Sorry to rain on the parade.
Nah! Just helping me be an informed buyer. But 'errors' still source of concern. Wondering how 'glaring' such errors.
Good example might be here.
franken-nib-feed (Poor pen! Looks like someone put a dip nib on a carved up feed or something!)
Am sure most books would agree on objective information (what 0515 POC meant) but would they agree on something *subjective* like, "
This pen & nib/feed combination is very rare & highly prized by collectors. Worth x dollars"At my level of knowledge I might spot an error in the former, but wouldn't have a clue as to the latter.
So goal for book(s) is general collecting tips/guidelines and hopefully more in depth info about LEW Co. than can be found in catalogs & so on. (Can always ask here for opinions about value & how common or scarce.)
Pen history is just like other kinds of history. Research results get disseminated first in informal discussions among interested researchers. Later, they get published in short notices or articles. It then takes considerably longer before they end up incorporated in books -- especially the case with books written by those who don't participate in or follow the activities of the research community.
That's where researching Waterman history as hobby gets a little frustrating.
*Where* are these on-line discussions, notices, or articles to help improve my knowledge beyond just the surface!
Unfortunately, even though pen research is shared so openly online (a consequence of pen historians having no academic bastions or professional conferences of their own), hardly any pen book authors bother to keep up with it. Hence we see old errors repeated year after year, long after they have been shown to be false.
Paradoxically, many collectors follow the principle of the bigger the book, the greater its authority. This might make some sense in the academic world, but with books targeted at collectors there is no peer review, nor any editorial oversight.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't buy any reference books at all. It does mean you should use them critically.
No *editors*? Was taught in English comp every writer needs a good editor. Part of the process. Publisher doesn't assign editor? Books vanity publishing if writer has the cash?
Use them critically indeed!
Thanks as always David.
You always seem to come through-- not only for odd questions like imprints on feeds-- but now you've also helped me understand what the good doctor meant when he too cautioned, "errors abound."
--Bruce
