169 replies to this topic

[david i]

Hi,

Per Hugh: 1.If you wrote the article you take responsibility for it and trying to "pass the buck" is rather a lame defense. If you use references that contain errors it's your fault , this is how history re-writes itself and factually incorrect material becomes "fact".

I would disagree with this assessment.

Recognizing my lack of expertise in CS, I do note that having posted a (fully editable) WIki page 6 years ago in my view does not obligate that writer of the page to update it... ever. WIki pages are not owned by anyone, and having offered information-- perfect or imperfect-- is just the start of the Wiki process. Certainly those with more up-to-date info are able to tweak things and indeed should do so. If someone is deliberately removing more current information in favor of a company line (propaganda) that would be unfortunate and would raise moral issues, but is a different issue from an imagined obligation to perpetually update an editable page.

Issues of the interplay between Conway-Stewart and Fountain Pen Network certainly are fodder for heady discussion, but I suspect a great deal of that stems from... choices... by FPN Administration (above the Moderator level). Admin sets the tone for game play. I certainly am curious regarding the answers to questions posed by Hugh.

regards

david

[JonSzanto]

Some days, it seems like a "Welcome!" is somewhat indistinguishable from a lynching. We don't seem to have any current or past members of the Diplomatic Corps around here.

Anyway, if Ms. Burke (or Mary, if she prefers) does choose to stay around, I will also be interested in developments along these lines. I now have a vested interested, being a new Conway-Stewart owner.

[david i]

Some days, it seems like a "Welcome!" is somewhat indistinguishable from a lynching. We don't seem to have any current or past members of the Diplomatic Corps around here.

Anyway, if Ms. Burke (or Mary, if she prefers) does choose to stay around, I will also be interested in developments along these lines. I now have a vested interested, being a new Conway-Stewart owner.

Nah, I don't see anything disproportionally rough. Strong views on loaded issues are to be expected...

regards

david

[Rick Krantz]

Welcome Mary Burke. Glad you decided to join us here. I think that we can all benefit from your knowledge and involvement with Conway Stewart. Please don't let the direct and/or aggressive nature of some of our poster's comments or questions scare you off, I guess some of them were a little anxious to ask some questions that were bothering them for a long time. Hope you stuck around and perhaps add to the discussion.

[maryburke]

In response to suggestions from (in particular) Deb and Jon, I have now posted a short (but true) history of Conway Stewart as we understand it today within my Dropbox public folder. You can access the pdf file here

I have followed the basic format of the Wikipedia entry (apparently posted by Mary Burke in 2007) as far as possible so you can print them out and compare the two side by side if desired. I have not amended the section on the models post 1990 as I am happy to admit that Mary knows more about these pens than I do, though I would like to know which of the Conway Stewart pens of this era were produced in celluloid as the Wikipedia entry states. Casein and acrylic resin certainly, but not celluloid as far as I am aware!

Andy

Dear Andy,

I have mentioned this many times, and it appears that I need to do again. The information I used for the history of CS back in 2007 was taken from Lambrou's books. When Iworked for Classic Pens, and during the publishing of FPOTW and FP: USA &UK, Lambrou liaised with many historians for the relevant pen brands, and he did run past the history of CS to several well-heeled pen collectors in the UKas well as Don Yendle when CS purchased a special edition cover for the company.

Since Lambrou's books were published, Stephen Hull has made a significant investment in time and money, which has resulted in finding and publishing new information and updating previously published information through his extensive research. If you have personal issues with my original Wikipedia entry (which BTW has been changed by others since I created the original page) may I please kindly suggest that you should be questioning Lambrou's research skills and data because his books were the source I used for the historical information.

I respect Stephen Hull's works and showed support of his new title by arranging with Conway Stewart for two new LE editions, Celebration Churchill and Celebration Wellington edition gift sets. When sold through our Collector's Club, each pen was accompanied with a signed copy of Stephen’s book, 'Fountain Pens for the Millions'. I have also arranged for Stephen's book to be sold through the Conway Stewart website.

Stephen's book is always on my desk, and it is the reference works I now use for when searching for historical information about CS.


Regards,

Mary Burke

Mary,

I am delighted you have finally decided to post here and I hope you continue to do so. As I said in my e-mail to you a year ago, I'm sure you will be welcome to post whatever you want here regarding Conway Stewart without fear of censorship. I wasn't aware you had mentioned the source of your information many times, I hadn't seen any of these so I'm sorry if I somehow missed them but my intention is not to embarrass you, my only concern is in establishing the accuracy of any history of CS as promoted online. I do however have all three of Lambrou's books that cover the UK industry and I duly note the text you refer to.

We should recognise that research moves on and knowledge generally increases with time. Andy Lambrous's research may have been state of the art in 1998 when FPOTW was published and errors in the WIkipedia entry based upon this in 2007 would be excusable as nothing different had been published in the interim. However, things had moved on by the time your 2012 CS brochure was produced and you had already had access to copies of Steve's carefully researched book (FPFTM) for over a year at that time - but it seems you still preferred the Lambrou version as the basis for your brochure. Steve is an extremely good friend of mine and if you read his 'Acknowledgements' you'll no doubt realize how closely we co-operated on his book - and we both know he was equally mystified and frustrated by your decision to go with the version of history you published in last year's brochure.

You may or may not be aware that the apparent source of most of this mis-information regarding the early history of CS would appear to be a Mr. Quilter, a former employee of CS who claimed to be a nephew of Harry Burnham (something I am in no position at present to prove or disprove). Unfortunately, none of Mr Quilter's pronouncements appear to have stood the test of further investigation.

If anything I have written in my version of the history of CS is proved to be wrong, now or at any time in the future, I will be happy to amend my text accordingly.

Andy

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your response. I have already arranged privately with Stephen Hull to read the new e-brochure that I am currently putting together. Stephen is a very nice person to work with, and I am really glad that he will take the time to review the e-brochure before it is launched.

As far as the WIkipedia entry is concerned, my original page has been changed many times since 2007 so with this in mind, I would please ask people to take this into consideration. I do not have control of the page or how often the contents change concerning the Conway Stewart information. Unfortunately, the WIkipedia site is set up so that anybody can open an account with them to make additions or delete contents of the page as well as deleting external website links. Even though I created the original CS page, I am never informed by WIkipedia of the changes being made. WIkipedia does not send notifications of the individuals who are changing the contents and I notice that the page was last modified on 30 May 2013 at 12:17. FYI, soon after I created the CS page which is just over six years ago, I received an email from WIkipedia advising that the original contents was considered as too commercial. Somebody arranged for the deletion of the timeline for modern Conway Stewart pens, they also deleted images of all the vintage and modern Conway Stewart pens, along with website links for further informaiton. I am sorry but I do not have any control and do not have the power to obtain control of conent featured in the WIkipedia web site. I appreciate this is very frustrating, but this is just one of the issues in using WIkipedia as a reference for information.

I will be at the London pen show in October and hope you will have the time to stop by the Conway Stewart table so that we can chat

Regards,

Mary

[maryburke]

Welcome Mary Burke. Glad you decided to join us here. I think that we can all benefit from your knowledge and involvement with Conway Stewart. Please don't let the direct and/or aggressive nature of some of our poster's comments or questions scare you off, I guess some of them were a little anxious to ask some questions that were bothering them for a long time. Hope you stuck around and perhaps add to the discussion.

Thanks Rick for your welcome message and kind words

[Rick Krantz]

Don't let some of the comments worry you...

We....

Are....

Civilized...

[Rick Krantz]

Too bad the chat function isn't working, 7 people reading this topic, it's hotter than Delorean stock...

[Rick Krantz]

Now there's 8 people!

[JonSzanto]

Nah, I don't see anything disproportionally rough. Strong views on loaded issues are to be expected...

The first statement is unsurprising. The second is beside the point: strong views are *not* the issue, but how they are proffered, as well as the simple courtesy of a genial welcome before diving in. We are all a little different in our manner and demeanor, I understand this. I also stand by my remark earlier, and I am glad to see Mary has not been dissuaded from discussion.

[Rick Krantz]

And believe it or not, I do have a Conway Stewart on my collection, it's a 1920's oversize duro pen in red hard rubber.

[JonSzanto]

7 people reading this topic, it's hotter than Delorean stock...

Dude, you're showing your our age!

[Rick Krantz]

My 5 posts (soon to be 6) I just got to say, I am a handsome man... I simply did not notice... Okay, I'm done.

[Hugh]

Hi,

Per Hugh: 1.If you wrote the article you take responsibility for it and trying to "pass the buck" is rather a lame defense. If you use references that contain errors it's your fault , this is how history re-writes itself and factually incorrect material becomes "fact".

I would disagree with this assessment.

regards

david

Given Mary's recent explanation, I now agree with you rather than with myself.....

regards
Hugh

[Rick Krantz]

7 people reading this topic, it's hotter than Delorean stock...

Dude, you're showing your our age!

Hey buddy.... I'm only 37 (soon to be 38)

9 viewing now!

[Rick Krantz]

10 watching... If I keep posting like this isaacson is going to freak out... Oh wait... I'm on his good boy list, I sent him a present this week.

[JonSzanto]

Hey buddy.... I'm only 37 (soon to be 38)

Well, now, that just isn't fair!

Seriously, I didn't know many people remembered the Delorian. Is it car people, or "Back to the Future" people? (yeah, I know... the thread can withstand a little derailing)

[Rick Krantz]

Probably both for me, a car buff, and a Biff buff (lol that is hilarious) I do love back to the future! If I had a time machine Delorean, I would go back in time and buy a trunk load of vintage Conway Stewart's

And POW super moderator Rick gets us back on topic.....

[Hugh]

Some days, it seems like a "Welcome!" is somewhat indistinguishable from a lynching. We don't seem to have any current or past members of the Diplomatic Corps around here.

Anyway, if Ms. Burke (or Mary, if she prefers) does choose to stay around, I will also be interested in developments along these lines. I now have a vested interested, being a new Conway-Stewart owner.

Hi Jon,

I take it this aimed at me. The questions I asked are long term ones that many would like the answers to, I see little need to "beat around the bush". Mary may choose to answer them or choose not and she's had ample experience with pen forums to be unfazed by questions such as these. Do note it would be unlikely these questions would remain visible on the FPN for any period of time and also I note the CS forum has been a major offender in this regard, the treatment of many who have used the CS forum has been such that this topic appears more like a "morning tea with the vicar".

Like you I think if Mary chooses to be a regular contributor here it would be of befit to all, resolving some the issues that have been raised over time would allow discussion without the past interfering imo.

Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

If I had a time machine Delorean, I would go back in time and buy a trunk load of vintage Conway Stewart's

Gee that's a bit ambitious, you'd probably only get back as far as '72 before it broke down....when CS pens where "poor" and just after the "free love hippy "era...losing twice in the one trip!! Even worse you'd also be stuck there and have to endure the disco era ....

Regards
Hugh