42 replies to this topic

[Hugh]

Like all organizations based on mutual, non commercial interest there are issues that come to the fore, relevance being one, and some get out of hand. Voluntary organizations are prone to "people" issues and PCA appears no exception. Living in Australia I know little of the "politics" or the people. I make the following observations: 1. it's small and financially limited 2. PENant appears to be it's best achievement 3. The library is a significant resource if under utilized  4. It appears "static", the web site being an example.

 

Marc makes some excellent points and his views food for thought. It's hard to argue against" the more info out there the better for the hobby" line but it glosses over the achievement in compiling the library . Another core point is that compiling the library is a good project to engage members, gives a sense of achievement and a source of pride. Without this would it be as extensive as it is? I doubt it. Up to this point there would appear no reason that this should not be a privilege of membership as well as an ongoing project for members. 

 

The people issue is always relevant in voluntary organizations, it's not easy to "change the guard" especially when it involves people who may have given many years to an organization. Handling this with care and dignity is not always easy, some of Jon Veley's comments show how easy it is to mishandle this.

 

Like everything the way forward needs to be clearly planned. A new editor offers new possibilities and, possibly, a different direction. Apart from that how does the the PCA better engage with pen collectors/fanciers ? That's the difficult question. It needs to be affordable, it needs to be relatively simple, it needs to give PCA a purpose above what it already offers.

 

My first suggestion would be to open the library up to all and to invite contributions from the wider pen community to further enhance this resource and in so doing engage a wider audience, always a good idea. Next I'd offer PENant in digital form, much easier for overseas members, as well as hard with a slight decrease in membership for digital ( or major if OS ). I'd also offer PENant hard copies for sale at a premium over membership, maybe even digital. The web site needs some attention. At the end of the day it's all about relevance, as Marc points out, so becoming as relevant as possible is the aim!! Simple to say, not to achieve but that's the challenge for PCA.

 

Regards

Hugh

[marcshiman]

Like all organizations based on mutual, non commercial interest there are issues that come to the fore, relevance being one, and some get out of hand. Voluntary organizations are prone to "people" issues and PCA appears no exception. Living in Australia I know little of the "politics" or the people. I make the following observations: 1. it's small and financially limited 2. PENant appears to be it's best achievement 3. The library is a significant resource if under utilized  4. It appears "static", the web site being an example.

 

 

 

To the list at the end of the paragraph, I'm going to add one more - 5. Its a fabulous group of people who are part of it. I know many of the larger benefactors, and I like them all.  I hope my concerns about what PCA stands for isn't seen as a degradation of the people who are thinking about this.

[David Nishimura]

If I could, I'd like to go back to the matter of digitization and the PCA's contribution in that regard.

 

 

As for the whole issue of scanning and dissemination of research material, that's a biggie -- and one that really should have been a matter for open-spirited discussion, instead of unilateral action. For me, at least, there's no clear-cut solution. Free access to all is a wonderful ideal, yet as with other forms of content, if it's completely free, can we be sure that anyone will take the trouble to create more? It's easy to criticize the pay-for-access model, but I'd find the criticism more compelling (and constructive) if it offered some alternative mechanism to generate support for future digitization projects.

David;

 

I don't believe anyone is paid to digitize the catalogs the PCA has so I'm not sure how that has anything to do with pay-for-access.  Or why it being free would have any influence over someone taking the trouble to create more content.  Or how pay-for-access would effect future digitization projects.  I'll admit it could be that funds are being put together that will cover some aspect of digitization but, you have not laid out such a case.

 

 Roger W.

 

 

Please forgive me, Roger, if I was too sketchy in laying out my thoughts.

You are, of course, correct -- as noted above, PCA board members, as well as our hard-working librarian, are all unpaid volunteers. So it's not quite like a for-profit enterprise like Ancestry.com, where there would be no digitizing if no one was willing to pay for access. On the other hand, there is still a certain quid pro quo, even if it isn't quite so direct or so tangible. In a perfect world, people would do good deeds and donate to charitable causes without prompting. In the world we live in, they require a little help. And to get people to help, it is vital to give them a sense of connection.

 

The PCA is not perfect -- it is run by humans, after all -- but it has over the years done precisely that. From its beginnings, the PCA has actively solicited collectors to share copies of rare and sometimes unique reference material. This material may be in the public domain, but that is entirely academic when surviving examples are so rare. By acting on behalf of the collecting community at large, the PCA has been able to gain access to material that in many cases would not otherwise have been shared.

 

What concerns me now is the attacks upon the PCA, which seem to be rooted in personal animosities, but which are now being directed against the very existence of the organization itself. Were there no PCA, would owners of rare publications be so forthcoming about sharing? In a perfect world, it wouldn't make any difference. In the world we live in, I see a lot of PCA-scanned material being uploaded, but precious little generated by anyone else.

[David Nishimura]

Hugh, thanks for your thoughtful and constructive post.

[Roger W.]

David;

 

Thanks for clarifying.  The ability of the PCA to reach out at shows to old time collectors that have piles of ephemera is immense.  The PCA has not done this though I have urged it for years which is why I strongly support Veley in pursuing this.  It was a few years ago that we got Fred Krinke to share a couple boxes of material, the Sheaffer stuff I scanned, for free, and am in the process of getting it to the PCA.  Yes the material is in the public domain but, as David puts out is practically unique and would not come to light any other way than the PCA championing this cause.  Veley was very correct in that the main strength of the PCA is its ability to continue on beyond its founders.  Sometimes it muddles through with directors that would better serve elsewhere and other sins best left to the past but, still, the greater good is served and the PCA is a positive force more than it isn't.  As soon as I can afford my dues I will send it in, the PCA is a good thing to have around and will likely always be relevant.  

 

Roger W.

[david i]

The three related threads on this topic have been pinned to top of "Elements of Collecting" at least for now.  They certainly qualify as choice issues within this theme.

 

-d

[marcshiman]

 Yes the material is in the public domain but, as David puts out is practically unique and would not come to light any other way than the PCA championing this cause.  

 

Why is PCA uniquely qualified in this regard?

 

If I offered to post any materials that anyone has online on a website for free, and make it freely available for perpetuity, why would that not come to light?

[david i]

 

 Yes the material is in the public domain but, as David puts out is practically unique and would not come to light any other way than the PCA championing this cause.  

 

Why is PCA uniquely qualified in this regard?

 

If I offered to post any materials that anyone has online on a website for free, and make it freely available for perpetuity, why would that not come to light?

 

 

It might be a matter of tenses.

 

While we might debate whether  in today's easy-digital-access era , if any one pen organization is necessary for public domain catalogue info, etc to come to light, I believe historically the PCA did serve as a somewhat special nidus for information gathering.

 

regards

 

-d

[George]

 

 Yes the material is in the public domain but, as David puts out is practically unique and would not come to light any other way than the PCA championing this cause.  

 

Why is PCA uniquely qualified in this regard?

 

If I offered to post any materials that anyone has online on a website for free, and make it freely available for perpetuity, why would that not come to light?

 

 

Mark,

 

To the best of my knowledge, most (and probably a large majority) of the total digitized pen catalogues, pamphlets, letters and such online have their origins in the PCA library. If there has been so little effort to try and digitize pen material outside of the PCA's efforts, why should we think that things will be different now?

 

I hope all is well Mark.

 

George

Edited by George, 12 September 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[David Nishimura]

 

 Yes the material is in the public domain but, as David puts out is practically unique and would not come to light any other way than the PCA championing this cause.  

 

Why is PCA uniquely qualified in this regard?

 

If I offered to post any materials that anyone has online on a website for free, and make it freely available for perpetuity, why would that not come to light?

 

 

Human nature, I would say.

People are more likely to contribute to an organization than to an individual, and especially to an nonprofit organization working for the common good. It also helps when the organization has a long track record -- and the PCA has been facilitating the distribution of copies of primary source pen documents for some 20 years now.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I'd be overjoyed to see other people soliciting, scanning, and distributing such documents on their own. It's not easy as an individual to persuade others to share, though. When I started my pen history blog, I offered to post articles by others there. No one took me up on it, as they preferred to either publish on their own, or to publish in the Pennant.

[marcshiman]

Human nature, I would say.

People are more likely to contribute to an organization than to an individual, and especially to an nonprofit organization working for the common good. It also helps when the organization has a long track record -- and the PCA has been facilitating the distribution of copies of primary source pen documents for some 20 years now.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I'd be overjoyed to see other people soliciting, scanning, and distributing such documents on their own. It's not easy as an individual to persuade others to share, though. When I started my pen history blog, I offered to post articles by others there. No one took me up on it, as they preferred to either publish on their own, or to publish in the Pennant.

 

 

Two things interesting here - one - for the most part, everyone has described PCA as a magazine producer, not a "nonprofit organization working for the common good". And, please don't take this as "attack", but its not working for the common good, its working for the good of the membership base. I would interpret "common" to include people that haven't paid membership dues.

 

Second, your website for me as always been a significant source of (free) information that isn't available anywhere else including PCA. So I find it a little ironic your desire to drive very significant public domain information to an exclusive community when you have done so much yourself to build the pen community at large. That other people wouldn't contribute to your website doesn't lessen the value of all of your (volunteer) efforts. Between your own website and your input to boards like this, it would seem you are committed to making information freely available, not to a restricted group.

[alfredop]

Since we are talking about sharing, here there is a link to a wiki page of an italian forum:

 

http://www.fountainp...a_principale/en

 

On the right (under Summary) you can find links to digitized material (mainly catalogs and ads), and you can download all you want for free (all material is released under the GNU Free Documentation License).

By the way, the people which run the forum also run an association whose annual subscription is the ticket to enter in one of the pen show they organize (they typically organize 3 pen show for year, the payment happen at the first pen show you participate and the subsequent are free).

 

Alfredo 

[John Danza]

The answer to why the PCA is a good entity for promoting our hobby is easy - it's singularly focused. As was pointed out in other replies, the other websites such as this one, exist for the moment and can go away at any time. As David N points out, the loss of Lion & Pen is incalculable because of the high quality historical information it offered.

 

Remember that the PCA has existed a lot longer than the internet, so the magazine has been the primary source of trying to dispense good information on vintage pens. We lost Pen World years ago to vintage pen information, although I think it's starting to come back. Stylophiles was a great magazine that appeared to have an unsustainable financial model. Hopefully Paul's new venture will be financially viable for him. But back to the PCA magazine. It could very well morph into an online magazine in keeping with the times, but producing digital magazines have a cost too. That leads me to my last point.

 

Marc, you keep talking about "free", as if websites are mana from heaven. Websites cost money. Servers cost, bandwidth costs, storage space costs. So even if the PCA magazine went away, the PCA would still have expenses for the website. That in and of itself is the reason for a membership fee. I'm glad you feel good about enriching your own knowledge at the expense of others. I'm not that way, so I stroke the $40 check every year. I've contributed to the PCA library in a small way when I buy original source material, as I think it's a good thing to share with collectors who come after me who didn't have access to the same information I used to seek but now will. Would I feel the same altuism to provide it to a group that feels they should get it for free? That answer is "no".

 

So bottom line, if you want to see pen collecting continue in a way that keeps our hobby go for decades to come, you should support the PCA. It's a centralized source that has seen all the other avenues come and go.

[David Nishimura]

Two things interesting here - one - for the most part, everyone has described PCA as a magazine producer, not a "nonprofit organization working for the common good". And, please don't take this as "attack", but its not working for the common good, its working for the good of the membership base. I would interpret "common" to include people that haven't paid membership dues.

 

I would be careful about generalizing so freely about "everyone".

From where I stand, most PCA members think of their organization as much more than just "a magazine producer".

I would also disagree with your definition of the common good, which seems overly narrow. By that standard, most museums, symphonies, and universities aren't working for the common good, either.

 

Second, your website for me as always been a significant source of (free) information that isn't available anywhere else including PCA. So I find it a little ironic your desire to drive very significant public domain information to an exclusive community when you have done so much yourself to build the pen community at large. That other people wouldn't contribute to your website doesn't lessen the value of all of your (volunteer) efforts. Between your own website and your input to boards like this, it would seem you are committed to making information freely available, not to a restricted group.

 

I thank you for your kind comments about my website, but I must take issue with your use of terms such as "exclusive" and "restricted". Anyone can join the PCA -- you don't have to qualify or be vetted. And the dues are nowhere near the level that one can start talking about them as a meaningful barrier to entry.

 

And you badly misinterpret what I am saying when you state that I "desire to drive very significant public domain information to an exclusive community" -- in fact, you go on to acknowledge that this seems entirely inconsistent with what you have observed of my actions over the years.

 

This misinterpretation starts with the nature of the information, whose most significant attribute is not that it is public domain, but that it is rare and privately held. The copyright status of a unique surviving pen catalog is irrelevant if one cannot get access to it. My big concern is to get such material out to where it can be studied, and to have copies made in case the original should be destroyed or lost. Whether those copies are subsequently made available through the PCA or through the Internet Archive is of relatively minor importance -- the main thing is to get them made in the first place.

 

I am a pragmatist about this. If someone other than the PCA can get access to such material to copy and distribute it, they will have my full support. But until others step up, the pragmatic thing to do is to support the PCA's efforts, rather than tearing down the one organization with a demonstrated ability to pry loose rare material and to mobilize volunteers to digitize it.

[Roger W.]

Marc, David is so right here.  The efforts of the PCA, which is not an exclusive group in the least, makes copies of rare catalogs available to would be researchers at a fraction of the costs if you had to and could find them yourself.  A typical original Sheaffer catalog from the 20's or 30's would cost you $400.  I've paid that for some of the catalogs I've made available in print copies I used to do.  Many of these were made available for scanning by Fred Krinke and the PCA will be getting those copies.  So instead of a few thousand dollars would be researches have access to the lot for $40 - it is essentially free though not absolutely.  I know I feel good sharing scans with a group that is organized for the purpose.  The PCA is a non-for profit corporation which is not free to get.  There were filing fees and a crap load of hours I put in to make it so.  I did that because it is a very worthwhile endeavor that I believe in.  There are people out there that believe because how much is available on the net for free that it is the absolute model on how everyone should behave but, there are a lot of bad actors out there.  I really don't think you should belittle the efforts many volunteers have put in to set up an organization that is available to one and all.  I really think Veley's efforts to get more catalogs for the library will pay off as a lot of these collectors don't participate online, don't scan their stuff and don't therefore make it available for free.  But, with a group willing to do that for them they will be willing to help - because it is the PCA.

 

Roger W. 

[marcshiman]

The answer to why the PCA is a good entity for promoting our hobby is easy - it's singularly focused. As was pointed out in other replies, the other websites such as this one, exist for the moment and can go away at any time. As David N points out, the loss of Lion & Pen is incalculable because of the high quality historical information it offered.

 

Marc, you keep talking about "free", as if websites are mana from heaven. Websites cost money. Servers cost, bandwidth costs, storage space costs. So even if the PCA magazine went away, the PCA would still have expenses for the website. That in and of itself is the reason for a membership fee. I'm glad you feel good about enriching your own knowledge at the expense of others. I'm not that way, so I stroke the $40 check every year. I've contributed to the PCA library in a small way when I buy original source material, as I think it's a good thing to share with collectors who come after me who didn't have access to the same information I used to seek but now will. Would I feel the same altuism to provide it to a group that feels they should get it for free? That answer is "no".

 

John, is there absolutely any way to have a conversation without it turning into a personal, mean spirited sort of thing? I'm asking you... no, I'm begging you to actually read my posts beyond the word "free". And then I'm asking for a conversation. Not one that says "I'm glad you feel good about enriching your own knowledge at the expense of others".

 

I was going to quote what I said above about my willingness (desire) to pay to be part of an association whose mission I understand and agree with. But, its all there for you to read at your leisure.

 

I've been a member of the Board of Directors of NASAGA (North American Simulation and Gaming Association for professional trainers) - I know what it costs to run a website, etc. We have free membership, and we have other revenue models. 

[marcshiman]

And you badly misinterpret what I am saying when you state that I "desire to drive very significant public domain information to an exclusive community" -- in fact, you go on to acknowledge that this seems entirely inconsistent with what you have observed of my actions over the years.

 

This misinterpretation starts with the nature of the information, whose most significant attribute is not that it is public domain, but that it is rare and privately held. The copyright status of a unique surviving pen catalog is irrelevant if one cannot get access to it. My big concern is to get such material out to where it can be studied, and to have copies made in case the original should be destroyed or lost. Whether those copies are subsequently made available through the PCA or through the Internet Archive is of relatively minor importance -- the main thing is to get them made in the first place.

 

I am a pragmatist about this. If someone other than the PCA can get access to such material to copy and distribute it, they will have my full support. But until others step up, the pragmatic thing to do is to support the PCA's efforts, rather than tearing down the one organization with a demonstrated ability to pry loose rare material and to mobilize volunteers to digitize it.

 

 

David,

 

I really like the earlier phrase "nonprofit organization working for the common good" (although it needs to be further developed for the purposes of an association of hobbyists I think). I think it was a great starting point to the question I originally asked, which is what is the purpose of PCA? Its a mission I can agree with, its a mission I can buy into. But I don't feel that having been a member (I'm a current member), the activities of the PCA agree with that mission. Its for that reason that I ran this post to begin with.

 

Your explanation of your posts 1) makes perfect sense and I'm in full agreement, and 2) tends to contradict what a lot of other people are saying on this and other threads . My apologies that I misinterpreted your intent. Again, back to mission - if the mission is to get these materials out to a place where they can be studied, I'm there. Totally there. How much do you need to make that happen? I have my checkbook out. My only stipulation is that when the materials are in a place, digital, etc - that the contents are available to everyone without a pay wall. 

 

This all came about because of a nasty reaction to someone setting up a website pointing (not hosting) to a place where "stolen" digital files were posted. The language was harsh and mean. I wasn't interested in being part of that. That's why I asked what the organization is really about.

Edited by marcshiman, 13 September 2014 - 12:15 AM.

[marcshiman]

Marc, David is so right here.  The efforts of the PCA, which is not an exclusive group in the least, makes copies of rare catalogs available to would be researchers at a fraction of the costs if you had to and could find them yourself.  A typical original Sheaffer catalog from the 20's or 30's would cost you $400.  I've paid that for some of the catalogs I've made available in print copies I used to do.  Many of these were made available for scanning by Fred Krinke and the PCA will be getting those copies.  So instead of a few thousand dollars would be researches have access to the lot for $40 - it is essentially free though not absolutely.  I know I feel good sharing scans with a group that is organized for the purpose.  The PCA is a non-for profit corporation which is not free to get.  There were filing fees and a crap load of hours I put in to make it so.  I did that because it is a very worthwhile endeavor that I believe in.  There are people out there that believe because how much is available on the net for free that it is the absolute model on how everyone should behave but, there are a lot of bad actors out there.  I really don't think you should belittle the efforts many volunteers have put in to set up an organization that is available to one and all.  I really think Veley's efforts to get more catalogs for the library will pay off as a lot of these collectors don't participate online, don't scan their stuff and don't therefore make it available for free.  But, with a group willing to do that for them they will be willing to help - because it is the PCA.

 

Roger W. 

 

-sigh-

 

Well, I guess I should expect this sort of thing. The thread is long, the posts are wordy, and it can be expected that the nature of the message gets lost along the way. So, for those of you who assume that I'm completely unappreciative (in fact I belittle!!) of the efforts of the people who worked hard to obtain, scan, and post the materials, and I simply want it for free because I'm a cheap bastard - carry on. If I wasn't able to contradict that notion effectively earlier, its probably not going to happen now.

 

There are other revenue models that exist other than "pay your $40 or go away". 

[PatMorgan]

In the 1980s I did volunteer work with a few organizations in my spare time. In the 1990s my job taught me how to do pre-press. I worked for small companies during the 90s where I did the work to get magazines prepared for press in the course of 1 night. It was rough work. Doing the imposition work, then making sure every photo linked up and from there preparing the proofing for these mags. I could prep a 96 page in the course of 1 day then make the pdf's for the printer and send it out over the lines for my company. I assure you, most of the people who lived in the USA saw the work of the companies and entities I prepared prints for. We used Quark and did the work. What took the most time was making the postscript files on computers which are dinosaurs compared to what is available today. I could sit and prep page after page using every available computer in the room during shift change when I did overtime.

I used these skills to produce 4-32 page newsletters and mags for a number of organizations doing the imposition work, creating the templates for them and from there, preparing the files. Hard work and some long hours especially getting everything together from people. It was done in under 24 hours creating a product that went off to a printer back then. Today, I would not know the software as I have not worked in Quark since 2008 and it was an old version. I do not know Adobe Idesign and have no idea how to set up files and do the work. But I spent the 90s creating products that memberships from 500 all the way up to 100,000 would read for non profits. In the for profit world namely my job, my work that I sat at a desk for 18 hours some days was seen by millions.

There are ways today which are done by many a non profit to make the work easier for the non profits. How to boost memberships and giving an overhaul to older organizations to increase their outreach thus widening their audience and the costs are not that high. There has to be an outreach program on the part of organizations to invite others and their ideas to the table to hear these ideas and create the venue for the discussion. I watch smaller groups have incredible outreach which is quite simple to do. I would not mind coming to the table with ideas opening the discussion.

Edited by PatMorgan, 13 September 2014 - 02:52 AM.

[Parker51]

My suggestion is that any organization, including the PCA use the principles of Experimental Economics to determine rationally the most effective way to further its purpose. Preconceived ideas regarding how to best further the purpose of the organization are common, and many fine organizations have failed because they are locked into methods which are inneffective. This is normal. What is unusual is for a tax-exempt organization to use scientific methodologies to explore their current practices, and experiment with alternatives in an effort to become more effective.
In regard to the PCA specifically, at this time, it would help to get beyond personalities, and emotions. Yes, people have them, but they can get in the way of getting done what needs done, especially if a person, any person, strongly identifies with a specific method.
By analogy, success in sport is not just a matter of hard work and practice, it is today the careful analysis of all aspects of said sport, and experiments in strategies, training, etc.
No amount of past hard work by those involved with the PCA, or future work those currently involved with the PCA can guarantee success based solely on tradition.