20 replies to this topic

[Teej47]

How about a little more vagueness?

Two days ago while enjoying an unexpected afternoon off (the up-side of really low hospital census), I scored an RRHR 52-1/2V, which just happens to be by far my Waterman's to date. Minimal oxydation, virtually no brassing, seriously sharp imprints, nary a scratch anywhere, and a nice semi-flex fine point. To quote my daughter, "Oooo, that's a pretty one!" I really love hard rubber pens, so naturally any Rippled Waterman is high on my list. This one is my first, so I'm tickled pink (or rather an orangey red, in this case). I'll post pictures as soon as I take some.

So... I always want to know when a pen was made (understanding, of course, that a span of a few years is normally as close as you can get apart from date coded Parkers). My best guess right now is the last two or three years of the 1920s. Am I at least in the ballpark?

Tim

[david i]

How about a little more vagueness?

Two days ago while enjoying an unexpected afternoon off (the up-side of really low hospital census), I scored an RRHR 52-1/2V, which just happens to be by far my Waterman's to date. Minimal oxydation, virtually no brassing, seriously sharp imprints, nary a scratch anywhere, and a nice semi-flex fine point. To quote my daughter, "Oooo, that's a pretty one!" I really love hard rubber pens, so naturally any Rippled Waterman is high on my list. This one is my first, so I'm tickled pink (or rather an orangey red, in this case). I'll post pictures as soon as I take some.

So... I always want to know when a pen was made (understanding, of course, that a span of a few years is normally as close as you can get apart from date coded Parkers). My best guess right now is the last two or three years of the 1920s. Am I at least in the ballpark?

Tim

Always nice to find a Ripple. For some reason, I have considered the Ripple to have appeared around 1923. I'd have to check catalogues and ads to confirm. No doubt some of the more serious Watermaners here can clarify. For those wondering about the pen in discussion, here is a somewhat primitive (non-diffuse lighting) shot of a slighlty upscale little ringtop Ripple 52 1/2 V (short slender) pen, technically an 01952 1/2V, as it has the gold-filled crown

regards

david

[Procyon]

Tim, I think you are catching onto that vagueness thing. .... just kidding

I think that David is right about 1923 being the beginning year for the red ripples. So it could be dated probably 1923-1930. You might be able to narrow it down a bit, depending on the clip (assuming it has one). If it has the large rivets, it is probably a 1923. If it has small rivets, but still says "Clip Cap" it is probably 1924-1927. If it say "Waterman's" on the clip, it is probably a 1928-1930.

If it had been one of the other ripple colors - olive, blue-green, or rose - then it would be 1928-1930.

I really like the ripples myself. Congrats on your first!


Regards, Allan

Edited by Procyon, 10 October 2012 - 07:32 PM.

[Teej47]

Nice, David!

That pencil must be positively tiny.

Tim

[david i]

You guys do realize the 52 1/2V is not the smallest Ripple... ?

regards

d

[Teej47]

Tim, I think you are catching onto that vagueness thing. .... just kidding

I think that David is right about 1923 being the beginning year for the red ripples. So it could be dated probably 1923-1930. You might be able to narrow it down a bit, depending on the clip (assuming it has one). If it has the large rivets, it is probably a 1923. If it has small rivets, but still says "Clip Cap" it is probably 1924-1927. If it say "Waterman's" on the clip, it is probably a 1928-1930.

If it had been one of the other ripple colors - olive, blue-green, or rose - then it would be 1928-1930.

I really like the ripples myself. Congrats on your first!


Regards, Allan

It's a ringtop, Allan, so no rivets.

I got the impression I believe from either David N or Richard's sites that the 1923 start date for ripples might be anomalous.

Danged vagueness!

Tim

[Teej47]

You guys do realize the 52 1/2V is not the smallest Ripple... ?

regards

d

51-1/2, perhaps?

Tim

Edited by Teej47, 10 October 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[david i]

I got the impression I believe from either David N or Richard's sites that the 1923 start date for ripples might be anomalous.


Tim

What?

-d

[Teej47]

I got the impression I believe from either David N or Richard's sites that the 1923 start date for ripples might be anomalous.


Tim

What?

-d

From Richard Binder's site:

Then, in 1926, the company improved on its woodgrain pens with a new line of “Ripple” pens. (Waterman’s later retrospective literature incorrectly dates the “Ripple” introduction to 1923.)

Tim

[david i]

I got the impression I believe from either David N or Richard's sites that the 1923 start date for ripples might be anomalous.


Tim

What?

-d

From Richard Binder's site:

Then, in 1926, the company improved on its woodgrain pens with a new line of “Ripple” pens. (Waterman’s later retrospective literature incorrectly dates the “Ripple” introduction to 1923.)

Tim

Ahh, you don't mean "anomalous" then. Rather, maybe, "erroneous"?

Geez, why do I believe my 1925 Catalogue shows Ripples... Must look

regards

d

[david i]

Just pulled the 1925 Catalogue. It shows woodgrain not Ripple.

regards

david

[Teej47]

I got the impression I believe from either David N or Richard's sites that the 1923 start date for ripples might be anomalous.


Tim

What?

-d

From Richard Binder's site:

Then, in 1926, the company improved on its woodgrain pens with a new line of “Ripple” pens. (Waterman’s later retrospective literature incorrectly dates the “Ripple” introduction to 1923.)

Tim

Ahh, you don't mean "anomalous" then. Rather, maybe, "erroneous"?

Geez, why do I believe my 1925 Catalogue shows Ripples... Must look

regards

d

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

Please do look. Richard doesn't site a source for his assertion, so it may well be... erroneous.

Tim

[Teej47]

Just pulled the 1925 Catalogue. It shows woodgrain not Ripple.

regards

david

Hmm... maybe Richard is on to something.

Tim

[Procyon]

Well, that's interesting. Most all the books say the ripple started in 1923, but maybe they are wrong. F & S shows a brochure that they label " ca. 1925" and it has both a mottled and a red ripple in it. Of course, the "ca." makes it vague and the whole label could be mistaken.

Other than that, the earliest ad I could find was a Christmas ad from 1926 in Bowen's book.

Edited by Procyon, 10 October 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Teej47]

Well, that's interesting. Most all the books say the ripple started in 1923, but maybe they are wrong. F & S shows a brochure that they label " ca. 1925" and it has both a mottled and a red ripple in it. Of course, the "ca." makes it vague and the whole label could be mistaken.

Other than that, the earliest ad I could find was a Christmas ad from 1926 in Bowen's book.

Cool, specificity!

Tim

[Procyon]

OK, I just went and read Richard Binder's writeup. So it was in 1923 that Waterman started making wood grain red and black HR pens, in addition to the earlier mottled pattern. Maybe some people have trouble distinguishing red ripple from wood grain. I guess I can tell the difference, but the basic look is almost the same.

Here are a couple of Waterman 55s. The top is a Red Ripple, the bottom a Wood Grain. The earlier mottled pattern is considerably different looking.

[david i]

So, have you guys seen the really small Ripple?

d

[Procyon]

I can't think of anything smaller than a 52 1/2 V. I have seen a 51V somewhere, I think, but I doubt if it's smaller. Don't know if there is a 51 1/2 V.

[Teej47]

OK, I just went and read Richard Binder's writeup. So it was in 1923 that Waterman started making wood grain red and black HR pens, in addition to the earlier mottled pattern. Maybe some people have trouble distinguishing red ripple from wood grain. I guess I can tell the difference, but the basic look is almost the same.

Here are a couple of Waterman 55s. The top is a Red Ripple, the bottom a Wood Grain. The earlier mottled pattern is considerably different looking.

While the bottom one is a fairly rippley example, they are quite distinct. Odd to me that some won't notice the difference.

How boring it must be to never notice the fiddly little details! (Of course I do have Asperger's Syndrome, so I can happily never notice the forest because the bark on that one tree is so fascinating).

Sweet pens!

Tim

[Teej47]

So, have you guys seen the really small Ripple?

d

Not sure. Is there a Ripple Doll or some such?

Tim