9 replies to this topic

[Silviu]

This post is about a Sterling middle joint eyedropper and an interesting eyedropper FP filling machine.

Before I begin, let me recommend Richard Binder's article on Eyedroppers: Here's Mud in Your Eye (dropper). It gives an excellent overview of the eyedropper filling system and it's variations.

Some time ago I purchased my first (and only) middle- joint eyedropper. It was a Sterling FP.

A brief background on eyedroppers: The earliest FP were eyedroppers. They could contain huge ink capacities, had no sacs and no self-filling mechanisms that could deteriorate or break down. But ...they had a few drawbacks:

• One needed an eyedropper to carry around in order to fill them
• Leaking frequently occured from the joint (where the section screwed into the barrel)
• The filling procedure was awkward and sometimes messy

In order to solve the second drawback a few variants of ED were designed: the middle-joint, the end-joint and the joint-less.

Here's a picture of a standart eyedropper (for reference) - it's an early 1900 MHR Laughlin (Michigan, Detroit). One can see that the joint between the barrel and section is positioned near the place the FP is held:

In middle-joints ED the joint is located at the middle of the pen, a point where the ink has to "travel" high (in opposite direction to gravity), so the chances are good for keeping one fingers clean.

A.A. Waterman patented a middle-joint on Feb. 14 1899 as part of the 619,702 patent . Here's the drawing from the patent where one can clearly see that the threads are located at the middle of the barrel:

The Sterling middle-joint pens were produced by the Pen Division of the Davidson Rubber Co. The Davidson Fountain Pen division was established in 1884. The company was owned by Rhodes G. Lockwood. In 1919 the division was sold to Francis A. Harrigan who continued production until 1924.
Here are some pics of the Sterling middle joint FP.

Capped:

Disassembled FP - here we can see the high positioned joint, due to the long "neck" of the section.

Barrel imprint includes the patent date: "PAT. FEB.14.1899" (under the "Sterling Pen Company"). That's exactly the same date as in the A.A. Waterman patent (see above). It seems the companies shared this patent, or had some other agreement allowing the Sterling Pen co. to use the A.A. Waterman's middle joint patent:

And a picture of the no. 5 nib:

I've also found on the net an Sterling FP ad stressing the advantages of the middle joint - cleanest FP. In the ad the no. 5 size (named Falcon) cost was 4$:

And now to the filling device- While searching the net for info. on the Davidson Rubber Co. I've found a patent for an eyedropper FP filling device invented by Rhodes G. Lockwood (the owner of the Davidson Rubber Co.).
It seems the issue of filling ED troubled Rhodes enough to patent a filling machine that would make the filling process easier and cleaner. Whether such a device was actually produced, is a question I don't have an answer to (has anybody seen one like it?)

Anyway, the patent is pretty simple: Fill the reservoir (A) with ink, insert nozzle (D) into the FP barrel and squeeze the bulb ( C ) until ink is visible in the overflow cup (E). That's the sign the pen is full and the filling process completed. Here's the link to the patent: Lockwood's patent for a filling device

Drawing of the filling device:

and the paragraph containing the purpose of the filling device:

[Roger W.]

Lockwood got AA Waterman's early stuff when AA's Partnership with Edward Gibson failed. Edward Gibson (per Gibson's obituary) went to work at Sterling. This is per the Isaac E. Chapman, et al, V. L.E.Waterman Co. case of March 23, 1917. This has lead to some confusion as AA Waterman's stuff goes to Colonial Pen shortly afterwards as AA's second partnership with Edson Dewey fails and that is what goes to Colonial and not to Rhodes as sometimes stated elsewhere.

Roger W.

[david i]

Hi SIlviu,

Thanks for that nice review of Sterling. I've had chance to handle a few over the years. I might even have a sterling Sterling lying around somewhere. Need to find and shoot that one.

Sterling is a company, which-- even if small-ish back in the day-- is well known to serious collectors of early fountain pens.

regards

David

[david i]

Lockwood got AA Waterman's early stuff when AA's Partnership with Edward Gibson failed. Edward Gibson (per Gibson's obituary) went to work at Sterling. This is per the Isaac E. Chapman, et al, V. L.E.Waterman Co. case of March 23, 1917. This has lead to some confusion as AA Waterman's stuff goes to Colonial Pen shortly afterwards as AA's second partnership with Edson Dewey fails and that is what goes to Colonial and not to Rhodes as sometimes stated elsewhere.

Roger W.

Sounds like there could be an article lurking in that story

-d

[Silviu]

Lockwood got AA Waterman's early stuff when AA's Partnership with Edward Gibson failed. Edward Gibson (per Gibson's obituary) went to work at Sterling. This is per the Isaac E. Chapman, et al, V. L.E.Waterman Co. case of March 23, 1917. This has lead to some confusion as AA Waterman's stuff goes to Colonial Pen shortly afterwards as AA's second partnership with Edson Dewey fails and that is what goes to Colonial and not to Rhodes as sometimes stated elsewhere.

Roger W.

Thanks Roger for pointing to the connection between A.A. Waterman and Sterling (through Gibson). I've found your posts in the L&P regarding A.A Waterman (with G. Kovalenko and D. Nishimura). A lot of interesting and valuable history there. Still reading it.

I'm wondering if Sterling had the right to use Waterman's patent just because Gibson began working with them?

Thanks
Silviu

[Roger W.]

Lockwood got AA Waterman's early stuff when AA's Partnership with Edward Gibson failed. Edward Gibson (per Gibson's obituary) went to work at Sterling. This is per the Isaac E. Chapman, et al, V. L.E.Waterman Co. case of March 23, 1917. This has lead to some confusion as AA Waterman's stuff goes to Colonial Pen shortly afterwards as AA's second partnership with Edson Dewey fails and that is what goes to Colonial and not to Rhodes as sometimes stated elsewhere.

Roger W.

Thanks Roger for pointing to the connection between A.A. Waterman and Sterling (through Gibson). I've found your posts in the L&P regarding A.A Waterman (with G. Kovalenko and D. Nishimura). A lot of interesting and valuable history there. Still reading it.

I'm wondering if Sterling had the right to use Waterman's patent just because Gibson began working with them?

Thanks
Silviu

No, they had the right to the patent when they got the assets of the defunct partnership. I think AA owed Davidson for parts and material. Later Colonial seems to front AA that is why they end up receiving the assets of the defunct AA/Dewey partnership. This all leads into Boston which is one of my main focuses. Dewey's trademark goes to Colonial and survives a few years - enough to transition to Boston holding the Dewey trademark post 1904. There is a great Dewey overlay that I've seen pics of. It is interesting in your patent that Rhodes is involved in 1905 as he dies that year in, of all things, an automobile accident - wouldn't have thought that hugely possible in 1905.

Roger

[entertainment]

Here is an image of my Sterling middle joint ED with a #6 nib. It has the Oct. 9, 1909 patent date on the cap. The imprint on the barrel is worn, but what I can make out is as follows:

-STERLING-
DAVIDSON RUBBER CO.
MANUFACTURERS BOSTON, MASS.
PAT FEB 14, 1899 AUGUST 7, 190?

with a logo in the middle.

[Silviu]

Here is an image of my Sterling middle joint ED with a #6 nib. It has the Oct. 9, 1909 patent date on the cap. The imprint on the barrel is worn, but what I can make out is as follows:

-STERLING-
DAVIDSON RUBBER CO.
MANUFACTURERS BOSTON, MASS.
PAT FEB 14, 1899 AUGUST 7, 190?

with a logo in the middle.

The second date is "AUGUST 7, 1900".
The difference between the imprints is interesting : on my FP appears the "Sterling Fountain Pen Company" and on yours "Davidson Rubber Co."
I wonder when they switched imprints, or have they used both imprints? My FP seems an earlier version if one can judge by the cap patent date. On my Sterling cap the patent date is: OCT 3 1889.

[Alex2014]

I read with interest also your post on Pentalk, because there is few information about Sterling non-middle-joint ED's available, so I was  unable to date the one I wanted recently to buy. It is clear that ALL the Sterling ED's made in the 1900s are imprinted "OCT 3, 1989" (therefore having the same ink feeder cf pat US 619701) . Maybe for discerning if your two ED's were produced concomitantly or not, a solution may be the third patent (US 655423) from AUGUST 7, 1900. Looking attentively inside the cap of my middle-joint ED (c.1905), I could observe some few fine "shoulders" situated at a different distance from the edge, practiced for blocking firmly the cap when the FP is capped - as described in the patent. The cap of your middle-joint ED must have the same 'shoulders'. I would be curious if the non-middle-joint ED has too. If not, it probably is older than the middle-joint ED.

Edited by Alex2014, 21 October 2014 - 07:37 AM.

[Alex2014]

I have now two Sterling FP Company ED's: a pre-middle-joint model (c.1900) and a middle-joint model dated 1904. So I can say the two ED's have different sections: a tapered one (the first) and a tapered one ended with a cylindrical mouth (the second). Moreover, looking in the well-lighted insides of their caps, I observed that the pre-middle joint ED has a cylindrical stop to fit the section accordingly to the patent from Oct. 3 1899, while the second has four additional points (as described in the patent from Aug 7 1900) to stop the section. The cap of my earlier ED is thin-lipped and the barrel has not the "L" logo of hte Sterling Fountain Pen Company printed (it probably  was introduced 2-3 years later).

Edited by Alex2014, 10 December 2014 - 11:09 AM.