I understand the Parker Gel refills demonstrate all the good qualities of a RB but retain the durability and longevity of a BP.
Can anyone comment on their experience?
As a gift, would you recommend RB or BP in a Visconti or Montegrappa for example?

Thanks

Gel inks, being water based rather than a petroleum paste typical of traditional ballpoints, will soak into paper more like a roller or fountain ink. Many people therefore prefer gel inks for the darker line produced relative to lighter writing pressure exerted. Many non-purists will therefore feel that the gels are 'smoother,' whereas the reality is just that we are pushing less into the paper and not imbedding the tip into the paper pulp. The actual writing ball is no different from that of the ballpoint assembly, so logically should not be perform less smoothly(ink viscosity aside). The major downside of water based inks is that they seem to be consumed faster than an equivalent petrol based product, presumably because the ink keeps leeching into the paper if the pen is held still.

Rollerballs are of course all water-based, but are faster to evaporate and therefore need a capped enclosure compared to their gel counterparts. Personally, I think the difference between gels and rollerballs is subtle.

Parker gel ink refills were among the first on the market and therefore gained a lot of popularity for both its performance and widespread availibility. On the other hand, their fine and extra fine(when they were in production) had consistency problems- I can recount throwing out 5-6 refills out immediately because the refills would clog prematurely. I'm not sure if they have reissued a fine. Their medium, as far as I know, has been a consistent performer. I use Schmidt gel refills now in the fine width, and have been satisfied. It's not as fine as the Parker used to be, but it's the narrowest line I can find.


Regarding Montegrappa v. Visconti, I tend to prefer the resin visconti opera ballpoints more. I like the mechanism better. I'll disclose that I don't particularly care for the non-celluloid Montegrappas, and if it were a choice between celluloid ballpoints, it'd probably be a wash.

On the other hand, if I were spending in that range for a celluloid ballpoint, I'd probably just change the plan and go for the fountain(since you're just paying for the chassis anyway, the 'buisness end' of a roller or fountain is a 50 cent part--but I understand the utility of a ballpoint and carry one daily along with a fountain or two).

Hope that helps,
Brian CK

regarding the pens, it is up to personal preferance. I have a Visconti Wall Street BP but frankly it feels somewhat "funny" in my hand and only gets used for short notes and prescriptions. I do not have a similar problem with the Wall Street FP. I do not have a Montegrappa non-FP so I really cannot comment on it. I do have an Omas 360 ballpoint that I love but it is definitly a pen to be tried before purchased, just not for everyone.

I appreciate your thoughts.
I set out to buy a BP for a good friend and was expecting to get a Visconti Van Gogh or Opera club, or maybe a Montegrappa Nero Uno. Something by an Italian manufacturer to complement his heritage. Although the quality and workmanship of these pens was impressive, the feel was not. Even the Extra 1930 felt light and insubstantial, especially compared to its dimensions.

Then the lady brought out a Dunhill Sidecar in tortoise. As soon as I held it I knew it was different and that this would be my choice. The feel was weighty but well balanced. Excellent quality and craftsmanship. And a pleasure to write with especially with the Parker gel refills.
I was tempted to get one for myself but alas restraint prevailed.

So it seems that the wristwatch affliction I have endured (with great pleasure) has now spread to fine pens.