20 replies to this topic

[david i]

Hi,

I don't assiduously hunt old pencils, though I do often like to find those that match pens of interest. Wahl made oodles of metal pencils. Most (all?) I've handled are thin things. At the Philadelphia Pen Show, Jan 2011, I grabbed a Wahl pencil heftier than any I'd handled before.... or at least heftier than any I recall having handled before.

Anyone have comments as to whether this thing is something interesting? I wonder if it is meant to match the chunky #6 size Wahl metal pen in Grecian Border pattern.

Photo below shows a typical size Wahl pencil in foreground. The chunkster is behind it.

Here is the shot of the only #6 metal Wahl I've ever handled. Happily, I own it. It is shown with a tiny midget sort in same pattern with #0 nib.

regards

David

[Don Lavin]

Hi Dave. You are correct in assuming that this oversize metal pencil is quite unusual. I have handled only a few #6 Wahl metal pens but I cannot recall seeing that oversize matching pencil. As a set, they are what I would call rare. Congrats. Don

[penpalace]

I'll have to post a picture or two of my set in the box. #6 greek key just like yours David.


Pearce.

[david i]

I'll have to post a picture or two of my set in the box. #6 greek key just like yours David.

Pearce.

Look forward to seeing it.

-d

[Joe - the pencil guy]

Hi Dave:

I remember seeing only one of the Wahl-Eversharp oversize metal pencils till now. Gary Lehrer pointed that one out to me at a pen show. Of course, I added it to my stash. It is the same Greek key pattern as yours. Mine is silver, as I recall.

Joe Nemecek

[matt]

David, you're simply not spending enough time learning about W-E pencils on Jonathan Veley's online pencil museum. See Wahl Eversharp picture 5 - section 3a. Hard to tell, but his oversize pencil may be a different pattern. The oversize also appears a couple of times in the 1928 catalog.

[david i]

David, you're simply not spending enough time learning about W-E pencils on Jonathan Veley's online pencil museum. See Wahl Eversharp picture 5 - section 3a. Hard to tell, but his oversize pencil may be a different pattern. The oversize also appears a couple of times in the 1928 catalog.

Well, if "not spending any" is a subset of "not spending enough", that likely then is true

My research on pencils is limited, though I am glad there are some nice resources out there these days, even if some of the hosts are by own admission oddly eager to track my doings

I probably have the 1928 catalogue. Actually, might have a monster original 1929 catalogue, if it is the 1929 catalogue that intro's Equi-Poised.

Appreciate the info.

d

[Joe - the pencil guy]

Dave / All:

Third from right below is my example of the metal oversize Wahl- Eversharp pencil.

Joe

[david i]

Dave / All:

Third from right below is my example of the metal oversize Wahl- Eversharp pencil.

Joe

A nice-- and eclectic-- tray of pencils, Joe. If you like that Canton Pearl Equi-Poised Purse Pen(cil) at the right, do peek at the last regular issue of Stylus Magazine. I reviewed that series.

regards

d

[david i]

My oversize pencil is also in the "grecian border" pattern-- that's Wahl's name for it. They are interesting in that the inner workings are regular size, with the increased girth resulting from a thicker barrel. Makes the oversized pencils not only bigger but also with a more pleasing heft.

Joe's is particularly interesting, as it is also in the grecian border pattern but probably bears a "silver filled" imprint with the cutaways exposing the brass underneath (Wahl called it the "oxidized grecian border").

The Equipoised "purse pencil" on the right in Joe's tray isn't "Canton" pearl, it's Borneo pearl according to the 1932 catalog. If you called it Canton in your review you might want to print a correction.

I posted a picture of the seven colors of these (clasp and purse models) over at the Fountain Pen Network, including a question concerning a color for which I cannot find a name:

Link: Equipoised clasp and purse pencils.

As for your little dig, David, I decline to take the bait. Your comments say much more about yourself than they do about me.

Useful Wahl info, thanks.

Nah, the review called Borneo by proper name, not Canton. Canton is the blue (very rare. I have a set). That's what I get for posting after post 12-hour-night-shifts naps. Sigh. And up to now I thought I couldn't make mistakes.

I have all the names for all the Pursies. The unnamed pen in your thread at FPN likely is Ceylon Pearl. Yeah, in the catalogue page it has a bit of gray cast, but so it goes. I observe that several of the Purse colors seem to use technique similar to, perhaps same as, the veined pearl seen on Parker's Duofold. I've seen couple crisp Ceylons that are fairly yellow, but most have hint of red. Perhaps Wahl got hold of slightly off Duofold stock. Similarly, India, Canton and Borneo have that veined flavor, though with different color bases. When first I found the pen, I wondered if Wahl did two different patterns black/pearl (the usual black/pearl is more Sheaffer/Waterman in look), but eventually (perhaps in chat with Syd, not sure) decided the Ceylon was the veiny black/pearl (often with off color pearl, but who knows if original). If I can find my PDF of the Stylus article, perhaps I'll upload it and post link. Probably be a few weeks.

As to digs...

I observe again, as I did on Zoss, that the first ever negative exchange between us was initiated by you, a personal slam, based perhaps on nothing else besides your limited understanding of my relationship with Mr. Z and on your personal animus of uncertain root. My first dig ever to you was simply a response in kind.

Your latest line to me in discussion of your keeping tabs on my posts from bygone eras was, and I quote,

Per Jon:


You should be concerned that I remember, not impressed.

Now, Jon, really, why... exactly... should I be concerned? Feel free to clarify your earlier statement.

My note here referenced that quote made scant days ago.

So, since I have it on pretty good authority that fpnuts.com (this Fountain Pen Board) does not wilt from intense dialogue (see the post on Conway Stewart in which simple facts posted by a member over at the slightly bigger board, Fountain Pen Network, have resulted in that member- yet another serious pendom contributor- being chased away from FPN) and that serious debate is not eschewed here, let's then have an intense but honest/polite dialogue.

So, what again is your intent then in suggesting I be concerned ? Do clarify

Earlier , August 2010, you wrote on the Zoss List, and I quote:

Per jon: I'd say so on his forum but I've never been there and I don't plan on going there.

Yet, here you are and you've been pretty well welcomed with your knowledge embraced and appreciated, the only "digs" being somewhat facetious and light hearted responses to your proactive negative comments such as in the earlier quote.

So, Counsel, would you care to explain the repeated hostility. Prior to another barb you sent my way on the Zoss List, I believe I have never had any bad thing to say about you. Independent of that, you seem to have made assumption that FPB competes with rather than complements the Zoss List , that Tom Zoss and I lack any understanding going into this. You struck out at me de novo. I note with some irony that my cross posting here with deliberate intent to fan the discussion at Zoss List has resulted in an uptick in discussion of real subjects there (not the usual Sales filler that-- iirc-- you weren't too thrilled with anyway) with several of the discussions presenting well more substance at the Z-list than they managed to generate here.

I remain cheerfully bemused by the whole thing.

-d

[david i]

As I said, David, your comments say far more about you than they do about me.

I'll accept that duck as concession to my point.

When I said you should be concerned, I meant only that, at least in this reader's mind, whatever contributions you make to our hobby are constantly being overshadowed by your rude and combative remarks. Were it me, with all of your wealth, intelligence and resources, I would be more cautious to avoid tarnishing my legacy with such behavior.

I only clarify that point lest you believe I was threatening you.

Why would you ever want to threaten me?

I suspect my style is pretty well out for public perception. Those who like it do so. Those who don't likely won't start to. While it is wholly irrelevant, I suspect our "wealth, intelligence and resources" are not dissimilar. I realize attempted condescension can be part of the the legal toolbox, but really. Only now, after 12 years of posting in my consistent style, are you worried about my legacy?

But that leads to next point, what seems to be just your latest diversion in this back and forth Do explain how my posting information to this Board then tarnishes my legacy. That was, after all your core thesis, way back at the beginning, when you launched an ad hominem attack against me, someone who never had had a negative word about you. As per your quote on the Zoss List when I wrote about ways to enhance that venerable listserve

Per Jon: I think it's very poor taste for Dr. David to so much as type a single
letter on this thread when he's running a "competing" forum. I'd say so on
his forum but I've never been there and I don't plan on going there.

I'll peek in later. Been up most the night even though off from work. That jet lag thing.

-d

[david i]

David, you are a bully and I am not a man who you can intimidate. I understand that this makes you perceive me as some kind of threat and this has made me a target for you. At this point, I do not consider further discussion with you productive, because you appear to be consumed with a desire to humiliate me publicly.

In the meantime, knock off the kindergarten playground "he started it" routine. All anyone needs to do is read this thread to see that isn't true.

Well.... let's play this out.

You launch an ad hom attack based on ignorance of a situation at Zoss List and apparently on some unstated animus. I point this out... and "David's the bully". Charming.

You launch an ad hom attack against someone (me) who never previously said anything negative to/about you, and when this is pointed out to you, you endeavor to rephrase your argument rather oddly as a staging of an intervention to "help" me.

Somehow, my observing that you have posted proactive and personal slams means to you "David is trying to humiliate me".

I remain rather confused as to what is your actual line of "reasoning" in all this.

So, rather than go all ad hom on you, as you have done in nearly every post you've aimed at me, I will again ask you to clarify.

What was your intent behind your post I quoted from the Zoss list?

Do you typically redirect discussion about individual and specific situations by invoking global psych arguments? Do you consider that a valid tactic?

Despite your first and only post on Zoss List regarding Fountain Pen Board being negative, you have been welcomed here. But "David is a bully".

As to who started it....

Counsel, I posted your note on Zoss List that initiated this chain of discussion. If you have any prior post by me containing any ad hominem slight aimed your way, I will be willing to reconsider my view. Heck, I invite info regarding any post I've *ever* written even disagreeing purely about some pen issue (with no ad hom). I believe there is no such post, but you have noted that you keep track of my on line discussion, so perhaps I am wrong.

I remaining bemused.

-david

[david i]

David, for the third time, your comments say much more about you than they do about me.

Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true--those who are truly interested can read the Zoss archive and need not rely upon your paraphrasing here. I honestly don't care what you think about me and I doubt anyone reading this thread does, either.

I know you are frustrated that I am not interested in arguing with you, but I thought this was a discussion board about pens and pencils. Are you going to do this to me every time I attempt to contribute something?

And for third time, I accept your concession that you have no issue oriented point to make, instead retreating to attempt to distract or to condemn in personal fashion.

Frustrated? I live for this sort of chat. I'd think anyone aware of my legacy would realize that at least. You are the fellow what keeps saying he just doesn't want to talk about it anymore... but cannot seem to stop.

I have done nothing to you. I have responded to you. Just as on the Z-list.

My suspicion is that you tossed out some lines you realize are wrong and realize you cannot defend, but just cannot bring yourself to say, "sorry", or at least to retract.

I forgive you anyway. But, that won't stop me from pointing out when you endeavor in response to distract from rather than to address the issue of this sort which you raised. I can be pretty focused, I guess. Discussion of pens and pencils is fine. Indeed, we seem to be having disproportionate chat at FBP (relative to some other sites) about old pencils, which is a bit of a surprise to me though a nice surprise, showing too that Boards of this sort can move in their own directions. Been considering having a pencil forum, but I think it would be distracting, in that most pencils well fit the categories already present. Having Parker and Sheaffer pencils appear in a "pencil" forum instead of in the Parker and Sheaffer fora, respectively, would just add confusion to the Board structure.

d

regards

David

[david i]

Whatever makes you sleep better at night, David. Sweet dreams, little prince.

I like it when we agree.

-d

[Teej47]

The recurrent pencil posts have piqued my interest in the subject, which is a good thing.

The juvenile spat is more amusing than interesting, though. I have four sons, so have heard a few... though mostly only between the two 16 year olds (the youngest) these days.



Tim

[Jon Veley]

The recurrent pencil posts have piqued my interest in the subject, which is a good thing.

Be sure to check out Joe's Pencil Pages and my Mechanical Pencil Museum. Both are loaded with stuff and 100% certified spat free!

[David Nishimura]

I've handled several #6-size Wahl "all-metal" pens over the years, but I've never seen any found in the wild as boxed sets.

Since the #5-size pens are nearly as large, one might well wonder if the oversize pencils were indeed intended to match any particular size of pen, or if the pairing of pens and pencils was not as straightforward as all that.

I don't have a photo handy, but I have a very nice oversize all-metal pencil in the Grecian Border pattern -- but in two-toned silver-filled, with a black enamel circle inlaid into the top disk of the crown. I have seen a number of examples of pen-pencil sets in this pattern, but never such a pen in #6 size!

[Teej47]

Since the #5-size pens are nearly as large, one might well wonder if the oversize pencils were indeed intended to match any particular size of pen, or if the pairing of pens and pencils was not as straightforward as all that.

Speculating here, of course... but since Wahl was a (maybe "the") premier pencil maker before even making the jump into pens, it's easy to surmise that it may well have been more about pairing a pen with a pencil than the other way around. It seems that most of the other guys were making pencils primarily as an adjuct to their pens, so it's perhaps more obvious or easy to figure out what pencil went with what pen. But with Wahl the pencil quite literally came first. It seems like Wahl had been making pens for quite a while before they sarted making pencils specifically to match different models of pens.

In other words, the pencil that makes a logical pairing with a given pen (during the era in question, anyway) would have still existed whether the pen ever did or not. Certainly the classic Wahl pencil design doesn't particularly match anything else. It seems more lilke Wahl made metal pens because they were already darn good at making metal pencils. There are bound to be some Wahl pencils that don't have a pen to go with them... aren't there?

[Jon Veley]

Speculating here, of course... but since Wahl was a (maybe "the") premier pencil maker before even making the jump into pens, it's easy to surmise that it may well have been more about pairing a pen with a pencil than the other way around. It seems that most of the other guys were making pencils primarily as an adjuct to their pens, so it's perhaps more obvious or easy to figure out what pencil went with what pen. But with Wahl the pencil quite literally came first. It seems like Wahl had been making pens for quite a while before they sarted making pencils specifically to match different models of pens.

In other words, the pencil that makes a logical pairing with a given pen (during the era in question, anyway) would have still existed whether the pen ever did or not. Certainly the classic Wahl pencil design doesn't particularly match anything else. It seems more lilke Wahl made metal pens because they were already darn good at making metal pencils. There are bound to be some Wahl pencils that don't have a pen to go with them... aren't there?

Yep. Wahl was a pencil company first, and the company continued to make pencils for which no matching pens exist throughout the company's history.

Along the grecian border lines, I've featured a picture on my Eversharp page of a Coronet pencil with a red and black striped lower barrel and a gold filled upper barrel engraved with the grecian border design.

Thread on it posted over on FPN-- link here.

[Jon Veley]

I checked my copy of the 1928 catalog. The only oversized pen listed is the grecian border, model 766A, described as "Oversize barrel; No. 6 nib." There is a notation above the grecian border pens that reads "Eversharps to match, Nos. 714, J414, 14 and 114MW." The oversize pencil was model number J414.