21 replies to this topic

[Kirchh]

Just getting things going.

--Daniel

[david i]

Just getting things going.

--Daniel

Reference? We don't need no stinkin' references.

They just slow down the assertion process.

d

[Roger W.]

I love this topic but, shouldn't references be considered normal? Maybe they should be considered normal on this board.

Roger W.

[david i]

I love this topic but, shouldn't references be considered normal? Maybe they should be considered normal on this board.

Roger W.

Idunno.

Perhaps instead the board would benefit from abnormal references

-d

[Andy H]

Speaking as one who believes most everything from either David or Daniel, (especially when they disagree...) I agree wholeheartedly!

Seriously, I enjoy learning more about the history of fountain pens, including both assertions and challenges to those assertions. The knowledge from those who have devoted far more time than I have to the history of this industry and this hobby is beyond value...

Thanks David, and everyone who has contributed to this resource!

Andy

[SteveB]

"I read it on the internet!"

[CarolinaWriter]

"Some guy on a pen board told me..."

[Rick Krantz]

I dunno, I think that at some point, it becomes difficult, especially for small, non big 4/5 companies. For example, we just found the great grandson of one of the Crockers (Chilton pen) on facebook. What we might be able to learn about the Chilton pen company, at best could be considered heresay, or at best cloudy recollection. Records for Chilton did not survive like, say... Sheaffer or Parker.

Also, I don't know if anyone else has a similar problem, but I have been doing this for 21+ years now, and quite frankly, I have read so much, talked to so many people, that a lot of the information I gained, and stored in my grey matter, I honestly don't know where it may have come from anymore. Guess I am getting old.

I would say, unless there is some documentation to support something, or actual physical evidence, observation, etc.. I guess we may only be able to call a lot of information a best guess.

[david i]

I would say, unless there is some documentation to support something, or actual physical evidence, observation, etc.. I guess we may only be able to call a lot of information a best guess.

What he's trying to say, Spock, is that he trusts your guesses more than he would most people's "facts".

Five points if you can cite specific...uhrrrrr... reference

But, seriously (who me?) and perhaps to be a bit trite, when all is said and done, in many cases- as the critter who started the thread well knows- we have what we have when it comes to sources, and we don't have what we don't have. For assertions, always it is nice to back things up, or to be at least prepared to if challenged. Citing "herasay" is quite fair, I do it often, what with actually knowing nothing myself. Perhaps the major trick is not simply to make bold claims with no recollection whatsoever of how one arrived at that claim

At least if one can say, "I said, 'X', because, well, I just heard it... somewhere" it leaves the door open for information to come out from other sources.

-d

[Rick Krantz]

I guess that is the limitation of the hobby. No one ever considered 50/70/90/120 years ago, that people were going to collect fountain pens. No one cared about keeping the dealer catalog from 1935, and when we find one, we got to think of it as luck.

[CarolinaWriter]

What he's trying to say, Spock, is that he trusts your guesses more than he would most people's "facts".

Five points if you can cite specific...uhrrrrr... reference

Star Trek V - The Voyage Home


What do I get for my 5 points?

[david i]

Star Trek V - The Voyage Home


What do I get for my 5 points?

Close but No Points For You!!!!

Star Trek IV was the Voyage Home, not ST V.

But, I'll give you two points for half correct answer.

I redeem 2000 points for a high quality 4 by 6 photo done by me of a nice vintage pen. Hey, cannot make this toooo easy.

regards

david

[CarolinaWriter]

Star Trek IV was the Voyage Home, not ST V.

But, I'll give you two points for half correct answer.

I redeem 2000 points for a high quality 4 by 6 photo done by me of a nice vintage pen. Hey, cannot make this toooo easy.

regards

david

That's what I get for answering email at oh dark thirty... V was the Final Frontier, I think. Only 1997.5 to go!

:::Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion:::

[Hirsch]

I guess that is the limitation of the hobby. No one ever considered 50/70/90/120 years ago, that people were going to collect fountain pens. No one cared about keeping the dealer catalog from 1935, and when we find one, we got to think of it as luck.

I'm not entirely sure of that. People find ways to collect just about anything. I don't see that as a recent trait in the species. I'll bet that there were some very serious collections from the first fountain pens onward. I'll also bet that the heirs of those collections, not knowing just what would happen to the value of those collections in the future, tossed the vast majority of the collections in the trash.

[Andy H]

I suspect Hirsch is right on both of those points.

But it is fascinating to me that original source records are so scarce for so many things that are of historical interest to me. That there should be undiscovered variants and one-offs even within the Big Four should really not be a surprise if you've ever followed vintage cameras, baseball paraphenalia, or even automotive items. There are similar ongoing disputes of the first date of manufacture, of combinations of options or traits in a particular model, or whether a particular example was a variant, an official prototype/experiment, or the work of some serious individual experimenter.

I enjoy the discussion and debates, and look on it as a form of scientific inquiry. One may speculate on the origins of an object found "in the wild" and offer educated guesses or wild theories, but there will often never be anything resembling scientific "proof." Ninety nine percent of the serious fountain pen scientists may believe a theory but it's still not proven until sourced and documented with original material, and sometimes even that isn't a complete verification. The fact is that most people recording "history" in original documents aren't following scientific method at the time that they're doing it.

[Teej47]

I'm not entirely sure of that. People find ways to collect just about anything. I don't see that as a recent trait in the species. I'll bet that there were some very serious collections from the first fountain pens onward. I'll also bet that the heirs of those collections, not knowing just what would happen to the value of those collections in the future, tossed the vast majority of the collections in the trash.

Wholeheartedly agree. Some of us just can't help it, and I'm certain it's always been that way. I and three of my sons have Asperger's Syndrome (see 'Mozart and the Whale' for an excellent depiction of this "disorder"), which although it wasn't described until the 1940's is certainly a collection of behaviors that have always been around. High on that list is having a "special interest" where one needs to collect something and usually some encyclopedic knowledge about whatever that something is.

I guarantee I'm not the only one like me lurking around... there's actually probably a bunch of us (though I may be alone in having been diagnosed). Anyway, sources of information like this (which really only exist because of collectors) are like porch lights to a moth... so whenever we have data that is actually verifiable it's just pure gold (or mint condition celluloid, if you prefer).

Tim
(sorry if I ramble a bit)

[Roger W.]

OK, this has been fun in general but, I have a specific in the blue book reference.

I see in the famous blue book that they say that Moore got heavy machinery from Boston on the sale in 1917. There is not a shred of evidence to support this that I've seen unless you go with that Moore makes a pen identical to Boston. Therefore, do you conclude that the heavy machinery was necessary to make the pen? If that is the case how does Wahl make the Tempoints which are also identical without the heavy machinery? I'm thinking this is the heavy machinery fallacy. On top of which Moore already made pens and Wahl didn't, weren't they in a greater need of the equipment (does pencil machinery equate to pen capability - I don't know). Not to mention that rail transportation from Boston to Chicago does not strike me as some great feat of engineering. So what evidence does Fischler and Schneider have for their assertion?

Roger W.

[Kirchh]

So what evidence does Fischler and Schneider have for their assertion?

You ever ask one of them?

--Daniel

[Roger W.]

You ever ask one of them?

--Daniel

Actually no but, I didn't realize this was in their book until rereading it as I thought it came from elsewhere (which could still be the source.) Anyone know how to contact them? I'd be glad to. I know one was at the Chicago show and I'd have relished the chance to discuss this with him but, missed the opportunity.

Roger W.

[Titivillus]

And that's just with vintage pens finding that references are few and far between. Look at modern pen companies who also produce one-off and variations that in some cases can't be confirmed as a 'real' product of the company or just something that a buyer put together.

The one company that I would love to see a list of variations for is Bexley, there seems to be a near limitless set of pens that were made in small batches. But OMAS, Stipula, VIsconti & MB have variations of their pens out in extremely limited editions.

Would it be worthwhile to try and collect information about existing ( former has the PCA to help) companies together in a central location on the web?