Kirchh

You believe this thread has not shed said light?

Again (third time, I think), you said the paper itself (not this thread discussing your mention of the paper) would shed great light on some of our assumptions for 1932. As you have not posted it, I can't say with certainty whether that's true, but your implication was that it confirms "our assumption" that Blue was marketed as early as 1932. But as I explained, that is not "our" assumption, nor is it even the year Blue first is listed or depicted.

Even the thread itself has not shed great light on our assumptions -- though it may have on your assumptions, I suppose.

--Daniel

Too, things posted here and there on boards have habit to be swallowed by the mass of internet posting. Thus, fresh threads on subjects of interest, especially absent a dedicated linked content page, can be most valuable.

Definitely. I enjoy fresh threads on subjects of interest.

Again, The "Dating no later than" thing, barring clarifying parameters, often conveys significant ambiguity. No later for introduction? No later for active sales? No later for final production? Indeed, I find items to have merit that offer pens at later dates than previous citations.

Most definitely; many materials can fall into that category. But I was specifically addressing your statement about your paper "shed[ding] great light on some of our assumptions" for 1932.

--Daniel

I remain not trying to frighten anyone.

I didn't think you were! But now I realize you're unfamiliar with the term I used.

The "Dating no later than" thing, barring clarifying parameters, often conveys significant ambiguity. No later for introduction? No later for active sales? No later for final production? Indeed, I find items to have merit that offer pens at later dates than previous citations.

Still, "Shedding light" often is contextually defined. Since no one I know has polled all collectors about any given issue, there always remains the possibility that any piece of "new" information is not new to someone. All the better. There is charm in drawing out information from private sources, which remains a good reason to toss out information such as this. Stirs the pot an' all. Would be better if those of us (or those "not of us") who have timeline information were to offer it proactively, but since no one is likely to be able to proactively offer all his info, discussions such as this can draw the info out, even if the resulting info is at times offered obliquely.

I was commenting on your statement regarding "our assumptions" for something happening in 1932; it turns out you were referring to the introduction of the blue color in the Balance line. I was pointing out that those may be your assumptions, but they are not necessarily hobby-wide. Indeed, the information I mentioned has been posted previously on a board or two, as I recall.

I echo your statement that all collectors have not been polled about any given issue, and I would add that in recognition of that, I avoid characterizations like "only known".

Looking forward to seeing the ad, though; sounds attractive!

--Daniel

Buh...Buh...Buh....But Tim!

"Everyone knows" we have no Sheaffer images for the blue marble Balance!

Indeed the 1932-3 date for this color (besides trim morphology) comes iirc from only a 1933-dated price list update (no images) found with a 1929 catalogue.

Not sure why you think this (and why the scare quotes again?).

Actually, we date the Blue Balance to no later than October 1931. There's a depiction and listings of the Blue Balance in a 10/8/1931 issue of the Retailers Review. But if you have something earlier than that it would be useful.

This explains why I didn't discern what assumptions for 1932 your paper "sheds light on".

--Daniel

Possible. I have done no research as to whether "credit" jewelers in fact generally were of greater or lesser prestige/status than non-credit jewelers

I have, and there is a fairly clear stratification.

The suggestion is that credit jeweler's were stronger players than non-credit jewelers. I don't have access to his basis for this proposal and do not know in any case if the term might have evolved over the decades. To degree that I drop into sheer speculation, perhaps credit jewelers had better relationships with Parker, allowing the jeweler to buy from Parker on credit (vs cash up front)? I don't know. Still, such up-market jewelers might have wanted a product that set them apart from the riff raff.

As stated, I believe the retail jewelry biz followed the inverse model, with credit jewelers on the bottom. I see references such as "[a shopping center] hoped to have both a quality jeweler and a credit jeweler", "the credit jeweler gets a chance because the old line jeweler frowns on installment credit", "A department store might prefer to use [an upper-income-readership newspaper for advertising] for its upstairs store and [a lower-income-readership newspaper] for its basement; a deluxe jeweler would use the first, and a credit jeweler the second", and, from 1934, "there would not seem to be much in common between the sales practices of medical quacks and the dignified eminence of a skilled surgeon, nor between an advertising credit jeweler and an establishment such as Tiffany's...."

I am not sold on notion that if credit jewelers were wimpy downstream sellers (eg. Today's rent-to-own furniture shops), they would have access to fancier and more expensive pens than up-market retailers, even allowing for possibility of greater mark up on trivial bling on their line of pens. The money (as with pawn shops, i suppose) would seem to be in the credit portion. Rent-to-own electronics and furniture shops today seem not to sell up-market variants.

But note, for example, which pencils are listed as being in the credit jewelers line -- the least expensive shown. Most tellingly, the coin silver capped items are $5, and part of the credit jeweler line, whereas the $15 pencils with 14K trim are designated as bearing "retail silver caps" (one period term for non-credit jewelers was retail jewelers).

Generally, the CJ-line items may have only been superficially up-market -- enough to justify a higher tag price than regular pens at stationers' and such and to make room for the (possibly hidden) credit charges when paid off over time. Truly top-line variants -- 14K trim/caps/everything, for example -- may indeed have been available at higher-tier retail jewelers.

--Daniel