26 replies to this topic

[david i]

This was an interesting find.

And, yeah, I can imagine perhaps one part swap that one might argue explains the pen, but I have doubts that the "mix" argument holds for pens of this late era.

Here is a short slender black celluloid Sheaffer ("1930's", post-catalogue, trim) Autograph (solid gold band and clip), as non white dot 3-25 variant.

Not only have I seen few (any?) low-set humped clip flat-end Autographs, but this is the first non-white dot pen, which would seem to have been almost a given for high end trim like this.

Now, I am vaguely aware of some ladies' size Lifetime pens with white dot on butt of pen (a barrel swap then could account for this if late Autograph ladies' pens had butt white dot), but not sure I've ever seen the white-dot-on-butt on the late low-clip pens or on clip pens for that matter.

Neat pen...

David

[Kirchh]

From Pete K.?

--Daniel

[Roger W.]

David;

Wasn't that EBayed not too long ago? Anyway, these are uncommon (oh, wait, maybe I don't know anything about these...). I have two that are different sizes in radite. I had no idea what these were and, in fact, was put on the wrong track by the Sheaffer Archivist at first. The first theory is that these came after radite was introduced but before the white dot appeared and there are a few months in which you can fit this theory depending on the dates and what you think they mean. In discussing these with Daniel some years ago and the fact that he has stickered models supporting this, these are in fact high end pens that would have been fitted with flexible nibs. No white dot as they were not lifetime pens. My two did not actually have nibs which can be attributed to people getting used to manifold nibs over several years and applying too much force to these unusual flexible nibs but, saving the pen as it had 14K furniture. So, yes, I'm saying the 3-25 nib is not likely the first nib to have been in your pen.

Why make these you might ask? They are the radite continuation of the Ebony Line which is amply illustrated in the 1921, 1923 and 1925 catalogues. These were straight black pens with 14K furniture that were not lifetime pens - in hard rubber. The nibs were found in 2, 4, 5, and 8 sizes with the 8 not being found in the 1923 catalogue and only 2's in the 1925 catalogue which specifically state that they are made for those that demand flexiblity in their nibs. Your example is as late as I've seen probably 1931 as I will lend no credence to your section and nib. Hey, nice try at stumping me - I loved it when you first hit me with the skinny coral 3-25's - now those threw me for a loop.

Roger W.



14K trim with no white dot - looks to be the size of your "3-25"



As found nibless - now what nib should be in here?...Probably a 2 Self-Filling.

[david i]

From Pete K.?

--Daniel

Pete K. of Conklin collecting fame?

No. Think this thing has been in the Sheaffer flat-end tray of my pen cabinet for years. Was thumbing about tonight and it caught my eye. Then I realized "no white dot".

regards

David

[Roger W.]

Pete K. of Conklin collecting fame?

No. Think this thing has been in the Sheaffer flat-end tray of my pen cabinet for years. Was thumbing about tonight and it caught my eye. Then I realized "no white dot".

regards

David

Wrong Pete.

Roger W.

[david i]

David;

Wasn't that EBayed not too long ago?

You and Kirchheimer both??? No I believe this has been in my Sheaffer flat-end pen drawer for like years or sumthin'.

Really. At least if memory serves

I was just thumbing through the drawer and it caught my eye. Who knows? When I put most of my black flat-tops into the pen storage tray in my cabinet several years ago, my knowledge base was smaller. Who knows what would find if peeked at all of them again.

Anyway, these are uncommon (oh, wait, maybe I don't know anything about these...). I have two that are different sizes in radite. I had no idea what these were and, in fact, was put on the wrong track by the Sheaffer Archivist at first. The first theory is that these came after radite was introduced but before the white dot appeared and there are a few months in which you can fit this theory depending on the dates and what you think they mean

Didn't White Dot precede Radite?

Even if radite (celluloid) preceded the white dot at the beginning (which is not how I understand it, but feel free to clarify), this pen has the low set clip, indicating presumably 1930's production, long after the white dot appeared.

In discussing these with Daniel some years ago and the fact that he has stickered models supporting this, these are in fact high end pens that would have been fitted with flexible nibs. No white dot as they were not lifetime pens. My two did not actually have nibs which can be attributed to people getting used to manifold nibs over several years and applying too much force to these unusual flexible nibs but, saving the pen as it had 14K furniture. So, yes, I'm saying the 3-25 nib is not likely the first nib to have been in your pen.

I have no problem per se with the possibility that non-white-dot Flex nib pens were issued, though this pen has 3-25 nib I think is a nail (but will double check, and yeah, barrels and nibs can swap), though I 've had fair share of OS Balance pens with high flex nibs still packing white dot... which proves little i guess;)

Why make these you might ask? They are the radite continuation of the Ebony Line which is amply illustrated in the 1921, 1923 and 1925 catalogues. These were straight black pens with 14K furniture that were not lifetime pens - in hard rubber. The nibs were found in 2, 4, 5, and 8 sizes with the 8 not being found in the 1923 catalogue and only 2's in the 1925 catalogue which specifically state that they are made for those that demand flexiblity in their nibs. Your example is as late as I've seen probably 1931 as I will lend no credence to your section and nib. Hey, nice try at stumping me - I loved it when you first hit me with the skinny coral 3-25's - now those threw me for a loop.

Well, my comments were more designed to catch your interest than to assume you could not know of the pen.

The context you cite has merit (nice of me, right?), though I'm not sure we can cavalierly dismiss the nib/section that arrived with the pen. I for one did not swap it. Your pics above are nice, but well earlier pens of course.

Regards

David

[david i]

Wrong Pete.

Roger W.

The Sheaffer collector out west?

Don't think so. Suspect (though not sure) was part of the hoard some years back. But, I could be wrong.

-d

[Roger W.]

The Sheaffer collector out west?

Don't think so. Suspect (though not sure) was part of the hoard some years back. But, I could be wrong.

-d

There was one up from him recently though I don't recall the nib.

Radite precedes the white dot - I don't feel like digging out the specifics so Radite was June and White dot was September (OK the months are actual the radite date is from internal corporate records per the archivist and the white dot data is from the actual trade mark).

The ebony line is well documented so the practice of black pens with 14K furniture using flex nibs well established for 1921-1925. Continuing on with radite is hardly a stretch as examples are known. Kirchheimer's stickered model states that it is $8.25 instead of the lifetime price of $8.75 and I believe has a flex 8 in it. I have seen so many Sheaffers with the wrong nib that the presumption that the 3-25 is in error is a good one, especially as I have already established that my two 14K no dot pens did not have nibs at all. Therefore, a replacement nib is very likely and may have even been used in the period. I already accept that your is likely very late being circa 1931 with the low set clip - so no argument there.

Roger W.

[david i]

There was one up from him recently though I don't recall the nib.

Radite precedes the white dot - I don't feel like digging out the specifics so Radite was June and White dot was September (OK the months are actual the radite date is from internal corporate records per the archivist and the white dot data is from the actual trade mark).

The ebony line is well documented so the practice of black pens with 14K furniture using flex nibs well established for 1921-1925. Continuing on with radite is hardly a stretch as examples are known. Kirchheimer's stickered model states that it is $8.25 instead of the lifetime price of $8.75 and I believe has a flex 8 in it. I have seen so many Sheaffers with the wrong nib that the presumption that the 3-25 is in error is a good one, especially as I have already established that my two 14K no dot pens did not have nibs at all. Therefore, a replacement nib is very likely and may have even been used in the period. I already accept that your is likely very late being circa 1931 with the low set clip - so no argument there.

Roger W.

I have no disagreement (not enough info in any case if I wanted to have one) regarding finding essentially white-dot pens without the white dot and with a flex nib, given that the white dot seems to have associated at least early on with manifold "lifetime" nibs.

And, I am reasonably comfortable mapping systems onto similar-yet-different pens that perhaps follow same pattern, though I tend of course not to consider such things.... concluded... barring stronger evidence.


Let's see if I have the data down from Roger and Daniel:

You have pens that would be white dot (size, band) but are non-white dot and are fitted with flex nibs, perhaps explaining the non-white-dot state.

Neither of you have sheaffer information about "Autograph" per se conforming to your posited model (non WD pen like WD save for flex nib and no white dot)? Or does Roger's catalogue data cover this.

Neither of you has a "late" (or "1930's humped clip") Autograph lacking the white dot, but did see similar pen (non white dot Autograph) sell recently?

Roger at least has early Autograph (is that one plastic?) that lacks the white dot?

regards

David

[Roger W.]

I have no disagreement (not enough info in any case if I wanted to have one) regarding finding essentially white-dot pens without the white dot and with a flex nib, given that the white dot seems to have associated at least early on with manifold "lifetime" nibs.

And, I am reasonably comfortable mapping systems onto similar-yet-different pens that perhaps follow same pattern, though I tend of course not to consider such things.... concluded... barring stronger evidence.


Let's see if I have the data down from Roger and Daniel:

You have pens that would be white dot (size, band) but are non-white dot and are fitted with flex nibs, perhaps explaining the non-white-dot state.

Neither of you have sheaffer information about "Autograph" per se conforming to your posited model (non WD pen like WD save for flex nib and no white dot)? Or does Roger's catalogue data cover this.

Neither of you has a "late" (or "1930's humped clip") Autograph lacking the white dot, but did see similar pen (non white dot Autograph) sell recently?

Roger at least has early Autograph (is that one plastic?) that lacks the white dot?

regards

David

Yes, my pic is of a radite model so it was very germain otherwise, it would just be another Ebony line BHR which we have ample evidence for. I think the catalogue data for the Ebony line clearly covers these pens as well as Sheaffer hardly ever just stops the production of a particular model. Listing "end" dates for Sheaffers is darn near folly. There are a few cases such as 46's and 22's being replaced by 5-30's and 3-25's that are robust switchovers that end a prior model. But anomolies occur - I have a hard rubber 3-25 which makes no sense at all. Perhaps an employee took an old hard rubber pen stamped it (it is cap stamped) and fitted it with a 3-25 nib - don't know - fun.

Roger W.

[Kirchh]

Pete K posted a pen consistent with yours on FPN in '07. Here's the pic:

Pete K's Non-WD 14K-Trimmed Small Flat Top

The marks above the clip might match those on your pen, so I thought they might be one and the same. Can you check the marks on yours and opine as to whether it is the same example?

Though it is clear that until the addition of flexible nibs to the Lifetime line in 1930, Sheaffer offered at least some models otherwise identical to Lifetimes as non-Lifetime (no WD) versions, I do not believe that the pen in question here owes its existence to that principle. Indeed, I'm unaware of a Lifetime model that matches this model save for the missing Dot.

Rather, I lean towards this being a late continuation of a model in the Ebony line. As Roger has pointed out, Sheaffer offered this line of 14K-trimmed non-Lifetime pens in parallel with Lifetime models as documented in the 1923 catalog; the line included a small clipped pen, the 29SC, with what appears to be a 3/8" 14K band, matching the general configuration of the pen shown here.

Roger's pen may simply be a somewhat earlier version of the very same model, though still post-cataloged-models.

Given Sheaffer's observed propensity for continuing production of models well beyond their advertised lines, albeit in reduced quantities, I think this is the most likely explanation given the data before us at this point.

-- Daniel

[david i]

Pete K posted a pen consistent with yours on FPN in '07. Here's the pic:

Pete K's Non-WD 14K-Trimmed Small Flat Top

The marks above the clip might match those on your pen, so I thought they might be one and the same. Can you check the marks on yours and opine as to whether it is the same example? SNIP


-- Daniel

Well, I have no recollection ever buying a flat-top Sheaffer via FPN. Cannot insist have not found couple on ebay, but no recollection of chat with Pete about it, which I would likely have had, if I'd bought pen via auction from him. I will look over the pen at some point. My two weeks of downtime just was nuked. Partner at work (the other half of the night team) is ill, and I'm pulling many extra night shifts now. Sleeping most the day. Gut feeling is the pen has been in tray long time, but cannot insist.

regards

Daivd

[Roger W.]

David;

I found the other one and are you going to like it. If the Ebony theory holds out then radite Ebonys should be 2 sized pens or 3-25's if you like as the bigger Ebonys had been being dropped by the catalogues and, so far, our radite Ebonys are the right size to be a continuation. Sheaffer continuations are very long as many examples that have no other support for production have attributes that are ten years past the last date of when we know they were produced. Anyway, yours is a hump clip circa 1931 five years out (maybe '34 eight years out). My second contender is a flat ball! Easily nine years out. I'd like to say the 2 self filling nib is a flex but it isn't - just a stiff 2. Still, the nib could easily be a replacement. We know the reason for the ebony line was to provide a fleible nib for those that demand it.

Roger W.



14K trim flatball Ebony Radite






Flatball with the earlier pen. The first is a short clip model and the second is a full length model.

[david i]

David;

I found the other one and are you going to like it. If the Ebony theory... SNIP

Most interesting. Do clarify this "Ebony Line". I'd figured you were mentioning simply black pens found sans white dot, but is there something formally named Ebony Line?

regards

david

[Roger W.]

Most interesting. Do clarify this "Ebony Line". I'd figured you were mentioning simply black pens found sans white dot, but is there something formally named Ebony Line?

regards

david

David;

OK, I'm too into the catalogues. Yes the Ebony line is a formal line listed in 1921, 1923 and 1925 catalogues. At first glance of the pen you might not think this is a formal model but, it is.

Roger W.

[Kirchh]

We know the reason for the ebony line was to provide a fleible [sic] nib for those that demand it.

I stongly disagree with this claim. I think your are wrongly imposing a model-line structuring sensibility based on the much later setup of the late-'20s retrospectively onto the early '20s. Note that many of the models that were to be grouped in the Ebony line (including ones that may be the ancestors to the later pens under examination here) appeared prior to that model family name being used; they are seen in the 1918 catalog, also well before Lifetime pens first appeared. And even when the Ebony line name was first applied in a catalog (by 1921), the Lifetime pens had just been introduced and were available in an extremely limited range of sizes, and in fact were not even offered with 14K trim in catalogs [need to verify this -- from memory]. So the line structuring had not yet evolved to the simpler tiered arrangement seen by the late '20s and beyond whereby Lifetime line contained the highest-priced, fanciest pens. In the early '20s, the Ebony line was merely a high-end configuration of Sheaffer's dominant line of pens -- that is, quality lever-fillers in a variety of shapes and sizes. That is, at the time, Sheaffer had student pens, regular pens, fancier pens with solid gold trim, overlay pens, and so on, which could be fitted with various nib styles, including manifold and flexible nibs. And in 1920, they added the pen with the Lifetime nib, in just one size, and in a single trim configuration. The organization whereby all pens above a certain price point were Lifetime pens (with the possible outlying exception of uncataloged flex-nibbed pens) was not to come for several years.

The original reason for the models that were to constitute the Ebony line was not to provide a flexible nib because none was available in a 14K-trimmed Lifetime model -- because there was no Lifetime model at all, and even when the Lifetime pen debuted, it was not offered in trim configurations comparable to those available in the Ebony line.

Why continue to offer a subset of Ebony line pens (with stylistically current trim [clip]) as the Lifetime line widened and eventually allowed for a flexible nib? Perhaps because certain sizes of pen were still not available in a Lifetime configuration with 14K trim. Was there a Lifetime offering iwith 14K trim in exactly the sizes of these non-Lifetime pens with 14K trim posted in this topic? Or even Lifetime models with non-14K trim? Note that at least some of these pens would seem to take 3-sized nibs, and Sheaffer made no 3-sized Lifetime nib -- manifold or otherwise -- until mid-'35.

--Daniel
P.S. All dates herein are from memory so appropriate caution is warranted. I will edit as possible when I can refer to documentation

[Roger W.]

Why continue to offer a subset of Ebony line pens (with stylistically current trim [clip]) as the Lifetime line widened and eventually allowed for a flexible nib? Perhaps because certain sizes of pen were still not available in a Lifetime configuration with 14K trim. Was there a Lifetime offering iwith 14K trim in exactly the sizes of these non-Lifetime pens with 14K trim posted in this topic? Or even Lifetime models with non-14K trim? Note that at least some of these pens would seem to take 3-sized nibs, and Sheaffer made no 3-sized Lifetime nib -- manifold or otherwise -- until mid-'35.

--Daniel
P.S. All dates herein are from memory so appropriate caution is warranted. I will edit as possible when I can refer to documentation

I did not define my claim clearly enough. I am not saying flexible nibs were the original aim of the ebony line but, had become a major reason for it in the 1925 catalogue and I am quoting the 1925 catalogue when I say the pen was for those that demanded flexible nibs. Now it is very true that they never made a lifetime in the 1st width class of pens (those generally around .48" and width class is my own nomenclature for it - 22SS and 3-25 radite). But, they made one in the .52" (yes, I have an 84C with 14K trim - the band being 3/8" - model number me that!) so I think it clear that these could have been offered instead of a direct continuation of the Ebony line as both of my pens are in the first diameter class and match lenghs used by earlier Ebony line pens. I'm not sure why Sheaffer would continue to offer an Ebony line pen that is last described as a flexible nib arrangement unless that is the reason for continuing the line. As we have no documentation to refute this your strong disagrement with the statement is unwarranted (you may disagree all you want - I'm just saying there ain't a huge lot to support for either one of us after a point).

I have a hard time saying what the right nibs in these should be as I keep them as I find them as two of my Ebonys didn't have nibs and the last radite Ebony I show has a 2 Self Filling (nail) which is very out of date for a 1935 pen (so I strongly suspect it is not original). Why don't they oddly have the right nibs or nibs at all? As I posited some time before I think people had gotten used to stiff nibs and these flexible ones got broken. The 1935 one got a 2 Self Filling replacement because as you say there isn't a LT nib for this slight a diameter so they got the appropriate size though a 3 would have seemed a more likely candidate for 1935.

Roger W.

[Kirchh]

I did not define my claim clearly enough. I am not saying flexible nibs were the original aim of the ebony line but, had become a major reason for it in the 1925 catalogue and I am quoting the 1925 catalogue when I say the pen was for those that demanded flexible nibs. Now it is very true that they never made a lifetime in the 1st width class of pens (those generally around .48" and width class is my own nomenclature for it - 22SS and 3-25 radite). But, they made one in the .52" (yes, I have an 84C with 14K trim - the band being 3/8" - model number me that!) so I think it clear that these could have been offered instead of a direct continuation of the Ebony line as both of my pens are in the first diameter class and match lenghs used by earlier Ebony line pens. I'm not sure why Sheaffer would continue to offer an Ebony line pen that is last described as a flexible nib arrangement unless that is the reason for continuing the line. As we have no documentation to refute this your strong disagrement with the statement is unwarranted (you may disagree all you want - I'm just saying there ain't a huge lot to support for either one of us after a point).

I have a hard time saying what the right nibs in these should be as I keep them as I find them as two of my Ebonys didn't have nibs and the last radite Ebony I show has a 2 Self Filling (nail) which is very out of date for a 1935 pen (so I strongly suspect it is not original). Why don't they oddly have the right nibs or nibs at all? As I posited some time before I think people had gotten used to stiff nibs and these flexible ones got broken. The 1935 one got a 2 Self Filling replacement because as you say there isn't a LT nib for this slight a diameter so they got the appropriate size though a 3 would have seemed a more likely candidate for 1935.

Roger W.

I'm not quite following all of your reasoning here; I can usually track your thoughts but the writing style in this case is just a bit too stream-of-consciousness for me to decode.

I disagree with the claim that the reason for the offering of the Ebony line in 1925 was as a flexible-nibbed alternative to Lifetime models; if that were the case, why wouldn't it be a full line rather than just a few slender pens with solid gold trim? You say,

"flexible nibs...had become a major reason for [the existence of the Ebony line] in the 1925 catalogue and I am quoting the 1925 catalogue when I say the pen was for those that demanded flexible nibs"

But this is not at all accurate. First, you are not quoting the catalog accurately, and I disagree with the inference you make from what the catalog actually does say. Here's the first paragraph of the description of the Ebony line:

"A perfectly made pen of ebon hued rubbber for those who desire a distinctive and conservative pen of unusually high grade."

The nib characteristics are clearly not the primary reason Sheaffer puts forth for the positioning of this line. The second paragraph goes on,

"The lack of any chasing or ornament of any kind except the solid 14K bands lends an air of refinement and distinction to the Ebony line...."

Again, the overall style of the pen is what is being promoted.

Not until the final paragraph, as with the descriptions of most of the lines in the catalog, is the nib offering mentioned:

"The points are size No. 2, ideally suited for those who demand flexibility and satin smoothness..."

But this is clearly just complimentary (praising) language for Sheaffer's nibs -- surely we can't conclude that, for example, if one wants "satin smoothness", only the pens in the Ebony line have that attribute.

And contrary to your assertion that "I am quoting the 1925 catalogue when I say the pen was for those that demanded flexible nibs", the catalog clearly states that the No. 2 nib -- not the pens in the Ebony lline -- "is ideally suited for those who demand flexibility and satin smoothness."

Note further that the description continues,

"Points are furnished extra fine, fine, medium, coarse, posting, stub, and manifold [emph added]."

Or, in other words, if you want a slender, un-ornamented black pen with 14K trim, the Ebony line is for you. And you can have whatever nib style you like.

Note that the Ebony line in the '25 catalog has no overlap whatsoever with the Lifetime line as far as model size, so the notion that it existed as a parallel alternative only for those who wanted a flex nib makes no sense from that standpoint -- there are no parallel models.

If every example seen so far of a non-Lifetime 14K-trimmed flat top is in a size not available in the Lifetime line, is that size distinction not the most likely reason to account for the continued production of a subset of the Ebony line into the late '20s-mid-'30s, given the data before us?

--Daniel

[Kirchh]

Well, I have no recollection ever buying a flat-top Sheaffer via FPN. Cannot insist have not found couple on ebay, but no recollection of chat with Pete about it, which I would likely have had, if I'd bought pen via auction from him. I will look over the pen at some point. My two weeks of downtime just was nuked. Partner at work (the other half of the night team) is ill, and I'm pulling many extra night shifts now. Sleeping most the day. Gut feeling is the pen has been in tray long time, but cannot insist.

Pen wasn't offered on FPN (just displayed), but Pete may have put it up on eBay (Roger?). Check the marks above the clip to see if they match when you get the opportunity.

--Daniel

[Roger W.]

I'm not quite following all of your reasoning here; I can usually track your thoughts but the writing style in this case is just a bit too stream-of-consciousness for me to decode.

I disagree with the claim that the reason for the offering of the Ebony line in 1925 was as a flexible-nibbed alternative to Lifetime models; if that were the case, why wouldn't it be a full line rather than just a few slender pens with solid gold trim? You say,

"flexible nibs...had become a major reason for [the existence of the Ebony line] in the 1925 catalogue and I am quoting the 1925 catalogue when I say the pen was for those that demanded flexible nibs"

But this is not at all accurate. First, you are not quoting the catalog accurately, and I disagree with the inference you make from what the catalog actually does say. Here's the first paragraph of the description of the Ebony line:

"A perfectly made pen of ebon hued rubbber for those who desire a distinctive and conservative pen of unusually high grade."

The nib characteristics are clearly not the primary reason Sheaffer puts forth for the positioning of this line. The second paragraph goes on,

"The lack of any chasing or ornament of any kind except the solid 14K bands lends an air of refinement and distinction to the Ebony line...."

Again, the overall style of the pen is what is being promoted.

Not until the final paragraph, as with the descriptions of most of the lines in the catalog, is the nib offering mentioned:

"The points are size No. 2, ideally suited for those who demand flexibility and satin smoothness..."

But this is clearly just complimentary (praising) language for Sheaffer's nibs -- surely we can't conclude that, for example, if one wants "satin smoothness", only the pens in the Ebony line have that attribute.

And contrary to your assertion that "I am quoting the 1925 catalogue when I say the pen was for those that demanded flexible nibs", the catalog clearly states that the No. 2 nib -- not the pens in the Ebony lline -- "is ideally suited for those who demand flexibility and satin smoothness."

Note further that the description continues,

"Points are furnished extra fine, fine, medium, coarse, posting, stub, and manifold [emph added]."

Or, in other words, if you want a slender, un-ornamented black pen with 14K trim, the Ebony line is for you. And you can have whatever nib style you like.

Note that the Ebony line in the '25 catalog has no overlap whatsoever with the Lifetime line as far as model size, so the notion that it existed as a parallel alternative only for those who wanted a flex nib makes no sense from that standpoint -- there are no parallel models.

If every example seen so far of a non-Lifetime 14K-trimmed flat top is in a size not available in the Lifetime line, is that size distinction not the most likely reason to account for the continued production of a subset of the Ebony line into the late '20s-mid-'30s, given the data before us?

--Daniel

Daniel;

Stream of consciousness, huh, well I have read one of James Joyce's books in its entirety no less (I think it was Finnegan's Wake). As you say though, I've put too much emphasis on the Ebony line being for flexibility when I could have more easily (and more correctly) said it was a non lifetime alternative that cost less money for a (by 1925 as prior included much larger models) sleek 14K ornamented pen.

More importantly, we as a class of collectors have written almost nothing on the Ebony line. While I've known it was there for a long time its place in Sheaffer's hierarchy has been largely overlooked. I take your point now that the Ebony line is an entity which we should further develop. So the Ebony line is an entity to which became slender pens with 14K mountings by the middle of 1925 and that continued into the 30's as a slender (to the first width class of .48") that lifetime did not address. Of course, that makes you wonder how many of these sort of size of pens Sheaffer made on purpose and how many just happened to end up that way. Sheaffer clearly never made a lifetime thinner that the second width class of .52" (these are all cap diameters, BTW) though it is hard to see why not unless a .48" was clearly associated with certain norms such as Student pens (clearly not in this case) or some other norm I cannot discern from the ad copy. Was someone at Sheaffer the champion of this line and its attributes preserved through their efforts?

The catalogues give a lot more information than the ads as the 8C and J8C make up the bulk of what was advertised in the mid to late 20's. Reviewing enough pens provides even more anomalies such as the 84C that I have with 14K mountings, so a near Ebony line pen was at least contemplated in a lifetime pen but, still preserving a second width class of .52". Well, I've got out over 100 HR Sheaffers and I'm starting to put them in order. They will speak to many things...

Roger W.