23 replies to this topic

[Pensee]

Hi All,

Hope you like Waterman history because here goes.

When did Waterman start using 100's place for overlay (that can be documented?)

I ask because member at another forum claims to have an electronic copy of an 1895 Waterman catalog. From it, he states Waterman was using 100's place in 1895.

Ergo: I was mistaken in posting I have a Waterman #12 in fine silver.

According to this fellow, the pen would need to have "412" on bottom. Otherwise a #12 overlay would mean after purchase "add-on" if you will.

I haven't seen this 1985 catalog; am told they did use 100's place for internal use-- just not stamped on bottom of pen.. A search for this catalog in google books / images = 0

A search @ L&P = 200 ‘hits’ —most related to 1985 & 1897 lawsuits-- AA Waterman & Wirt.

Curious because if 1895 claim for 100's place on pens is true, this fact would seem to indicate that: Vintagepens, Gopens, Vintagewatermanpens, & members at L&P need to revise their history? Or mea culpa -- I've misunderstood!

Waterman history can be challenging enough without possible mistakes in citing what little documentation is out there.

It muddies the waters in a challenging area of research for the amateur history buff.

So for the benefit of myself & others, what say the experts?

When did Waterman start imprinting 100's place as evidenced by what supporting documentation?

When did they start using 100's place for internal purposes such as ordering? Supporting documentation?

Long I know, but thanks in putting up with these kinds of questions. Again, my background in *quantitative* research & statistics reveals me having blown off qualitative research at my own loss it seems.

thx

--Bruce

[david i]

Hi Bruce,

At very least, the PCA (bargain at $40/year with three fresh mags) has a monster library of old catalogues available free for download by members. And, Bill Acker at billspens.com has some high quality catalogue repros, including some early Waterman material.

regards

david

[David Nishimura]

OK, let's get this on the record (although it has been discussed online multiple times, and should be findable with Google):

Waterman started denoting the presence of an overlay on a pen by use of numbers in the 100s place early on. Look at catalogs from around the turn of the century, and you'll see that this was standard practice. What the catalogs don't tell you, however, was whether or not these numbers were actually stamped on the pens themselves. In fact, originally they were not: a silver overlay slip cap eyedropper in #2 size would be catalogued as a 412, and dealers would order stock using this number, but the actual pens bore a simple "12" stamp (and note that still earlier on, some models didn't even any number stamp at all -- and for now we won't even start discussing European-market overlays).

How do we know this? Because some of us have had the experience of handling hundreds if not thousands of Waterman overlays, many from the wild, many in unused and untouched condition, many directly from the original owners or children of the original owners. And we see that certain models are found with and without the hundreds place digit, telling us that at some point Waterman began to include that digit in the imprint. Exactly when is something I am still trying to determine; it definitely was after the era of the fine silver Art Nouveau overlays, all of which lack the hundreds place digit, and well into the era of the trefoil pattern sterling silver overlays (since most of these have the hundreds digit, but it is not uncommon for them to lack it).

What about the claim that pens lacking the hundreds place digit must therefore bear aftermarket overlays? Yes, there are some pens with jeweler's overlays that lack the hundreds digit. But use your eyes! If the overlay is identical to overlays found on pens with the hundreds digit, and the overlay bears full Waterman imprints on the metal, isn't it obvious that the overlay is factory?

The one other consideration is where the HR barrel might have been replaced, using a barrel that originally lacked an overlay. This is another situation entirely, and often as not one can tell from the fitting of the overlay and other telltale signs that the overlay and the barrel did not originally belong together. It is also a fairly unusual situation, and one that simply does not occur with certain pens (electroformed fine silver overlays, notably, where the overlay is virtually impossible to remove from the barrel).

[Pensee]

David i: Appreciate tip about PCA & billspens. Two more sources!

David N: I'm smiling because I wonder how many times you've had to answer that question?!

Posted because my erm... "messaging friend" wasn't impressed with links to your patterns page, Gary L's PDF catalogs, & other sources.)

Prediction: If send him link here-- probably same answer. "Don't care who they are-- it's in my catalog."

Troll?

Even if I fell for it, still a very informative post I can file away.

Thanks to you both for time in replies.

--Bruce

[david i]

David i: Appreciate tip about PCA & billspens. Two more sources!

David N: I'm smiling because I wonder how many times you've had to answer that question?!

Posted because my erm... "messaging friend" wasn't impressed with links to your patterns page, Gary L's PDF catalogs, & other sources.)

Prediction: If send him link here-- probably same answer. "Don't care who they are-- it's in my catalog."

Troll?

Even if I fell for it, still a very informative post I can file away.

Thanks to you both for time in replies.

--Bruce

Hi Bruce,

I'm curious. What was the goal/agenda/concern of your messaging friend?

regards

david

[david i]

OK, let's get this on the record (although it has been discussed online multiple times, and should be findable with Google):

Waterman started denoting the presence of an overlay on a pen by use of numbers in the 100s place early on.

SNIP

Nice treatise David. Thanks. Even if this topic has been addressed before/elsewhere (eg. last week on FPN), it doesn't hurt to get the information widely distributed. I would bet that primary researchers on this topic, those who can take stab at moving beyond just knowing cartalogue numbers and know by experience when more complete codes appeared on actual pens.... constitute a rather small cadre.

For others reading, note too that while the "100's" spot for metal (eg 512 for a solid gold #12 or 452 for a sterling #52) appears on pens in the era described, there are other catalogue code numbers that seem never to have made it onto actual pens.

regards

d

[David Nishimura]

Prediction: If send him link here-- probably same answer. "Don't care who they are-- it's in my catalog."
Troll?

Sometimes people lose perspective, and focus too singlemindedly on written evidence. They will see something in an original catalog and take it as fact, even though the evidence of the actual items contradicts it. Old pen catalog illustrations, for example, were often engraved artists' renditions rather than photos; as a result, they sometimes showed imprints where no imprints were ever actually present, or left out imprints where imprints were always applied.

In this particular case, "it" isn't in the catalog. As I noted above, the catalog nowhere states or illustrates how the pens were actually marked. Many other penmakers gave their pens model numbers without marking those numbers on the pens at all (Wahl, for example) or in only partial form (Conklin, for example) or in ephemeral form (paper price/model bands).

[Pensee]

David i: Appreciate tip about PCA & billspens. Two more sources!

Posted because my erm... "messaging friend" wasn't impressed with links to your patterns page, Gary L's PDF catalogs, & other sources.)

Prediction: If send him link here-- probably same answer. "Don't care who they are-- it's in my catalog."

Troll?

Even if I fell for it, still a very informative post I can file away.

Thanks to you both for time in replies.

--Bruce

Hi Bruce,

I'm curious. What was the goal/agenda/concern of your messaging friend?

regards

david

No way of knowing someone's motivation/intentions, so maybe good (polite?) way of saying watch my language?!

Seemed harmless enough at first. For fun had posted picture of pen & writing sample where I called pen "Watermans La Plume Argent #12"

Member corrected me-- no it's a 412.

Tried to explain .999 Ag & end of barrel. Included links to Vintagepens where better explained & Gopens catalogs where .999 Ag 12's had been for sale.

Next PM was terse. Have 1895 catalog-- it's either add-on or 412.

Since he had catalog & seemed to be enthusiast may have made mistake of trying to inject a little levity.

Danger Will Robinson! History a slippery fish on these things! Might get hooked!

Reply was, "I have the catalog. Go save yourself..."

Goodness! Some people can't take a joke? Was being baited all along? Don't know. Doesn't really matter except I learned 2 things. Beware kidding around in PMs from people I don't know.

Troll or just testy-- PM's more than paid off in getting me to post here & getting good solid info.

Prediction: If send him link here-- probably same answer. "Don't care who they are-- it's in my catalog."
Troll?

Sometimes people lose perspective, and focus too singlemindedly on written evidence. They will see something in an original catalog and take it as fact, even though the evidence of the actual items contradicts it. Old pen catalog illustrations, for example, were often engraved artists' renditions rather than photos; as a result, they sometimes showed imprints where no imprints were ever actually present, or left out imprints where imprints were always applied.

In this particular case, "it" isn't in the catalog. As I noted above, the catalog nowhere states or illustrates how the pens were actually marked. Many other penmakers gave their pens model numbers without marking those numbers on the pens at all (Wahl, for example) or in only partial form (Conklin, for example) or in ephemeral form (paper price/model bands).

More great info to cut n paste into Waterman file. And you mentioned not *even* getting into European ones. Since "Louisiana French" that might be interesting, but save that for much later. ; )

thx

--Bruce

[david i]

Ahh, yes, the overly dogmatic.

Nearly all pen catalogues, including Waterman catalogues, employ model codes not stamped on pen. Maybe you can point him here and invite him to comment. We could have some fun, baby.

-d

[Pensee]

Server timeout led to double post. deleting repeat.

Edited by Pensee, 09 October 2012 - 02:28 AM.

[David Nishimura]

Perhaps your correspondent wasn't really trying to tell you your pen wasn't a factory overlay, but was instead trying to hammer in his belief that such a pen should be referred to as a 412 and not a 12 with silver filigree overlay.

Frankly, I've not always been consistent in how I describe such pens, nor do I worry overmuch about it. In the past I've catalogued pens such as yours as both a 12 and a 412, with no harm done. At this point I tend to use the full model number, even if only the two-digit number is imprinted, though only for USA-market pens. One can go a bit nuts in this regard, however, since there were various methods used in the catalogs to identify different trim configurations, methods that both changed over time and which were never imprinted on pens. These I have no intention of ever using in my catalog descriptions, nor in casual discussion.

[Pensee]

Maybe you can point him here and invite him to comment. We could have some fun, baby.

-d

Oh I did point him here! & diff. sites & archives @ L&P too.

All those links might have provoked his "Pensee save yourself" reply.

I deflected him in my reply & said would be interested in seeing his catalog & "thumbs up to all things Waterman!"

No reply after that.

So something tells me he wouldn't come here when he appears to spend significant amount of time at other place. Has 2011 join date and over 3000 posts! Very active...

Perhaps your correspondent wasn't really trying to tell you your pen wasn't a factory overlay, but was instead trying to hammer in his belief that such a pen should be referred to as a 412 and not a 12 with silver filigree overlay.

Yes, I think it was a case of pen should be called 412, or if just 12 then it could also be add-on. Silver hard to photograph so imprints might've been hard to see. Maybe he didn't see "Fine .999 Silver" & "Waterman's Ideal / Fountain Pen." Still might not explain him seeming to getting angry when I sent links. Will never know I guess & machts nicht. I learned from it.

Frankly, I've not always been consistent in how I describe such pens, nor do I worry overmuch about it. In the past I've catalogued pens such as yours as both a 12 and a 412, with no harm done. At this point I tend to use the full model number, even if only the two-digit number is imprinted, though only for USA-market pens. One can go a bit nuts in this regard, however, since there were various methods used in the catalogs to identify different trim configurations, methods that both changed over time and which were never imprinted on pens. These I have no intention of ever using in my catalog descriptions, nor in casual discussion.

OK. 412 it is just to avoid things like this in future!

I'm grinning at last part tho...

Go nuts about various methods & no intention of using in casual discussion.

Article about those methods one day? ; )

thx

--Bruce

[david i]

Hi Bruce,

I was rummaging around the pen photo archive and found this one. Never owned it, but had chance to shoot it. Early 412

regards

david

[Pensee]

Hi Bruce,

I was rummaging around the pen photo archive and found this one. Never owned it, but had chance to shoot it. Early 412

regards

david

Thanks! Didn't even know they *made* a clip version! Another pen to add to my list.

Here's link to a real beauty, and am very curious about the nib, but save that for another topic.

scroll 412 w 'star' imprint nib

This guy really has some pens.

Source blog and more eye candy

thx

--Bruce

[david i]

Hi Bruce,

I was rummaging around the pen photo archive and found this one. Never owned it, but had chance to shoot it. Early 412

regards

david

Thanks! Didn't even know they *made* a clip version! Another pen to add to my list.

Here's link to a real beauty, and am very curious about the nib, but save that for another topic.

scroll 412 w 'star' imprint nib

This guy really has some pens.

Source blog and more eye candy

thx

--Bruce

Luiz is a well known collector indeed with an amazing pen collection. The star nib is relatively uncommon and is seen as desirable by collectors. My recollection is that is is believed to have been used for a specific (presumably brief) time and does not indicate anything special about pens carrying it.

regards

david

[Procyon]

The star imprint on the nib was preceded by a nib with a star-shaped vent hole - although it was a six pointed star, like a star of David. That was in the 1890's I think.

[David Nishimura]

To add a bit more detail to my earlier post:

The use of digits in the 100s place to denote overlays does date back to the 1890s (at least), but it is only in the 1908 catalog (pp. 15-16) that it is explicitly stated that "Each figure in the number, on the butt end of every Waterman's Ideal Fountain Pen, invariably represents a fixed size or style of the several parts, as shown below . . . "

The explanation in the catalog is extensive enough that it seems to be introducing something new, and indeed it appears to elaborate and systematize a system that had been in use, without explicit explanation, for quite some time previous. In fact, I have in front of me the centerfold ad in the March 1903 Pen Prophet, and the Filigree pattern pen shown second from the top is listed as offered as model numbers 12, 14, 15, and 16. Meanwhile, the half-covered (barrel only) silver Heavy Rose immediately below is listed as a 414!

And note that clips were often added to fine silver filigree pens some years after they were manufactured.

[David Nishimura]

The star imprint on the nib was preceded by a nib with a star-shaped vent hole - although it was a six pointed star, like a star of David. That was in the 1890's I think.

The sequence and connection isn't clear, unfortunately. It is quite possible that Waterman was using multiple nib suppliers simultaneously, and that the different imprints (and vent hole patterns) were at least in part a function of who made the nib. The star-imprint nibs are shown in some catalogs alongside starless nibs, while the star-vent nibs appear in no catalogs or advertisements and are so uncommon that it seems most unlikely they were ever the exclusive design used.

[Pensee]

OK. So to avoid any misunderstandings in future, the correct description of this pen would be "late 412 in fine silver" or something thereabouts.

And as long as we're on the subject of nibs. Two questions about this puppy.





1.) Correct nib for pen (c. 1910-15?) From what few I've seen "Reg US Pat Off" nibs have always been on pens from the 20's. Older ones always seem to have "Watermans Ideal New York."

2.) David N's reference page has a disturbing warning about caps on many sleeve fillers being from eye droppers.

Might be hard to tell from photo, but correct cap? If helps, dimensions are about 5.9 cm x 1.7 cm

Can always return the thing if 'substitute' cap or nib.

thanks as always for replies

--Bruce

[Procyon]

The star imprint on the nib was preceded by a nib with a star-shaped vent hole - although it was a six pointed star, like a star of David. That was in the 1890's I think.

The sequence and connection isn't clear, unfortunately. It is quite possible that Waterman was using multiple nib suppliers simultaneously, and that the different imprints (and vent hole patterns) were at least in part a function of who made the nib. The star-imprint nibs are shown in some catalogs alongside starless nibs, while the star-vent nibs appear in no catalogs or advertisements and are so uncommon that it seems most unlikely they were ever the exclusive design used.

Interesting. Well, it just goes to show that nothing is as straightforward as we might like it to be. The pen companies did whatever was expedient for them at the time to get out a product and make a profit. Too bad if it makes it complicated for collectors 120 years later. That wasn't really their concern. No surprise there, I guess.