26 replies to this topic

[Roger W.]

David and Rick;

 

It looks easier in my head (aided with an excel spreadsheet).  Rick, thanks for guessing a number - as many as all that?  No.  

 

It's not too complicated as there are primarily two lengths, four diameters and four colors.  There are a very few exceptions, pygmys and the J74TR (long quill or "dialer").  There are decisions to be made as the initial release of radite was merely a change in pen material for models already being made - 22 Student Special, 46 Special and Secretary with lifetimes spanning everything.  Then all the small pens were dropped for the 3-25, 5-30 and 7-30's.  22's become 3-25's but, so do 46's though not all so some 46's are 5-30's depending initially on color which gets adjusted in 1930 bringing the reduction of girth for the 3-25's in coral.  Sheaffer didn't have a rule book.

 

There are 45 non lifetime radite pens not counting the coral sizes as different models nor some trim varieties as different models but counting double ringed 5-30's as a different model.  So over 50 if we throw in more coral models.

 

Lifetimes are offered in three girths, two lengths and three colors.  Trim variations also matter and have separate codes.  There are only three black and pearl pens cataloged and those are the standard array of clip, short clip, ringtop all lifetime.  There are also K85's and K89's (OS with wider gold bands) though they are very rare.  Also, counting the double rings as a separate model.

 

There are 39 different lifetime models.

 

So in the six years that radite flattop ruled (1924-1929) there are at least 84 different models.  After 1930 the number of variations would be higher as there are added trim variations with flatball clips, thin coral 3-25's and late black and pearl models.

 

Roger W.

[david i]

Do we want to consider different color but same size  White Dot flat-tops as different models, vs same model variants.?

 

 

regards

 

d

[Roger W.]

I express different models, especially if they have different codes, so there is no confusion on my part that the a K8 is vastly different from a J8 (same size different color).  I added that double bands constitutes a distinct variant which pollutes the clarity of the code system.  So having slide down that slippery slope I think we have to consider trim variation especially related to band with as that did constitute a different code.  Gold to chrome furniture is a different problem entirely as that would not be addressed by the code at all.  Much of these variations are represented in the coral pens David presented.  

 

So I would present that there is code and then there is what should have been code (often represented by late black and pearl, merely undocumented) and then there are the variations - typically double bands but, would include chrome v. gold trim.  Code then would be J89C (Jade wide banded OS) what should be code K89C (Black and Pearl wide banded OS) and then variants like J5-30Cv.1 (Jade 5-30 long clip pen with single band as the standard in this case is double banded) or J8Cv.1 (Jade OS with a double band as the single band was the standard).  Slim coral 3-25's full length with clip are still R3-25C's but, to be clear R3-25Cv.1 to indicate the later slim model.  There are at least three clips in play as well which I haven't thought on a system to capture the change there as corals have both standard and lowered clips as well as chrome clips v. gold clips.  I don't want to labor our corals too much but R3-25v.1 lowered clip or R3-25v.1cv.1.  Remember that I really like the code to start with so any of these are immediately recognizable to my way of thinking.  I'll concede that standard code with descriptor would be broadly a more reasonable approach. J5-30Cv.1 as J5-30C late single band model.  I do think that the code should be the basis from which we start but, expanding it is fine too Jade 5-30 long clip with single band (clip is necessary as the ringtop is the common member of C, SC and SR the standard offering of any model of pen - though there are notable exceptions).

 

Roger W.

[david i]

Most pens-- when codes were used-- have different codes for different colors of same model or series, so I would not rush to ascribe different model status based on code differences. A Parker Vacumatic Senior Maxima in red vs blue had different code, but was not different model.  Waterman Patrician in green vs moss agate, presumably similar situation.

We are a bit cursed with flat-top Sheaffers as there were few-to-no model names offered for various size and color pens. Pigmy had a name. Others we mostly address by size/nib/etc.

 

Calling things separate models because they have different codes can get, I assert, unwieldy.

 

If we deal with oversized  white dot flat tops identical save for color (black, jade, black/pearl), it might be good to approach by size/trim first, color next.

 

So, while we can do "Here are the red flattops, here are the orange flattops, here are the green flattops", which has merit as one way to view the series.

 

But, a list by size/tier/trim might lend greater order at first pass.  Subsequently or in parallel we can fill in date-of-introduction, replacement-of-which-rubber-pen, etc. 

 

But, a size/tier taxonomy might be good. As per:

• Oversize White Dot, Single Capband,
  • Green
  • Black
  • Black Pearl
• Slightly-Slender (Nearly Oversize) WHite Dot, Single Capband
  • Black, etc
• Standard Girth WHite Dot
• Standard Girth 5-30 non-WD, SIngle Band
• Standard Girth 3-25, non-WD SIngle Band
• Slender...

Or, could add a dimension

 

• OS White Dot:   SIngle Band in X colors,  Double Band in Y colors

Or could add yet another dimension

 

• OS White Dot, SIngle Band in color A (year 1923-1927),  color B (year 1925-1927),   Double B and in Color A (Year 1928-1930),

We'd have a table at this point, requiring a few tables for different size.tier pens.

 

Let's lend order to this. 

 

regards

 

d

[david i]

Roger, here is an example of taking a table approach to identifying variants.  Please don't nitpick the details. Not relevant here are the  dates, sufficient lines for all known variants, lumping or splitting categories, aesthetic of layout, choice of column order, whether to include exotics (eg blue). I'm offering an approach, not the final table for an article.

 

While flat-top Sheaffer collecting is made challenging by various trim features and complicated timing of models, it is made easier by limited color range.

 

The approach shown here is to cluster by size, then break down by various features, culminating (where we have the info) in identification of each variant by color, trim, year, etc.

 

This can be done for the various sizes remaining, in separate tables:  Standard Long, Standard Short, Slender Long, Slender Short, Nearly-Oversize, etc.

 

After all that, we can approach it quite the opposite way to lend reinforcement. One can do tables then by COLOR instead of by SIZE.

In that case, we'd have "Green" across the top banner, with breakdown by Size, Trim, End-color, Year, etc.

 

Here is example of a SIZE-based table.

This can be tweaked/expanded to incorporate catalogue variant codes as well.

 

 

 

regards

 

David

[Roger W.]

David;

 

That's nice but I've had excel spreadsheets on this for over a decade, both tables and matrices.  In this whole thing it was about jump starting me putting the information out there to do pictures on my website for there to be some real sort of guide to Sheaffers.  It's not that I don't have the information but, that it is a bit cumbersome to try to lay out how to do the pictures in my mind so I thought I'd have a bit of fun with the question of how many different ones are there.  Color is too important not to be considered individual models in my completest opinion.  That also speaks to my approach which has never been based on how cool the OS's are but, what is the whole line like.  When I lay it out you'll see that most models are represented save primarily for the "T" size that was only supported in the 1925 catalog though "T" examples I have show that they were made much later as well.  The main difficulty is that you have to find these stickered on EBay or at shows as it is impossible to see the difference on EBay as the "T" is the middle figure in cap diameter .52", .55" and .58" and they were clearly made in lesser numbers.

 

BTW WD is a silly column as undotted lifetime radite is, while technically possible, highly unlikely (there is potentially about a 3 month period in 1924 when this could have happened though I'm not sure that it did).  Black ends is a primary model indicator so it is like asking if your car has tires.  Don't try and end date Sheaffer - it is just extremely silly, plus single banded LT's were never out of production.  Perhaps I'm not supposed to be critiquing the detail otherwise the table idea is fine and I've used it. 

 

Roger W.

[david i]

The WD column works, as it separates OS Lifetime from non-Lifetime. The column is not there to suggest a non-dotted Lifetime.

 

Also the black-ends work in that the columns are serving purpose of defining/describing models.

That said, I admit I was under the impression that Jade pens with and without black ends can be same core item (7-30 or 5-30 or 3-25).  I'm treating those- for now- as primary models, independent of catalogue codes, for same reason Black or Green Vac Majors have different codes but are same model. They are different variants.   Unless there is more to story.

 

End Dating in the setting of known ads and catalogues would seem quite fine.  Recognizing there can be trickle forward does not invalidate...

 

regards

 

david