74 replies to this topic

[david i]

Note that I changed no premise.  I responded to a changed premise. Go figure.

 

And, I don't need exclamation points for such a modest thing.

 

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."

 

Note that the application of your citation of Lewis Carrol in  this context of course is a Straw Man. Naughty.

 

The question is, why would Jon deny an obvious date/era correlation for Vacumatic pencil mechanisms and try to justify it with the woefully  irrelevant, "Parker only cared about what the pencils looked like, not what was inside them, so they appear to have used whatever was on hand."

 

Note that access to consciousness of people at the time is irrelevant.

 

Also, why would you worry about an unwelcome gesture?  Are you projecting?

 

regards

 

-d

[Jon Veley]

Interesting that reporting one's observations is characterized as "error" when those observations are inconsistent with the hypothesis. 

 

That kind of thinking got a lot of people burned at the stake in a less civilized age.

[david i]

Ah yes, Jon isn't up to speed, by his own admission, on the era/date correlation of Vacumatic pencil mechanisms, no big deal to most,  so now-- woe is he-- he lets us know this is akin to people burning people at the stake.

 

Drama queen.

 

-d

[Jon Veley]

Ah, I see we are choosing to have an intellectual discussion.

 

I believe there is too much overlap in the types of mechanisms used on vac pencils to say there was a definitive date when Parker made a clear switch.

 

Based on my personal observations.

 

So you are correct that I am not "up to speed" on your proffered date corrolation-- because I don't believe it exists.

 

If I were confronted with evidence to the contrary, I would of course change my opinion.  Confronting me with petty name-calling neither proves your position nor persuades me to change mine.

[david i]

Ah, I see we are choosing to have an intellectual discussion.

 

 

Strawman.

 

I believe there is too much overlap in the types of mechanisms used on vac pencils to say there was a definitive date when Parker made a clear switch.

 

 

Misdirection. Note the addition of "definitive" to the requirements.

 

Based on my personal observations.

 

 

Mere expansion on prior two approaches.

 

  Confronting me with petty name-calling neither proves your position nor persuades me to change mine.

 

 

Strawman. Behavior was observed. Complaining after the fact does not alter the dynamic.  Golly, I hope I don't get burned at the stake. Heh.

 

 

Geez, if we want to play with tangents, next we'll be hearing that the Good Service Web pencils from Sears were made by National, or some other silliness.

 

best regards

 

-d

[david i]

Interesting that reporting one's observations is characterized as "error" when those observations are inconsistent with the hypothesis. 

 

That kind of thinking got a lot of people burned at the stake in a less civilized age.

 

Strawman.

 

Always good to see an exemplar.

 

regards

 

david

[FarmBoy]

This makes me want to unpack the pencils and see if I have anything interesting or at least one or two that are not mundane. I have also decided I might get a taco at lunch tomorrow.

Let me end by asking for some pencil pictures that we can discuss. Ideally a series of 8 or so models (identified as A, B, C, ...) with the key features of the mechanism identified and any imprint information given. We could each order the examples from oldest to newest with no explanation given. Once we have a number of rankings we could discuss why we have differences in the dating and perhaps in a crowd source model get close to a chronological sequence.

[Widget]

Farmboy an excellent idea.  You will get far more people joining the discussion.  Not many people are keen to contribute (only the brave or in my case the foolish) in it's present format.

[david i]

Nancy,

 

The pencil in question that started this thread was addressed within the first response.

 

Those who have doubts are welcome to offer examples that contradict. The catalogues that are known and the pencils whose date codes reflect them once date codes became available offer excellent mapping of dates to styles. There is more of course.

 

I'll put together a profile for readers one of these days, but that is not top ticket now. I'm finishing one major article for PENnant and working on another. Playing with about 8 other profiles for the website. Working on a 50-100 pen website update. Have to mail 8 pens that were ordered last week.  To the major Parker collectors who have played with this concept, this is a pretty basic topic, but of course basic depends on one's perspective.

 

Parker pens/pencils do offer exceptions here and there, though most- perhaps all- can be explained.

 

A berrel-twist Golden Arrow pencil might raise eyebrows. A two-band striped Stubby pencil barrel-twist would be a bit of an anomaly. A thin 1939+ pencil with thin-lead with cone-twist would surprise. And so forth.  Generally the progression of pencil styles is quite orderly.

 

If anyone wishes  to throw some images up, I'll be happy to comment.

 

regards

 

david

[david i]

This makes me want to unpack the pencils and see if I have anything interesting or at least one or two that are not mundane. I have also decided I might get a taco at lunch tomorrow.

Let me end by asking for some pencil pictures that we can discuss. Ideally a series of 8 or so models (identified as A, B, C, ...) with the key features of the mechanism identified and any imprint information given. We could each order the examples from oldest to newest with no explanation given. Once we have a number of rankings we could discuss why we have differences in the dating and perhaps in a crowd source model get close to a chronological sequence.

 

Eight or so examples could set the tone. Cone Twist Golden Arrow. Cone Twist "Parker". Long-Cone Barrel Twist with a band on the lower portion. Short-Cone with Barrel Twist on the lower portion. Short Cone with no band on the lower portion. Injector.  Thin-lead thin model. Geez, someone should write a book or article on this stuff.

 

-d

[Jon Veley]

Ad hominem.

[david i]

Ad hominem.

 

 

Whiner.

 

And Strawman.

[david i]

To lend some context to the tangent in this chat, here are some quotes from Jon Veley, who now has two  memberships at FPB under two different names.  Apparently his words and claims don't mean much.  Jon it seems has issues, which is fine, but I do note I  host a board for pen collecting, not for a focus personal therapy, though a little of that is fine, too.

 

 

1. (Zoss List) I think it's very poor taste for Dr. David to so much as type a single letter on this thread when he's running a "competing" forum. I'd say so on his forum but I've never been there and I don't plan on going there.

 

 

Yeah. Right.

 

Additionally and ironically, Mr Veley subsequently started a competing site, and all he did on Zoss list was link to it with no content offered on that old list. Yeah, baby...

 

 

2. (on FPB) Easy call. I am proud to go somewhere where people that behave the way he does are not welcome. So please, Rick, warn away. I'm already gone,

 

 

John of course is not already gone, and he has shown envy regarding this forum, odd really given how small and humble  FPB is in the greater cosmos of pen discussion sites.

 

Too, Jon has endeavored to complain about FPB, noting it is top heavy with posts by me "25%" as if that's a problem for a new board.  Boards whose founders could not do that have tended to fade. Rest in Peace, Lion and Pen, a site that had remarkable information present.  Meanwhile of course my content here is down to about 20% of the total  as many other members have joined. Since then-- a rather ironic thing--  Mr Veley started a blog site allowing for responses, one in which  his  comments/posts make up > 95% of the material.  So, if it is a sign of weakness for a board owner to "have to"  generate 20% of the material, what then for a place in which the owner must contribute 90%.

 

Fun stuff.  History and context always spice the soup.

 

Of course FPB is not FPN.  Complaints *are* tolerated, dare we say "embraced" here.

 

regards

 

David

[david i]

Perhaps Jon was upset that this didn't pan out in 2011?

 

Hi John,

If the stock consists of decent vintage pens and a reasonable price can be determined, I might be candidate to buy out the  entire stock en masse.

best regards

david isaacson
isaacson@frontiernet.net

 

 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Veley" <jveley@bgcorp.net>
To: pens@zoss.com
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 11:37:22 AM
Subject: [ZossPens] Taking a break

For those who don't recognize the name, I'm the guy that has had the giant
styrofoam Parker Big Red on my display at the DC and Ohio shows.
 
I've decided to take a break from pens for awhile and sell off a lot of what
I've been building up.  My goal is to list 5 per day on ebay (username
jveley) until they are gone.  
 
I'm going to hold onto the pencils for now, except for duplicates.  Pretty
much everything else, including parts, is scheduled to go.
 
If anyone remembers a specific item from my table and wants dibs, let me
know and I will work something out for you.  Sales through the list will get
a 10 percent contribution to the list.
 
Please, no "do you have this" questions.  Those who have seen my beautiful
mess of a table will remember that there's a bit of everything.
 
Buyout offers welcome, if someone wants to do that.  
 
(PS:  I already sold the giant styrofoam parker)
 

 

[david i]

Perhaps Jon was upset that John Danza offered Fountain Pen Board's services?

Weird that John later complained about "competing" websites.

 

Hi Jon,

While that's a nice offer to put in the work, don't we already have that with Fountain Pen Network and the new Fountain Pen Board that David Isaacson just started (links below)? All of that information is there if someone wants to put it in their profile.

http://fountainpenboard.com/forum/

http://www.fountainp...work.com/forum/

John Danza
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Veley" <jveley@jonathanveley.com>
To: pens@zoss.com
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:45:04 PM
Subject: [ZossPens] How about a pen community page?  I volunteer to do it.

I had a great time at the DC show and saw lots of people that I see oh,
about 3 times a year and enjoy seeing.  I know almost everyone I see and
chat for a few days, but since I'm horrible with names and cant remember
what people are interested in, I spend a lot of time reintroducing myself.

So since I've already got a web site set up and I've gotten pretty good at
creating pages, I'll volunteer to assemble a "pen community page.  If you
want to be included, send me as much or as little information about yourself
as you want.  Ideally, I'd like to put for each person.

I'm setting up the page as we speak.

a digital photo of yourself
your contact information, like address, phone, email, ebay handle, your
website, if you have one
your day job
what you collect
if you are dealer or work in the pen biz, what you do.

any thoughts?

Jon

 

 

[BrianMcQueen]

Woah, woah!  I haven't visited my thread for a day or so, and I come back to find that it's been turned into an attack thread on Jon Veley, who I consider to be one of my good pen friends!  I consider very poor taste to bring any personal fights into any thread, regardless of what's been said elsewhere.  It seems that Jon has thrown some punches, but without knowing the context and history, I can't make any judgement of their worth.

 

Let's ignore all the tangential banter and get back to the original point. I think Jon might have some merit in his original post regarding my pencil, even if he may have used the wrong words to say it or said some things which are contentious or wrong.  Let's look at Jon's original comment:

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.

 

I disagree with Jon when he claims there is not a date correlation on nose drive versus rear drive pencil. It may be a bit muddied during the transitional period between Vacuum Filler and Vacumatic, but we can apparently expect nose drive in the very early years, and rear drive throughout the remainder of the Vacumatic years.

 

However, Jon has clearly observed different types of nose drive mechanisms in early GA/VF/Vacumatic pencils, which he elaborates on in his second comment:

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.

 

I don't know when Parker outsourced its pencil mechanism production to Cross, but context in Jon's post leads me to believe that it was at the time of the introduction of the barrel-twist mechanism.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Prior to the introduction of the barrel-twist pencil, Jon claims to have seen several different types of nose-drive mechanisms being used by GA/VF/Vac pencils.  Sometimes the different mechanisms were used in different sizes, and sometimes their use seems random.  I think the point Jon was trying to make when he said "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." is that based on his observations, there doesn't seem to be a date correlation between the different types of nose-drive mechanisms used.

 

David, it's likely that Jon doesn't know the nuances of Vacumatic dating quite as well as you do.  But, it's also likely that you haven't taken apart as many Vacumatic pencils to study their mechanisms as he has.  I don't know who's right and wrong, but I just want to get back to the original topic and discuss that a little further.  Then we might be able to figure it out.

Edited by BrianMcQueen, 17 April 2014 - 02:17 PM.

[david i]

Hi Brian,

Yeah, Jon threw a few, and response to such doesn't constitute an attack, rather a parry

 

Personal insights provide context and history. Very important. 

 

Indeed, it might be best to do a rare thread-split, moving all but the pencil info into its own thread (since deletion of threads is something we strive to avoid here).  Of course the last time that happened, it was when Jon acted in similar fashion. His complaints were preserved, but were separated from the pen thread they had corrupted. Note the similar passive-aggressive tone (What Rick called "martyr")

Here's that thread. Pertinent comments by Rick, Todd, Jose, Hugh...

 

Thread Split of Personal Gripes from Pen Stuff, 2011

 

regards

 

David

[david i]

SNIP

 

David, it's likely that Jon doesn't know the nuances of Vacumatic dating quite as well as you do.  But, it's also likely that you haven't taken apart as many Vacumatic pencils to study their mechanisms as he has.  I don't know who's right and wrong, but I just want to get back to the original topic and discuss that a little further.  Then we might be able to figure it out.

 

Hi again,

 

He might. He might not. I might not know them as well as I think I do.  It's all good. And, it doesn't really matter, at least to me. In truth-- and this is well known-- I don't have a particular interest in pencils.  I grab Vac pencils because I approach Vacs in completist fashion. I have other nice pencils, because I had no choice but to take them or because the add a smidge of charm in making sets out of pens.  I truly have minimal interest in the how/why they work or who made them. But, I do identify Vac pencils by date/era because I like to know things about Vacs.  Every pen/pencil ever made was made with what happened to be on hand at the time (or said item indeed  would not have been made) so evoking that notion does nothing to clarify history/context.

 

But, yes, we can provide the outline of Vac pencil evolution to give it to Jon, since he apparently has not researched the subject.

 

Indeed, the potential existence of different cone-twist mechanisms or barrel-twist mechanisms at similar times does not impact the date/series evolution from cone-twist to barrel-twist etc.

 

Brian, you likely already know most of the key dates.  Feel free to shoot a tray of pencils. We can play. I'll get to it eventually. Or we can talk at Raleigh. Hands-on at pen show remains the best learning in my view. Similar to how I work with Med Students and Residents.

 

regards

 

david

[BrianMcQueen]

Hi Brian,

Yeah, Jon threw a few, and response to such doesn't constitute an attack, rather a parry

 

Personal insights provide context and history. Very important. 

 

Indeed, it might be best to do a rare thread-split, moving all but the pencil info into its own thread (since deletion of threads is something we strive to avoid here).

 

SNIP

 

A parry usually comes at the time of attack, not some years later.  A thread split might not be a terrible idea here.

 

 

 

SNIP

 

Indeed, the potential existence of different cone-twist mechanisms or barrel-twist mechanisms at similar times does not impact the date/series evolution from cone-twist to barrel-twist etc.

 

Brian, you likely already know most of the key dates.  Feel free to shoot a tray of pencils. We can play. I'll get to it eventually. Or we can talk at Raleigh. Hands-on at pen show remains the best learning in my view. Similar to how I work with Med Students and Residents.

 

regards

 

david

 

 

I agree that the claimed existence of different cone-twist or barrel-twist mechanisms at similar time doesn't impact the evolution from cone to barrel twist type.  And that is the point on which I disagree with Jon.  I will shoot a tray of pencils that we can discuss, though my collection of pencils is rather limited.  I have another obligation which may prevent me from attending Raleigh altogether, but I will attempt to be there on Friday.

Edited by BrianMcQueen, 17 April 2014 - 02:53 PM.

[david i]

Hi Brian,

The parry was to current events. The citation of prior events was-- as noted I believe-- to provide historical context to those not in the know.

 

I will wrestle with the thread split. First I hope to get some actual work done today

 

Your original post is of solid merit, and it might be good not to see it swamped.

 

I should be at Raleigh Friday. If you know you are going I can bring appropriate material.  Will you do DC, Chi or Ohio?

 

regards

 

david