Fountain Pens and Pencils" by Stuart Schneider and George
Fischer, on page 24, there's a great write up about using a stylograph - a
photograph of the original set of DIRECTIONS accompanying a CAW, ca 1898.

After rounding the edge, as you suggest, (and Frank points out), the next
step would be to modify the rapidograph 'weight' to fit the cylinderical
shaft in the Cross cone, making sure to modify the needle and weight only,
leaving the pen untouched. The diameter of the Rapidograph weight is too
large, and its length much too long.

Any suggestions would be helpful.

This is my first stylographic but I've been using Cross pens for almost
fourty years and I couldn't let this one go by.

Thanks for the reply.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Perlow" writes:

I'm attempting to repair a Cross Stylographic, circa 1890. The pen
is in overall great condition except the needle is missing. Who
knows, it could have been broken off sventy years ago.

Or more. ;-) I enjoy stylographs!

I've found that a Rapidograph 0.80 needle is too small, (the ink
almost drips) and a 1.20 is too large.

You may need to round off the end of the needle to make it a smooth
writer. Rapidographs have a squared-off end as they are designed to
be used perpendicular to the page, stylographs have a rounded end for
a normal writing angle.

I'm going to try the 1.00, however, the chances of Cross building a
pen to metric standards in the 1890's is ???

Nil. But that doesn't mean it won't work!

I'm also assuming the Cross operated with a gravity needle. Big
assumption.

Not necessarily. I've got a no-name BCHR stylo with a gravity
needle. Lovely pen, would be a nice writer if it had a cap.

Does any know what the original needle looked like and how it
operated?

I would think that if it was a stiff or spring needle style, there
wouldn't be room in the section for a sliding weight. If the stylo
tube is in a removable cone, into which you can load the needle and
weight, I'd think you've got the right of it. Frank's diagrams in Da
Book make it look like the construction of the stiff or spring
mounted needles would preclude having room for a sliding weight.

"Andrew Perlow" writes:

That's exactly what I thought about the gravity feed when I examined
Frank's drawings. The Cross has a central shaft which would be the
upper barrier to a gravity feed weight. It would prevent the needle
and weight from falling down the length of the pen if the pen where
held point side up. The central shaft it has a number of horizontal
bores, whose purpose I can't figure out. Perhaps they aided with
ink flow, but they are too big for capillary action.

Is this an eyedropper filler? I'm guessing there might be a small
bore hole in the end of this shaft where a spring needle was attached,
as per the drawings in Da Book (the odds are good that this is a
diagram of a Cross pen).

After rounding the edge, as you suggest, (and Frank points out), the
next step would be to modify the rapidograph 'weight' to fit the
cylinderical shaft in the Cross cone, making sure to modify the
needle and weight only, leaving the pen untouched. The diameter of
the Rapidograph weight is too large, and its length much too long.

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Length is easy, just use a razor saw available at a hobby shop.
Diameter is harder.

This is my first stylographic but I've been using Cross pens for
almost fourty years and I couldn't let this one go by.

We all have our favorites!