12 replies to this topic

[marcshiman]

Question:

 

Lets say I have a Wahl Doric, unrestored. The pen's sac is dead, clip is showing brassing, feed is all gunked up, and it has a cap lip crack.

 

Obviously if all that was necessary was to replace the sac and clean the feed, and the other problems weren't there, we'd say the pen is "restored".

 

Here's the question - if we replate the clip, do we report the pen as "restored"? Or should we add that the clip has been replated?

 

If we repair the crack by fusing the plastic on both sides of the crack by essentially melting the plastic, is that a repaired crack, or is the pen now restored? If we use matching donor material to fill a crack, is that a repaired crack, or is the pen restored?

 

I would argue that since Wahl's pens were originally gold filled, the thin plating we use should be declared. However, if we fuse two original pieces of plastic together, and the repaired crack would stand up to visual and fingernail scrutiny, the pen is "restored".

 

[Paul M]

okay I will bite 

 

I reckon a new sac or some replating (or a new J bar,or a  replacement correct nib) is restoring.

 

Repairing a crack or removing a personalisation is something that should be declared 

[david i]

Hi Marc,

 

Though hobby-specific jargon offers ambiguities and indeed can be subjective, I tend to eschew "restored" for the special interventions you cite.

 

At its very core, restoration references putting the pen in working condition, let's say it is short for "restored to working order": resaced, feed/nib cleaned and tweaked for writing. That is independent of addressing broken (except the sac) parts or requiring fixing of cosmetic structural problems.  I guess, at this level, even polishing is not required for a pen to qualify as  restored,  though most restorers do polishing as part of the job.

 

Special attention to worn trim, to broken sac nipple,  to rough plastic (toothies, deep scratches), to brassing, etc,  I consider repairs or special interventions.

 

Indeed, how can replating be restoration (implicitly returning to original state/function) when the trim originally was not even plated, but rather "filled", gold-filled metal?

 

regards

 

d

[marcshiman]

My point is - if its the same pen it was when it was originally made - regardless of what happened in the meantime - does it matter what's been done to get it there? No new materials introduced, no glues holding it together, no filler material, etc.

 

If roughness is fixed through a combination of heat and smoothing, and the pen is essentially the same thing as before the roughness - why would you have to declare it repaired?

 

If you had to take a donor cap from another pen (same model, same color) to create a "mint" pen, should that be declared?

[david i]

My point is - if its the same pen it was when it was originally made - regardless of what happened in the meantime - does it matter what's been done to get it there? No new materials introduced, no glues holding it together, no filler material, etc.

 

If roughness is fixed through a combination of heat and smoothing, and the pen is essentially the same thing as before the roughness - why would you have to declare it repaired?

 

If you had to take a donor cap from another pen (same model, same color) to create a "mint" pen, should that be declared?

 

Hi Marc,

I'm groggy post night call and might write more later, but perhaps in parsing "restoration", we can differentiate functional restoration from cosmetic restoration and then should/can recognize different degrees of cosmetic restoration. A bit of heat and polish (the latter technically removing some material, but hey so did the factory at time of manufacture) is rather minimal intervention.  One can argue it can be/should be done to nearly every old pen (save for the 1-5% that are superb from the get go). Glue? Replacement parts? Solvent welding?  That's a different level.

 

I have no problem with non-declaration of replacement parts of identical-features based on model/variant.  A mint pre-new-old-stock barrel and mint cap merged to form a *proper* complete pen?  More power to you.

 

regards

 

d

[david i]

I certainly believe that special repair methods should be disclosed. A glued pen should not be a surprise to the buyer.

 

regards

d

[Christof Z]

This is a quite interesting topic I think. Specially important when it comes to sales.

Some sellers only mention few hard facts in their descriptions and let pictures speak. And others do long descriptions with inly few pictures. Of course there are also somes which do long descriptions and show lots of pictures and the contrary as well. But some people are true artist in writing a lot and saying nothing.

In my opinion, every job which has been done and every part which changed should be mentioned as precise as possible. Polishing, plating and of course cracks, repaired or not. Fact is that a pen with a repaired crack is less worth than one without crack. No matter how good the job is done.

This is just my opinion.

C.

[marcshiman]

This is a debate that I had with a restorer who does mainly cosmetics. He offered to fix a crack, and I said "ok, but I have to list it as a repaired crack" and he debated that with me.

 

His point is that a solvent-welded crack is really the pen coming together with itself. At that point, there is no crack anymore. I could say "we had to solvent-weld a crack to finish it", but maybe this is splitting hairs but there is no crack anymore.

 

The obvious exception is that if the underlying cause (shrinkage, etc) is still there or if the repair increases the brittleness, that must be declared. But there isn't a repaired crack - there isn't any kind of crack anymore.

 

Maybe just semantics. I'm not sure I buy his point of view either.

[david i]

I admit to doubts that a solvent-welded crack has the same structural integrity as the original Celluloid. I also admit I have not done a study or done research to see if anyone else has

 

Again... parsing/semantics. The solvent-welded site might no longer formally be a crack, but that does not prove the solvent-weld is as strong as native structure.

 

regards

 

d

[Christof Z]

I admit to doubts that a solvent-welded crack has the same structural integrity as the original Celluloid.
d

I tend to share this opinion about properties of chemically and mechanically treated (vintage!) material.

...so, why not mention such a repair job? Even more when it is done such a fantastic way?

c.

[Rick Krantz]

This would be a great article for Paul's Fountain Pen Journal......

 

i feel that replacing parts with same parts, is no problem

 

reproduction vac fill sheaffer filler rods... no problem

 

removing scratches, bites, no problem

 

filling holes, repairing cracks, removing names, replacement reproduction clips, replated parts... problem. 

 

I want to know this stuff before I buy. 

[BrianMcQueen]

A plated part is introduction of new material to hide a flaw.  It does not have the same integrity of the original gold, and should be mentioned.

 

A repaired crack, even when done extremely well, actually requires the introduction of new celluloid to fill the valley formed by the solvent welding process.  Also, a repaired crack can always be seen from some angle.  It should therefore be disclosed.

 

Exact replacement parts (originals, not reproductions) shouldn't always need to be disclosed, but there are some cases where I might.

 

I also feel like de-dinging of metal caps needn't be disclosed.  Refinishing of metal caps (refrosting Parker 51 caps, for example) should be disclosed.

 

Those are my opinions.

[Deb]

i feel that replacing parts with same parts, is no problem

 

reproduction vac fill sheaffer filler rods... no problem

 

removing scratches, bites, no problem

 

filling holes, repairing cracks, removing names, replacement reproduction clips, replated parts... problem. 

 

I want to know this stuff before I buy. 

 

That sounds about right to me.