16 replies to this topic

[Will]

How have the tiers of pen brands been decided?
Are there some 1st tier pens made by second tier companies? Conversely, are there some 2nd tier pens made by 1st tier companies?
It seems like Conklin made the Spencerian as a lower tier pen (I might be wrong on that though), but were pens like the Sheaffer Wasps 2nd tier?

Edited by Will, 06 February 2013 - 10:26 PM.

[david i]

How have the tiers of pen brands been decided?
Are there some 1st tier pens made by second tier companies? Conversely, are there some 2nd tier pens made by 1st tier companies?
It seems like Conklin made the Spencerian as a lower tier pen (I might be wrong on that though), but were pens like the Sheaffer Wasps 2nd tier?

An excellent question that points to the heart of pen collecting.

I will note the verbiage offers room for confusion as "tier" can apply either to a manufacturer or to a given line of pens within the context of a given manufacturer. As with most things, we lack divine decree regarding pen tiers. It is more a matter of collector convention. That said, collector convention usually is based on rational criteria. Issues of quality of a given pen, cachet (today or back in the day) of the manufacturer, etc certainly contribute.

I can address in more detail later tonight or tomorrow, but I invite you to offer info as to what defines quality and cachet for old pens. The variables mostly should be pretty easy to identify. Just make a list...

Too, if you have interest in Sheaffer-made WASPS, and wonder where they fit in the "tierage" of old pens, I invite you to read the last issue of PENnant Magazine, featuring perhaps the first print article to explicitly address the very issue you raise.

More, later... I hope...

best regards

David

[Will]

How have the tiers of pen brands been decided?
Are there some 1st tier pens made by second tier companies? Conversely, are there some 2nd tier pens made by 1st tier companies?
It seems like Conklin made the Spencerian as a lower tier pen (I might be wrong on that though), but were pens like the Sheaffer Wasps 2nd tier?

An excellent question that points to the heart of pen collecting.

I will note the verbiage offers room for confusion as "tier" can apply either to a manufacturer or to a given line of pens within the context of a given manufacturer. As with most things, we lack divine decree regarding pen tiers. It is more a matter of collector convention. That said, collector convention usually is based on rational criteria. Issues of quality of a given pen, cachet (today or back in the day) of the manufacturer, etc certainly contribute.

I can address in more detail later tonight or tomorrow, but I invite you to offer info as to what defines quality and cachet for old pens. The variables mostly should be pretty easy to identify. Just make a list...

Too, if you have interest in Sheaffer-made WASPS, and wonder where they fit in the "tierage" of old pens, I invite you to read the last issue of PENnant Magazine, featuring perhaps the first print article to explicitly address the very issue you raise.

More, later... I hope...

best regards

David

I think the basic factors would be:

electroplated vs. filled trim
precision to which parts were manufactured
curing time of celluloid if applicable
nib tipping (?)

That's all I can come up with at the moment. There are probably many more factors. But I don't think precision always seems to indicate "tier." My slender vacs have clips that have roughness around the sides...they could have eliminated this if they really were for perfect aesthetics.

[Hugh]

It seems like Conklin made the Spencerian as a lower tier pen (I might be wrong on that though), but were pens like the Sheaffer Wasps 2nd tier?

Hi Will,

The Conklin made Spencerians seem to be a high quality product ( appearing as rebadged Symetriks and Nozacs ) despite being a lot cheaper



The one pictured originally sold for $1.50.....I had to pay a lot more....and is the same size and quality as the Endura/ Symetrik line the only downmarket feature is a smaller nib. I wouldn't consider this pen as a lower tier product .

I tend to think of "tiers" as being manufacture related rather than model related, a WASP is going to be a better made pen than an Arnold for the simple reason the Sheaffer quality control delivers a better product regardless of price. All high quality ( Ist tier) makers had to have budget lines to complement and fill out their range, so yes within brand will vary so you are correct in saying a WASP is not the quality of a top line Balance but does that make it 2nd or 3 tier pen or a lower line from a 1st tier maker? . I tend to think the latter but I'm sure David will offer some much clearer opinions on this subject.

Regards
Hugh

[Ron Z]

The thickness of the celluloid or plastic is a factor, quality and thickness of the plating, size and thickness of a nib, quality of the lever and J bar, quality of the clip. Sheaffer plated a lot of their clips, but the plating is much heavier than a third tier pen. Many times third tier pens would be big, but have a small nib and would have relatively thin plastic that would later distort. Third tier pens often were knock offs of pens by the leading manufacturers, and were made in bright colors and fancy plastics. They had bling, but not quality.

[Will]

Is there any sort of difference between Vacumatics with 3 bands (deluxe sort of thing) versus the 2-band vacs? Are they actually of lower quality? What about non-white dot versus white dot model sheaffers?

[Will]

The thickness of the celluloid or plastic is a factor, quality and thickness of the plating, size and thickness of a nib, quality of the lever and J bar, quality of the clip. Sheaffer plated a lot of their clips, but the plating is much heavier than a third tier pen. Many times third tier pens would be big, but have a small nib and would have relatively thin plastic that would later distort. Third tier pens often were knock offs of pens by the leading manufacturers, and were made in bright colors and fancy plastics. They had bling, but not quality.

So you're saying that 3rd tier brands had thinner plastic, but the curing process was the same? Can anyone explain how the curing process might play into this? I've tried understanding celluloid production before, and should, because I'm taking AP Chem...but for some reason the "curing" part confuses me.

[david i]

Is there any sort of difference between Vacumatics with 3 bands (deluxe sort of thing) versus the 2-band vacs? Are they actually of lower quality? What about non-white dot versus white dot model sheaffers?

Again, will offer more details in day or three, though Ron touched nicely on some of the elements. Hugh point is solid but bit tangential. Rebadged pens can be of quality, but doesn't necessarily point to tiers. The lack of certain "premier" features on rebadged pens might not (or might only slightly) reduce objective quality-- in his case the lack of the vaunted rocker/spring Conklin clip on rebadged Spencerian pens-- but perhaps do reduce the pen a smidge on the tier front.

Too you raise a third aspect of Tierage.

I addressed the notion of Tiers amongst companies (Parker being higher tier, by far, than Arnold)

I address the notion of tierage amongst series within a maker (Parker Parkette being lower tier, by far, than Parker Vacumatic),

You now touch on different tiers of pen within a given series.

Generally, within a series, there were various lines offered, and those lines had different price, status, cachet (all elements of Tier), but generally had the same core quality. One key difference besides markings was that lower tier models within a series sometimes had smaller nibs than similar looking higher line models).

So, one can have a second tier model in a first tier series from a first tier company, trumping a second tier series from that same first tier company trumping any pen from a third tier maker such as Arnold.... and so forth.

Perhaps we can find different terms for the three different kinds of tiers...

-d

[Richard]

I addressed the notion of Tiers amongst companies (Parker being higher tier, by far, than Arnold)

I address the notion of tierage amongst series within a maker (Parker Parkette being lower tier, by far, than Parker Vacumatic),

You now touch on different tiers of pen within a given series.

I think, in general, tierage among companies goes like this:

• First tier = the Big Four/Five. (Conklin was displaced as a member of the Big Four in about 1927 by Wahl-Eversharp.) These are the powerhouse companies, with nationwide/worldwide clout and top quality.
  
• Second tier = companies that made pens of first-tier quality (or nearly so) but, for whatever reason, had less clout. Three examples would be LeBoeuf, Chilton, and Monroe (which latter was actually a child company of Eclipse, a solid member of the third tier).
  
• Third tier = everybody else. There are many third-tier pens of good quality (e.g., Good Service, Gold Bond, both featuring solid, heavy celluloid and good build quality, by the National Pen Products Company), but these pens aren't of the prime quality of the first tier. There are also third-tier pens from the likes of Arnold and Wearever -- and worse.

David's point of tierage within companies hits the nail right on the head. Parkette was, in terns of quality, a third-tier pen, made by a first-tier maker. But what about the Challenger, which was of better quality than the Parkette but not as good as the Vac? We really don't have a solid definition for a second-tier pen as opposed to a second-tier company. The same goes for Eclipse, a third-tier company, with its Eclipse, Marxton, and Park Row brands.

Tierage within a given series is a little squishier. Is the difference between steel and gold nibs on the Sheaffer Targa a matter of tierage? WIll's question about three-band Vacs versus two-band Vacs falls into the same bucket, in that two-band Vacs (the Junior series) were not of lesser quality but rather were fitted out with lesser features (one band fewer, and smaller nibs) than three-band Vacs (the Standard and Oversize series). But with the changeover to the Speedline pens, the new Major got a single band that is about as wide as the two bands of the Junior when taken together, so which is the premier and which is the secondary? With the Vac, it came down to the lifetime guarantee. Pens priced at $8.75 and higher (Major, Maxima, Deb, later the "51") got the lifetime guarantee and, from 1939 onward, the Blue Diamond. The Junior, an $8.50 pen, did not get the lifetime guarantee or the Blue Diamond.

So it probably comes down to coming up with different terminology to reflect differences in a series; differences in lines (Vac/Challenger/Parkette) might still be handled as tiers.

[david i]

Richard further expands on the theme... quite nicely in fact... though as is often the case, I agree mostly but not totally with his spin. Certainly , at least we see some shades of gray. Certainly he offers material on which to gnaw.

Do we want to render synonymous "Tier" with "Quality" or with with "Import back in the day"? "Tier" no doubt embraces multiple factors but of those two choices, I lean toward linking it to "quality".

The Big 5 (an early term from collectable pendom, going back to Lawrence) or the Big 4 (made popular by the Blue Book) certainly were dominant companies in American pendom. But, at the level of the pen makers, must Tier = Market SHare?. I consider the much smaller Leboeuf and Chilton companies to be First Tier brands in every sense of the word (or in "most" senses if one opts to include market share in the definition of manufacturer tierage). The pens are rock solid. In fact--though recognizing my non guruhood in Chilton and Leboeuf--- I'd assert that the average Chilton and Leboeuf from the late 1920's and 1930's are better quality pens than the average pen from Parker, given that Parker churned out oodles of lower tier pens, not just Vacs and Duofolds. I don't see much (though maybe they were lost to time) "Parkette" quality crappy pens by Leboeuf and Chilton, yet many low-tier Parkers can be found. Indeed, in terms of cachet today, Chilton and Leboeuf pens often outprices similar size pens by Parker, Sheaffer, Wahl and Waterman. WIth very high quality and with a relative dearth of low line variants aimed at conquering the cheap markets, I admit I find it hard to call those two "2nd tier manufacturers" simply because they lacked market share back in the day. A shade of gray perhaps, but for me, "Clout does not count"

Even "Tierage = Quality", which if we are to simplify (or risk going simplistic) perhaps works for me better than other linkages, leaves us with questions. I will address RIchard's great example,'

David's point of tierage within companies hits the nail right on the head. Parkette was, in terns of quality, a third-tier pen, made by a first-tier maker. But what about the Challenger, which was of better quality than the Parkette but not as good as the Vac? We really don't have a solid definition for a second-tier pen as opposed to a second-tier company.

There is no doubt that 3rd tier Parker Parkette was a low quality pen (fragile trim, later pens with plated non gold-alloy nib, sometime with ink-sorbent wood inner caps, though generally with good well cured celluloid, unlike some of the 3rd tier manufacturers' products), but indeed, what of Challenger, at least the high line variants (Royal and Deluxe Challenger) of what we consider a 2nd tier Parker? Parker treated Challenger as 2nd tier (not using that expression of course). It was in the back of the catalogue, saw less advertising, was described in the 1936 Parkergram as part of the lower-echelon (hmmmm. "echelon" maybe we can use that more often) of pendom, having an old fashioned non-vacumatic filler and priced below the entry point to Vacumatic.

But, was Deluxe Challenger at $2.75 or so, a 2nd tier pen? The celluloid is as good as Vacumatic Junior's. The nib is about the size of Vacumatic Junior. While we lack documentation for the gold-filled trim content, it seems to hold up as well as Vacumatic's trim. Deluxe/Royal Challenger received 2nd tier treatment regarding cachet by Parker itself, but arguably those two are first quality pens. But, I'm not sure I'd called Deluxe Challenger a First Tier pen even so. It was not offered oversized (as were Parker's first tier pens). It was priced relatively cheaply (Save for Royal, which broke the rule in 1937 matching price of Vac Junior). So even I might be willing to say that Tier is not synonymous to quality alone. While I consider Leboeuf first tier independent of its Market Share or Clout, I can see that within a single pen company, when comparing tiers, quality is not the whole story. Of course this muddles the comparison amongst companies, but so it goes...

If I'm going to pick nits (who, me?), I'll offer now what I'd planned to present in couple days when I thought I'd have time, the example of National Pen Company products (so many of which were made specifically for other store chains such as Sears and Montgomery Ward, that the term "rebadged" almost is rendered moot. What means rebadged when nearly nothing actually is "badged" ? ). Richard has forced my hand.

I do not consider National to be a third tier maker. Most of their pens (at least those we know) had 2nd to 1st level (tier?) quality. Yes, i know I'm biased toward using Quality to define Tier and yes I know I admit that Quality isn't the whole story, but I will make my case for National being at worst a 2nd tier maker that had many 1st tier pens, perhaps even being a first tier company that simply had a different business model, allowing it to fall under collectors' cachet meter and general radar.

National (maker of some Gold Bond, Gold Medal, Diamond Medal, Lakeside, Lincoln, etc, pens) did not heavily trumpet its own brand. It thus is hard to do one-to-one comparisons as we do for Parker vs Arnold or Parker vs Leboeuf, with National. Makes it hard to pigeonhole National. Indeed, to degree we assess market clout, National had so many labels, at least some sold by huge store chains, that it is possible (though not proven) that National had market share of a kind with some of the Big 5. Hmmm... not sure I've ever heard that claimed before. We perhaps play on new ground (now I need to review some of Dennis Bowden's PENnant articles).

I will note that the best of National are of a quality with Parker Duofold, Wahl Gold Seal, Sheaffer Balance. Large pens were offered, with large size-appropriate gold nibs, with high quality trim and well made celluloid. Later I'll post some National-made pens to provide food for thought on this subject. That said, I'm not a restorer (though I've dissected many pens and watched hundreds to thousands restored in person), so if Richard-- who is a top tier (eep!) restorer-- can offer reasons a top quality Gold Bond or Gold Medal by National is of lower quality than a Wahl Decoband or Sheaffer Balance, I'll try to listen to reason.


In any case, to lump National, which made some spectacular pens and whose low line pens were not worse than middle line pens by the Big Boys, in with crap like Arnold and Packard as "third tier" possibly is criminal. I'm sending the Pen Secret Police up to Nashua to pull Richard in for questioning. We can split hairs about First Tier vs Second Tier for National, based on how much we rank Quality vs Clout vs Today's Collector Awareness. If nothing else, this does illustrate some of the challenges with designating tiers.

To address the clout thing, which is important (I agree with Richard on that), companies can be clustered into "Big 5", "Little 10", "Microsocopic Zillions" to reflect perhaps Market Share (clout) or for better or for worse, current collector awareness. For example, Wirt was huge in its day, but on average how aware are today's collectors of that manufacturer.

This points to why I so liked Will's question. Not only is part of developing one's Knowledge knowing Tiers, but the very exploration of the sometimes vague notion of Tierage lets us play with our assumptions and with our core taxonomy for old pens.

regards

David

[Will]

I have to go with David on this...the national pen company is a perfect example. I kind of feel that pens now-a-days develop a name (specifically here on the internet). I would have never imagined Gold Bond, Diamond metal...etc pens were of 1st rate manufacture. They, as you said, might be great pens, but they don't have a "name." Even though Chilton and LeBoef pens are rare and not many were sold or made (as well as Soennceken (?)--hey, do European pens get tiers too?)), they have a name...that is associated with valuable, rare and interesting pens. Possibly a reason of why companies like Diamond Metal don't have that sort of name is because they didn't make unique pens (?). I may be completely wrong, but I'm going by observations from FPN, eBay, pen people's websites...etc.

Edited by Will, 07 February 2013 - 08:46 PM.

[david i]

I have to go with David on this...the national pen company is a perfect example. I kind of feel that pens now-a-days develop a name (specifically here on the internet). I would have never imagined Gold Bond, Diamond metal...etc pens were of 1st rate manufacture. They, as you said, might be great pens, but they don't have a "name." Even though Chilton and LeBoef pens are rare and not many were sold or made (as well as Soennceken (?)--hey, do European pens get tiers too?)), they have a name...that is associated with valuable, rare and interesting pens. Possibly a reason of why companies like Diamond Metal don't have that sort of name is because they didn't make unique pens (?). I may be completely wrong, but I'm going by observations from FPN, eBay, pen people's websites...etc.

Hi,

Do keep in mind, that Advanced Collectors often see a "name" where others don't

Too, I don't know any pen company that generally made unique pens, though Sheaffer around 1950 did make at least one unique pen.

Some of the National products are... rather... nice

The largest known pen done in "Waterman Gray Pearl". A Gold Bond OS

Notice the massive nib. Sound construction.

Do we really want to call the pens just shown, "2nd tier" or the product of a "3rd tier" maker?

regards

David

[Will]

Those are some beautiful pens! Maybe I was wrong after all....or maybe most gold bonds aren't like that...

[Hugh]

I agree with David on linking tier with quality. I may be simplistic in outlook but I then think of quality in terms of overall maker quality if for no other reason that it could become...err...complicated... Richard had an "American" moment in his list of 1st tier makers, we outside the US would include some the makers from the "rest of the world" !! TDLR, Mabie Todd (UK) , Conway Stewart, Pelican, Mont Blanc and so on . Like David I also like National pens ( though I don't have many or as nice as those above) and where they fit in the "big picture" is of interest, to me the overall quality of National is a bit behind Parker, Sheaffer, Conklin and like. So the "grey" area !! Does it indeed make it as a 1st tier or top of 2nd tier? The latter for me. Valentine in the UK posses a similiar issue in not many of their own pens around but they made Parker under licence from their Newhaven factory as well as Eversharp and probably a lot of others.

Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

Those are some beautiful pens! Maybe I was wrong after all....or maybe most gold bonds aren't like that...

Hi Will,

A lot of the "names" where owned by the stores such as Sears and made under contract by various makers, so a Gold Bond ( a Sears name ?...it all gets a bit hard to follow at times..) could be made by a number of different makers and, in this case, National. Wahl also made Gold Bonds for Sears at one point.

Regards
Hugh

[Shadow Wave]

Richard had an "American" moment in his list of 1st tier makers, we outside the US would include some the makers from the "rest of the world" !! TDLR, Mabie Todd (UK) , Conway Stewart, Pelican, Mont Blanc and so on . Like David I also like National pens ( though I don't have many or as nice as those above) and where they fit in the "big picture" is of interest, to me the overall quality of National is a bit behind Parker, Sheaffer, Conklin and like. So the "grey" area !! Does it indeed make it as a 1st tier or top of 2nd tier? The latter for me. Valentine in the UK posses a similiar issue in not many of their own pens around but they made Parker under licence from their Newhaven factory as well as Eversharp and probably a lot of others.

Mabie Todd (Swan) is an interesting name that hasn't cropped up in the discussion so far. Of course, they were originally an American company with wide distribution at least into the early 1930s.

Their weak spot in the celluloid era, from what I've seen, is plating, particularly of the lever. I have also seen more loose trim in Swans than in the Big Five pens (or LeBoeuf/Chilton). So on that basis I'd have to say that I think of them as being an (entirely honorable) second tier brand, rather like Moore, despite their distinguished history.

The Conway Stewarts I've owned are also a bit below top-flight quality. In addition to plating of the clip being thin, they tend to have a bit smaller nibs than I would expect. Lovely plastics, for sure, though. But the gap in their valuation and that of Mont Blancs and Pelicans from the same period speaks volumes.

[david i]

Those are some beautiful pens! Maybe I was wrong after all....or maybe most gold bonds aren't like that...

Hi Will,

A lot of the "names" where owned by the stores such as Sears and made under contract by various makers, so a Gold Bond ( a Sears name ?...it all gets a bit hard to follow at times..) could be made by a number of different makers and, in this case, National. Wahl also made Gold Bonds for Sears at one point.

Regards
Hugh

Hi Hugh,

Wahl made Gold Bonds for Montgomery Ward. Think you had a typo

regards

d