74 replies to this topic

[BrianMcQueen]

A new pencil came to my mailbox this morning.  I figure it has to be a Vacuum Filler model, since it is an early style in laminated burgundy pearl and has two cap bands (and isn't marked "Golden Arrow").  What I was not expecting was the way the mechanism worked.  The nose cone is the part that twists to propel the lead.

 

Were the early pencils made this way?  The Ripley Pencil I got not long ago has a "top half of the barrel twists" mechanism.  Even though the Ripley pencil has a late date code, I figure the mechanism is the original type that would have been in it.  So how do these two pencils compare with each other?

 

[david i]

While no one has offered info as to exactly when the mechanism changed, observation and context suggests the cone-twist mechanism correlates to pre-Vacumatic pens. Early Vacumatic-proper pens, have cap/barrel twist (if one wishes to use those terms for top and b ottom portion of pencil).

The two-cap-bands on a lined pen do mark this a pre-Vacumatic, as Vacumatic proper was not catalogued in this style. And, yeah, the "late parts blow out" pens from 1937-1939 do raise challenges regarding pencils produced to match.

[BrianMcQueen]

If my other pencil were not of the "late parts blowout" variety, would it normally have the cone-twist mechanism?

 

If one were to find a black pencil with two bands and the cone-twist mechanism, would it be pretty safe to assume that it's pre-Vacumatic?

[david i]

If my other pencil were not of the "late parts blowout" variety, would it normally have the cone-twist mechanism?

 

If one were to find a black pencil with two bands and the cone-twist mechanism, would it be pretty safe to assume that it's pre-Vacumatic?

 

I would consider a double-band black pencil  with cone-twist mechanism to be a pre-Vacumatic pencil, a Vacuum-Filler match as Golden Arrow Pencils are expected to be marked "Golden Arrow".   Early Vacumatic pencils of course have similar appearing long-cone, but with different mechanism.

 

I've handled just one or two Ripley's pencils, both with cone-twist.  But, the Ripley pen was offered both Vacuum-Filler and Vacumatic (timing of the ad is suggestive),   it is not unreasonable to expect both style pencils.  What I have never done is take the plastic from a pre-Vacumatic pencil and try to fit it to a Vacumatic (barrel-twist) mechanism.

 

regards

 

d

[Jon Veley]

From my examination of Parker pencils of the era, I don't think there is a date correlation on nose drive versus rear drive pencils.  For the most part, the early vacumatics have a modified version of the mechanism from the streamline Duofold pencils, but on occasion they turn up with a cheaper, Parco-style nose drive.  From what I can tell, Parker only cared about what the pencils looked like, not what was inside them, so they appear to have used whatever was on hand.

[david i]

Having examined more Vacumatics than perhaps anyone,  I note that era-correlation (feel free to go for specific dates, as we can get close) dwarfs any potential  for "we used what was on hand" as dominant explanation for the style questions raised in this thread,  save for the most general and trivial meanings  that notion, since, after all, what was "on hand" was what Parker wanted to be on hand, and what Parker wanted is what we explore.

 

The physical  association of cone-twist pencils with early pens  (found as sets), the association of the cone-twist mechanism with intrinsically "early" trim/model features on the pencils  and the converse associations that should be obvious, not to mention trim evolution found even within the barrel-twist 1933-1948 Vacumatic, all point to a distinct evolutionary sequence.

 

We have not yet even touched on when long cone gave way to short cone and when one-ring-on-barrel gave way to  no-ring-on-barrel. And all that lurks within the first generation of the associated pens.  There is, of course, so much more after even that.

 

regards

 

d

[Widget]

Is it just me or does some of David's replies give anyone else a headache?

[david i]

I hope so.  You should see my medical students...

 

-d

[Widget]

As an ex-trainer I feel very sorry for them!!!

[david i]

Yet they seem to learn a great deal, not just about facts (facts are pretty easy) but about approach, which is not so easy.

 

No one has done a solid breakdown of all the Vacumatic pencil styles. It might be time. Illustrations will help, of course.

 

regards

 

d

[Daniel A]

I agree with David's general thrust regarding the evolution of the designs and mechanisms, but I'm less inclined to embrace his pedagogy when based on what appears to be the intentional fallacy: "since, after all, what was "on hand" was what Parker wanted to be on hand, and what Parker wanted is what we explore."

 

Short of written records documenting the intentions ("wants") of the Parker Company, I don't believe the line is quite so straight from "wanted" to what was "on hand." Many conditions could have determined what was on hand and could surely have overtaken any "wants" by the company.

 

As the Hatter so nicely explained to Alice, "Why, you might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I like." 

 

and

 

" You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"

 

 

Best,

Daniel

[david i]

Nah,

A great deal of our assessment of writing instrument evolution is based on observation, particularly of associations. Were we to insist on written company memos, we would have little to say about many situations and indeed about many pens. Now, it is fine to have little to say if there is little *to* say, but often there can be something of merit to say, even absent company memos

 

I tried to poke gently at the mythological "what they had on hand" to demonstrate it to be largely an irrelevant notion, a bromide masking "I don't know" when one lacks the courage actually  to say, "I don't know." You seem to have picked up on that, albeit backwards.

 

To the degree that what was on hand (in this case)  was what Parker itself made to have on hand,  it turns out that what  Parker had on hand overwhelming was what it wanted to have on hand.  If that does little to explain what... actually... happened.... and why?  Well, now you are getting it.

 

However, returning to core point, these pencils can be arranged in an evolutionary order, often with quite tight dating. One merely must... look.  "I don't know" of course is a better starting point than, "What they had on hand".

 

regards

 

-d

[Jon Veley]

When the vac was introduced, Parker had "on hand" - whether the company wanted to or not - mechanisms for streamline duofolds as well as parco and other depression pencils.  Innovative as the vac pens were, when it came to the pencils,Parker just wanted something that looked like the pens and didn't appear too concerned about having anything new inside them.  The modified duofold mechanisms are interesting but really aren't too different from the duofolds that preceded them - usually they turn up on 3-band pencils.   When I find a nose drive vac, I do not find any real corrolation to a specific date -- except, of course, that they pre-date when Parker outsourced its pencil mechanism production to Cross.

 

For what it's worth.  I don't claim to have handled more vac pencils than anyone else.  I only claim to have handled enough to offer some observations I thought might be helpful for the discussion.

[david i]

Notice the ducking of the issue that  readily available info lets  us era-identify and/or date Vacumatic pencils.

 

Telling.

[Daniel A]

David, sophistry will get us nowhere, at least nowhere we "want" to go. As for the "backwards" and "now you are getting it," they're much of a muchness.

 

My point stands, no matter how many pens and pencils you have handled: you do not know what Parker "wanted." And regardless of your poking, gentle or otherwise, it is a non sequitur to conclude that the cones/nozzles and mechanisms are the way they are because Parker "wanted" them that way. We are talking Depression and wartime; many factors obtained to influence decisions and production in most industries. Costs "could" surely have influenced design decisions and trumped any design desires (wants). The observational approach you describe is merely inductive; it does not lead to a necessary conclusion, only a possible or probable one.

 

To wit, I suspect you want your patients'  treatments to be successful, want them to be cured. Does that mean they always are?

 

Best,

Daniel

[david i]

Actually, my point (from whichever cone) stands.  If you read my post with more than a concrete spin, you will have an epiphany and realize I never claim to know what Parker wanted.

 

Too, opining about sophistry is a straw man, as whether or not sophistry can get us somewhere  has no impact on the issue in play.

 

That said, unless you can identify who/what forced Parker to sell things other than what they wanted to sell, clearly Parker's mechanisms are as they  are  because Parker wanted them to sell them that way. 

 

That of course has no bearing on whether in other circumstances Parker might have wanted them another way. "Want" of course is not an absolute.

 

As an aside...

 

 I want to go outside  wearing shoes, and I always do.

 

regards

 

d

[david i]

Note too that we should not let all the above distract  from Jon's error regarding date correlation of  cone-twist vs barrel-twist Parker Vacumatic mechanisms.

 

regards

 

-d

[Daniel A]

Not so.  But, "Too, opining about sophistry is a straw man, as whether or not sophistry can get us somewhere  has no impact on the issue in play" is certainly begging the question. It has everything to do with attempting to prove what Jon set out. Using argumentation, using examples, and using reason have every impact on the issue. However, simply stating something is so because it is so, well, not so much.

 

Your shift from mechanisms "on hand" to what Parker "wanted"  "to sell" is also problematic and does not follow. There is no dispute that they decided to sell them.  What gave rise to the decision is at question. Your "they sold them therefore they must have wanted to make them this way" logic is where the cards fall. Surely you remember your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if not the intentional fallacy. Ascribing causation to a conclusion requires more than repeating the conclusion.

 

 

Now, David, if you swim outdoors, do you wear shoes? 

 

(I want to win the lottery, and I always do! If only your logic applied in real life....)

 

Best,

Daniel

[david i]

Well, I don't *want* to swim outdoors in my shoes...

 

I am a bit entertained that you consider my observing you are begging the question to be begging the question.

 

In fact, I enjoy the diversion in which we engage, but it has nothing to do with Jon's substitution of  "used whatever was on hand" for an acknowledgment of his own lack of familiarity with the date/era specifics of Parker Vacumatic-family pencils.

 

I note again you appear to treat "want" as an absolute, when it isn't. 

 

 

You attributed to me and commented, "Your "they sold them therefore they must have wanted to make them this way" logic is where the cards fall. Surely you remember your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallac"

 

Note that this is not what I said.  Not good    Far better to stick to reality than to worry about Latin applications to imagination.

 

Too, Depression and Wartime are irrelevant. Stressors essentially always are present on businesses.

 

I am charmed the lengths some go to cover for Jon's mistaken thought, "I don't think there is a date correlation on nose drive versus rear drive pencils."

 

regards

 

-d

[Daniel A]

No, but you wrote: "I want to go outside  wearing shoes, and I always do."

 

Then you wrote: "Well, I don't *want* to swim outdoors in my shoes..."

 

Again, you change the premise!  Your first statement did not claim you wanted to swim outdoors with shoes. You claimed you "want to go outside wearing shoes, and I always do" which is simply not the same and does not follow to your second claim. Expressed in Latin, Greek, or Esperanto, your logic is faulty. Do you always go outside wearing shoes?

 

And, you observed that it was straw man; I pointed out that you were begging the question.

 

And David, I am not going to any lengths to cover what you call "Jon's mistaken thought." I am, however, pointing out your mistakes in simply logic, however unwelcome such a gesture might be. I have no opinion as to why the pencils are the way they are. I merely observe that your conclusions on the matter are illogical. You have no access to the consciousness of anyone at Parker during the time under discussion, so you do not have any idea what anyone there wanted, however much you wish or think you do.

 

As for your definition of "want" in this matter, I think it safe to return to Lewis Carroll, this time to Humpty Dumpty's words:

 

 

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

 

You the Master!

 

 

Best,

Daniel