39 replies to this topic

[david i]

I immediately think "Blue!" of course (apparently in my mind Sheaffer + 1932 = blue). But yellow? Definitely curious.

Tim

Buh...Buh...Buh....But Tim!

"Everyone knows" we have no Sheaffer images for the blue marble Balance!

Indeed the 1932-3 date for this color (besides trim morphology) comes iirc from only a 1933-dated price list update (no images) found with a 1929 catalogue.

I think this one will be a one page spread in PENnant in few months. Then I'll go with online release. Really is a neat image.

regards

david

[Kirchh]

Buh...Buh...Buh....But Tim!

"Everyone knows" we have no Sheaffer images for the blue marble Balance!

Indeed the 1932-3 date for this color (besides trim morphology) comes iirc from only a 1933-dated price list update (no images) found with a 1929 catalogue.

Not sure why you think this (and why the scare quotes again?).

Actually, we date the Blue Balance to no later than October 1931. There's a depiction and listings of the Blue Balance in a 10/8/1931 issue of the Retailers Review. But if you have something earlier than that it would be useful.

This explains why I didn't discern what assumptions for 1932 your paper "sheds light on".

--Daniel

[david i]

Not sure why you think this (and why the scare quotes again?).

Actually, we date the Blue Balance to no later than October 1931. There's a depiction and listings of the Blue Balance in a 10/8/1931 issue of the Retailers Review. But if you have something earlier than that it would be useful.

This explains why I didn't discern what assumptions for 1932 your paper "sheds light on".

--Daniel

I remain not trying to frighten anyone.

The "Dating no later than" thing, barring clarifying parameters, often conveys significant ambiguity. No later for introduction? No later for active sales? No later for final production? Indeed, I find items to have merit that offer pens at later dates than previous citations.

Still, "Shedding light" often is contextually defined. Since no one I know has polled all collectors about any given issue, there always remains the possibility that any piece of "new" information is not new to someone. All the better. There is charm in drawing out information from private sources, which remains a good reason to toss out information such as this. Stirs the pot an' all. Would be better if those of us (or those "not of us") who have timeline information were to offer it proactively, but since no one is likely to be able to proactively offer all his info, discussions such as this can draw the info out, even if the resulting info is at times offered obliquely.

Many discussions legitimately start with presentation of info that is fresh to someone. Who knew what would grow from a whimsical posting to the Zoss List of a "Sheaffer Lenox Turkey Desk Base".

Still, the nice color Sheaffer page showing blue Sheaffers and Yellow semi-Sheaffers appears not to be a well publicized bit of info.

-d

[Kirchh]

I remain not trying to frighten anyone.

I didn't think you were! But now I realize you're unfamiliar with the term I used.

The "Dating no later than" thing, barring clarifying parameters, often conveys significant ambiguity. No later for introduction? No later for active sales? No later for final production? Indeed, I find items to have merit that offer pens at later dates than previous citations.

Still, "Shedding light" often is contextually defined. Since no one I know has polled all collectors about any given issue, there always remains the possibility that any piece of "new" information is not new to someone. All the better. There is charm in drawing out information from private sources, which remains a good reason to toss out information such as this. Stirs the pot an' all. Would be better if those of us (or those "not of us") who have timeline information were to offer it proactively, but since no one is likely to be able to proactively offer all his info, discussions such as this can draw the info out, even if the resulting info is at times offered obliquely.

I was commenting on your statement regarding "our assumptions" for something happening in 1932; it turns out you were referring to the introduction of the blue color in the Balance line. I was pointing out that those may be your assumptions, but they are not necessarily hobby-wide. Indeed, the information I mentioned has been posted previously on a board or two, as I recall.

I echo your statement that all collectors have not been polled about any given issue, and I would add that in recognition of that, I avoid characterizations like "only known".

Looking forward to seeing the ad, though; sounds attractive!

--Daniel

[david i]

I didn't think you were! But now I realize you're unfamiliar with the term I used.

Next you will realize the moon is made from green cheese. Mmmmm... I like cheese.

I was commenting on your statement regarding "our assumptions" for something happening in 1932; it turns out you were referring to the introduction of the blue color in the Balance line. I was pointing out that those may be your assumptions, but they are not necessarily hobby-wide. Indeed, the information I mentioned has been posted previously on a board or two, as I recall.

I echo your statement that all collectors have not been polled about any given issue, and I would add that in recognition of that, I avoid characterizations like "only known".

Looking forward to seeing the ad, though; sounds attractive!

--Daniel

Quotation marks be powerful things. But, I now realize that you have at least a hint of insight as to my tendency to use scare quotes

"only known" is a useful descriptor, when in quotes. More tricky outside quotes.

As to non-hobby-wide, I'm glad you agree with me.

Too, things posted here and there on boards have habit to be swallowed by the mass of internet posting. Thus, fresh threads on subjects of interest, especially absent a dedicated linked content page, can be most valuable.

Again, The "Dating no later than" thing, barring clarifying parameters, often conveys significant ambiguity. No later for introduction? No later for active sales? No later for final production? Indeed, I find items to have merit that offer pens at later dates than previous citations.

-d

[Kirchh]

Too, things posted here and there on boards have habit to be swallowed by the mass of internet posting. Thus, fresh threads on subjects of interest, especially absent a dedicated linked content page, can be most valuable.

Definitely. I enjoy fresh threads on subjects of interest.

Again, The "Dating no later than" thing, barring clarifying parameters, often conveys significant ambiguity. No later for introduction? No later for active sales? No later for final production? Indeed, I find items to have merit that offer pens at later dates than previous citations.

Most definitely; many materials can fall into that category. But I was specifically addressing your statement about your paper "shed[ding] great light on some of our assumptions" for 1932.

--Daniel

[david i]

Definitely. I enjoy fresh threads on subjects of interest.


Most definitely; many materials can fall into that category. But I was specifically addressing your statement about your paper "shed[ding] great light on some of our assumptions" for 1932.

--Daniel

You believe this thread has not shed said light?

d

[Kirchh]

You believe this thread has not shed said light?

Again (third time, I think), you said the paper itself (not this thread discussing your mention of the paper) would shed great light on some of our assumptions for 1932. As you have not posted it, I can't say with certainty whether that's true, but your implication was that it confirms "our assumption" that Blue was marketed as early as 1932. But as I explained, that is not "our" assumption, nor is it even the year Blue first is listed or depicted.

Even the thread itself has not shed great light on our assumptions -- though it may have on your assumptions, I suppose.

--Daniel

[david i]

Again (third time, I think), you said the paper itself (not this thread discussing your mention of the paper) would shed great light on some of our assumptions for 1932. As you have not posted it, I can't say with certainty whether that's true, but your implication was that it confirms "our assumption" that Blue was marketed as early as 1932. But as I explained, that is not "our" assumption, nor is it even the year Blue first is listed or depicted.

Even the thread itself has not shed great light on our assumptions -- though it may have on your assumptions, I suppose.

--Daniel

Again, look at all the light shed due to my saying that. That the paper is the proximate cause or the meta-cause is perfectly acceptable to me. Indeed, given some of the cagey nature of information release by some out there, I long have found I embrace the indirect stimulus to information release. Too, our (though perhaps not all of our) assumptions have had light shed on them, though absent the image of the sources you cite, that light is not quite all it could be.

I see you have modified now your "dating no later than" statement. That is good. Now it lends more useful information.

-d

[David Nishimura]

I'm still in post-show mode, with no time to spare -- so this will be brief.

First, could we split off the discussion of the blue Sheaffer Balances into another thread?

Second, thanks to Daniel for the background on the status of credit jewelers vs retail jewelers in the first half of the 20th century. I had not had time to investigate this after finding the references in the Parker document.

Apologies if there was any confusion about the document that started this thread off. I posted two quick camera-phone snapshots to give a glimpse of what I was talking about -- visual footnotes, if you will. The actual document is a bit of a mystery, the bulk consisting of a (mostly) numbered list of Parker products, in the form of typewritten pages numbered 1 to 99, with a good number of pages missing (the missing pages are identified in a handwritten note on another page as 48, 52, 56, 60, 63, 66, 71,77-78, 85, 87-88, 90-92, 94-96). Appended to this are some pages having to do with the 51, including a few memos dated 1944 and two pages titled "SPECIAL '51' LIST" -- which, as we will see, appears to be an appendix to the main document.

Most of the memos and the Special "51" List refer to the 51, using the contemporary inventory numbers in 51-XXX format (the basic steel-capped black 51 being 51-061, for example). One memo (#505, dated Jan 26, 1944), however, is different, referencing the 99-page document instead. This memo is, in fact, a list of changes to be made to the main document, which is named in the memo as [your] "Catalog List of Pens and Pencils". Our copy of this document incorporates the changes requested in the memo, so we can safely say that it was last edited no earlier than late January of 1944. It does appear to have been a compilation, which is another way of saying that its organization is messy and inconsistent. There are many duplications of numbers, with some pens listed under their original model numbers and others under some other schema (the pearl-slabbed Parker 15 is listed as #15, for example, alongside another #15, "O.S. Black Jr. Deluxe Pen"). Each item has a price listed, and in some cases, a range (e.g., 7.00-8.00). Note that the Parker 51 has been placed in an appendix: under #51-00 is the note, "See Special Section". There is one exception, however, as the "'51' Demonstrator with transparent collector" appears as #1951 (which would appear to be a duplication of the more terse listing ("Demonstrator Pen") in the Special "51" List".

I understand this entire compilation came from Michael Fultz's house, and asking around, I could not get any definitive answer regarding its backstory. Dan Zazove believed that it was an attempt to catalog the Parker archives, with the numbering system based on tray location. This might explain why the Black and Red Giants are listed with no number, if they were too large to fit in a regular tray slot. Still, there are other items without numbers that are of normal size, and one still wonders why prices are listed for each item.

[Teej47]

Buh...Buh...Buh....But Tim!

"Everyone knows" we have no Sheaffer images for the blue marble Balance!

Awesome! I love not being part of the "Everyone" crowd!

Tim

[david i]

Awesome! I love not being part of the "Everyone" crowd!

Tim

Yep

d

[david i]

I'm still in post-show mode, with no time to spare -- so this will be brief.

First, could we split off the discussion of the blue Sheaffer Balances into another thread? SNIP

Possibly. Rumor has it the Admin is not very computer savvy, but supposedly there is a thread-split feature with Invision Power boards.

Disrupting the natural evolution of this thread might be a reasonable price to keeping it on topic. When a quiet hour hits, this can be explored.

-d

[David Nishimura]

Getting back to the Parker materials, here are some more entries that are intriguing:

p. 10, references to:

"125 Sun Ray Juniorette Vacumatic Pen 5.00",

"127 Sun Ray Junior Vacumatic Pen 5.00",

" 135 Moon Ray Juniorette Vacumatic Pen 5.00",

"137 Moon Ray Junior Vacumatic Pen 5.00"

What are/were "Moon Ray" and "Sun Ray"?

There are quite a few references to items denoted as "Sold to Canadian only" and "Sold to Jobbers only". Could the latter refer to some of the anomalous sub-Duofolds we find? Note on p. 12:

"178 Blue Duofold Debutante Pen (Sold to Jobbers only) 5.00"


"179 Blue Duofold Major Pen (Sold to Jobbers only) 5.00"

Similar but in green on p. 13, as 198 and 199.

Getting back to the Credit Jeweler Line items, many of the Vacs in this line are listed from p. 46 onwards. Things get puzzling on pp. 50-51, though, where among the Sub-Debs, the Juniors, and the Majors, one finds "Junior DL Pen with 2 Narrow Bands (Credit Jeweler Line)", in various colors, and listed at the same 5.00 price as the equivalent with wide band. So while it may well be the case that the wide, lined bands that we know as "jeweler's bands" may have been part of that Credit Jeweler Line, it appears that other pens (and pencils) with more conventional bands were also part of that line -- the mystery being, how else were they distinguished from models not of that line if not by the bands? Is it possible that the star clips had something to do with this?

[david i]

Getting back to the Parker materials, here are some more entries that are intriguing:

SNIP

Getting back to the Credit Jeweler Line items, many of the Vacs in this line are listed from p. 46 onwards. Things get puzzling on pp. 50-51, though, where among the Sub-Debs, the Juniors, and the Majors, one finds "Junior DL Pen with 2 Narrow Bands (Credit Jeweler Line)", in various colors, and listed at the same 5.00 price as the equivalent with wide band. So while it may well be the case that the wide, lined bands that we know as "jeweler's bands" may have been part of that Credit Jeweler Line, it appears that other pens (and pencils) with more conventional bands were also part of that line -- the mystery being, how else were they distinguished from models not of that line if not by the bands? Is it possible that the star clips had something to do with this?

Some of the lines indeed provoke interesting notions. I'm just starting to peruse in detail the listings. Probably will read more in depth on my trip to Janesville this week (ironically, for hospital business rather than for pen business). But, I am having some doubts about whether the compilation well explains the pens that we have called Jeweler's Band Vacs.

It seems likely that Fultz's examination and interpretation of this listing accounted for or at least contributed to his naming the wide lined cap-bands as Jeweler-Band pens. I now wrestle with possibility he jumped a bit to conclusions. He might have been correct, but I can see different spin derived from some of the descriptions. Probably won't be able to post in detail on that until next week.

regards

David

[David Nishimura]

I don't think this document was Fultz's source for the identification of the "jeweler's bands" at all. Fultz spent a lot of time talking to old-time Parker insiders, and I'm quite certain that they were the ones that identified the bands as such. The document's value, to me, is as corroboration, rather than as detailed proof in itself.

That so much orally transmitted knowledge has not been annotated as to source and context is undeniably regrettable. At the same time, we should be grateful for any puzzle pieces that come our way, rather than get stuck bemoaning the pieces that are lost forever.

[david i]

I don't think this document was Fultz's source for the identification of the "jeweler's bands" at all. Fultz spent a lot of time talking to old-time Parker insiders, and I'm quite certain that they were the ones that identified the bands as such. The document's value, to me, is as corroboration, rather than as detailed proof in itself.

That so much orally transmitted knowledge has not been annotated as to source and context is undeniably regrettable. At the same time, we should be grateful for any puzzle pieces that come our way, rather than get stuck bemoaning the pieces that are lost forever.

I hear you regarding the Oral Tradition of Pendom. Would've been nice if someone had put together a Mishna. So it goes.

But, oral context aside, there remain some quirks with the 1944 compilation that raise questions regarding whether it is referencing our "Jeweler's Band" pens. Once I compile those details I can examine them online. Just not this week.

regards

David

[Teej47]

I wonder how many Gentiles in the crowd other than me know what the Mishna is? (The average Joe usually isn't quite the biblical scholar that I try to be.)

Tim

[pendumb]

I wonder how many Gentiles in the crowd other than me know what the Mishna is? (The average Joe usually isn't quite the biblical scholar that I try to be.)

Tim

+1 Goy more.

[parkercollector.com]

I would love to get my hands on scans of the documents in this discussion...

Best,
Tony