Sheaffer hard rubber date points

I've been studying hard rubber Sheaffer quite intently for a few weeks and have certain things for discussion. Anyone that knows Sheaffer hard rubber knows that only the first imprint gives you a fairly accurate estimation of when it was produced (I'm excluding the 1912 imprint which is extremely rare). Known as the oval imprint we know it to be on the first double bar pens with the next imprint covering the November 1914 patent so March 1913 to very late 1914. After that date points are a lot harder. We have little in the way of catalogues - 1912 or early 13 showing the single bar, later 1913 showing the double bar and reusing most of the electrotype plates from the first catalogue (dated 1916 by someone and carried on as such by the PCA), and then 1918 as the cover has an American soldier and the US entered WWI late. So a few years not covered but, we have a lot of ads from the period. None of this shows any of the imprints but, the inprinted "Turn" hand is illustrated.

Beyond the imprints is a major change in manufacture when Sheaffer went from the raised barrel threads to the flat profile barrel threads. I believe this shift to be so major that there is not overlap in production as these threads are produced in two completely different ways. The 1918 catalogue clearly shows raised threads and with the soldier on the front, while it is technically not dated, we are good for 1918. Ads show Raised threads in October 1919 for National Geographic (I believe they had a couple months ad lead time however based on how other ads ran). In December 1919 in American Magazine we see flat profile threads. That leads to what I have called the 1919 catalogue with flat profile threads. Now this catalogue, again, is undated and uses the Secretary cover that was the same Secretary used in ads from June, 1920. With further research on the models offered in the catalogue and ads of the period we might be able to nail it down to 1920 or, perhaps, the catalogue cover predates the ad sufficiently to be late 1919.

Anyway, I think this establishes a date point for raised threads thru the first half of 1919 and, therefore, the first block style imprint belonging to as early as 1915 until 1920 or 1921. Without falling over periods or comma's the main difference being CO. on the earlier block and Co. (little "o" underlined) on the second block of W.A. SHEAFFER PEN CO. or Co.

So I want to conclude with stating that raised threads are thru the first half of 1919 and that the block imprint starts in 1915. My question then being - does anyone have a problem with that? I'm not sure where to place the imprint of the S with the pen thru it other than early and likely December 1914 thru early 1915 as this is a rare imprint. This would move the block imprint back into later 1915 but, I still think at the latest. (I have reasons for the large S's imprint not even being in play).

Roger W.

I've been studying hard rubber Sheaffer quite intently for a few weeks and have certain things for discussion. Anyone that knows Sheaffer hard rubber knows that only the first imprint gives you a fairly accurate estimation

---SNIP---

So I want to conclude with stating that raised threads are thru the first half of 1919 and that the block imprint starts in 1915. My question then being - does anyone have a problem with that? I'm not sure where to place the imprint of the S with the pen thru it other than early and likely December 1914 thru early 1915 as this is a rare imprint. This would move the block imprint back into later 1915 but, I still think at the latest. (I have reasons for the large S's imprint not even being in play).

Roger W.

Hi Roger,

This has potential to be a chewy topic, to say the least, not that I usually say the least. I had thought you'd been studying HR Sheaffers intently for more than a few weeks though

Dating early pens from a key manufacturer is a valuable service. I happen to have a hoard of HR Sheaffers, most acquired from a single collection purchase; it includes- i believe- some early pens, though not the earliest. I'm also glanced at your note superficially, as things are busy tonight and I'm jetlagged from first night back to work after a too-short break after working all summer. So... don't hold any of the following against me

I observe that most readers will sorely lack the context to appreciate what you just posted. I more or less followed-- perhaps less than more-- and I've actually seen/handled pens with a fair number of the features you cite. But... this has potential.

I do note that ads can lag manufacture by a few months (there are Parker 1930's findings to support this notion. I imagine it was even more so in the 1910's), something to keep in mind dating the manufacture at least of various style pens.

Perhaps would help to intercalate into your text some images of the key features mentioned, even some ads etc. There is no way i can shoot in the next couple days any of my pens that have some of these early findings. All this talk of bars and double bars, threads of couple types, etc, can confuse.

But, I do have a few images handy. Perhaps we can start with this set. Certainly, it seems Sheaffer did

I don't own the pen whose imprint is shown above.

The following though is mine. It is the only "teardrop" vent-hole nib I've handled. The imprint is quite early. Has those fat threads. Probably need to double check the pen to be sure there is no flaw where threads meet barrel. Odd look.




regards

David

Thanks, David for showing the rare 1912 imprint. I must throw out my first dates scheme as it does not add up. It has been supported before that the oval imprint covered only 1913-1914 as Sheaffer would surely have hastily put on their new patent dates. I think they were too busy. OK, I'll support it with more facts. With ad and catalogue data I think it extremely resonable that the raised threads were used through most of 1919. The pens that relate to this have the oval imprint, the pen thru the S imprint and the first block style. The problem arises that of the block imprint raised thread examples make up a small portion of this group. This is far from scientific but, I think, my sample of pens still support certain conclusions. I'm willing to discount the number of oval imprints I have as I probably bought more of them based on their being early still, they are far too common based on the sales data for Sheaffer in 1914 of $100,927. Contrast that to 1919 sales of $761,137 and I think you'll see my point - I should have vast numbers of block style raised thread models.

Other evidence are the ads that show that the nib being used on the earliest Sheaffer's was the "No.X" (o underlined). I have one example of this as the standard nib we see omits the "No." and just states "X". Most oval imprint pens have the standard nib which starts in the ads in late 1915. This is well past the 1914 cutoff. If we compare the sales figures to the examples I have and discount the oval examples by 50% we still get a comparison that supports the oval imprint going into 1917. Keep in mind the vast majority of the oval imprint pens have the standard nib that starts in late 1915 so production into 1917 seems reasonable to me as sales grow to support the examples found. This is further supported by the 1917 or 1918 catalogue (showing the soldier on the cover) as the display case is showing the oval imprint on the glass front.

We have extremely limited numbers of the pen thru the S imprint so it could easily have been produced for a short time beteen the oval and the first block style. As we know the block style continues into the 1920's the order is clear. Therefore, our limited number of first block pens would be 1918-1919 as production is much higher in these years though examples relatively scarce compared to ovals. 1920 proceeds with first style block and flat profile threads. There is a rare fancy block with raised threads which is presumed to be the interim between the pen thru S and the first block. I think photos will make this clear. I'll take better imprint pictures and add them later as I don't have block imprint pics also pic and illustrations of the two nib types would be helpful.

Roger W.


1912 Imprint found only on single bar pens (1912-March 1913)


Top two are oval imprints 1913-1917


Pen thru S - circa 1917


Interim block imprint - one pen known - circa 1917

OK, more pics primarily and a sumation. While I think the ads stand up as probably not reused artwork until late 1919 when the raised threads go away primarily speaking to the oval imprint originally thought to be 1913-1914 there are just too many of them extant to support the fledgling sales figures for the first two years of the corporation. The oval imprint was used longer. It was the first commercial imprint and Sheaffer critically decides when they do change it to omit 1,064,098 issued 6/10/13. Further, if getting patents on were so vital why wait to get the 11/24/1914 why not issue new imprints when the 1/27/1914 was issued? Certainly, the patents were important just not critical - the all important lever and double bar were covered.


I love the large central S with the pen thru it but I think it was too elaborate to be produced. Then there is the unique blockish design that must be the precursor to the block inprint. Illistrated is the first block with "o" in Co. underlined this was modified to a capital "O" circa 1921.

I've also pictured the early nib and the common 2 Self-Filling.


Roger W.



The earliest nibs being supplied to Sheaffer on the small pens were with a teardrop breather hole. These were in ads thru 1915! though rarely seen on actual oval imprint pens.



The standard 2 Self-Filling nib first in ads during 1916 with the heart shaped breather hole.

The imprints in sequence -








1913-1917, 1917,1917, 1918-1921 The short lived imprints could be as late as 1918 but, based on the quantity of example sof first block with raised threads they have to have a couple of years production so 1918-1919 or maybe as early as late 1917-1919 but I firmly believe that we are in that range.

This is well reasoned.  I'd independently concluded that there were too many of the oval imprints extant, if it was assumed its use ended in 1914.  And it was clear that the oval-imprint logo continued in use for some time, as in the display cases etc.

Hi Roger,

Couple details to clarify...

We have little in the way of catalogues - 1912 or early 13 showing the single bar, later 1913 showing the double bar

To what bars do you refer?

The oval imprint was used longer. It was the first commercial imprint and Sheaffer critically decides when they do change it to omit 1,064,098 issued 6/10/13.

How was this the first commercial imprint? Are earlier imprint(s) found on pens not meant for routine sale?


-d

Hi Roger,

Couple details to clarify...

To what bars do you refer?

How was this the first commercial imprint? Are earlier imprint(s) found on pens not meant for routine sale?

-d

David;

Bars - where the people meet.. Rapture, be pure...


Anyway...

The second patent that Sheaffer takes out is the one that corrects the major flaw in the first patent. The original lever worked directly against a single bar (pressure bar) to flatten the sac and depended on the resiliency of the sac to return the bar and keep the lever in its normal resting place. Within a year of original production some of the sacs proved to be not that resilient which lead to "floppy lever". Floppy lever could catch going into the pocket and squirt ink everywhere therefore, add to the single bar a spring. This spring is the second "bar" that alleviates the need to rely on the sac to return the pressure bar and lever to the normal resting place.

This second bar is the point of contention as to who actually invented it leading to what we commonly call the Kraker case. Kraker, an original investor in Sheaffer, had taken Harvey Craig with them to Kansas (Kraker involved two brothers but, Joseph was a silent partner who had some money) and claimed that Harvey had actually invented the double bar lever. However, Harvey's testimony is so pathetic that one wonders if he had ever seen a double bar let alone had the ability to invent one. The case went in W. A. Sheaffer's favor so they continued and Kraker didn't.

Commercial imprint...I guess that is the way I'd always thought about it as a 1912 imprinted pen is practically impossible to find. This is in error. The 1912 imprint is pre Sheaffer corporation (incorporated in January 1913) but was meant to be commercial as 35,000 pens were produced with single lever bars (actually there is a small overlap where single bars were made by the corporation for a few months presumably having the first imprint). While Walter (W.A. Sheaffer) testified that the single bar lever was perfectly reliable it is clear that these pens were redeemed with a vengeance as extremely few of the 35,000 have survived to this day.

Roger W.

David;

SNIP

Commercial imprint...I guess that is the way I'd always thought about it as a 1912 imprinted pen is practically impossible to find. This is in error. The 1912 imprint is pre Sheaffer corporation (incorporated in January 1913) but was meant to be commercial as 35,000 pens were produced with single lever bars (actually there is a small overlap where single bars were made by the corporation for a few months presumably having the first imprint). While Walter (W.A. Sheaffer) testified that the single bar lever was perfectly reliable it is clear that these pens were redeemed with a vengeance as extremely few of the 35,000 have survived to this day.

Roger W.

Not sure how we'd know they were redeemed (recalled?). Sheaffer was a new company in 1912 with small run of pens. Had it failed in few years, it would have been just one more tiny 1910's maker today seeing occasional pen crop up today , with no literature available to provide info. Seems unsurprising that a first-style pen, issued in low run with very basic look, would not be prevalent now. Of course, all that does not disprove a recall. Still...

-d

Not sure how we'd know they were redeemed (recalled?). Sheaffer was a new company in 1912 with small run of pens. Had it failed in few years, it would have been just one more tiny 1910's maker today seeing occasional pen crop up today , with no literature available to provide info. Seems unsurprising that a first-style pen, issued in low run with very basic look, would not be prevalent now. Of course, all that does not disprove a recall. Still...

-d

There is the survivability factor which may explain a great deal of how many we see if a factor of 10,000 pens to have one survives holds. Sheaffer testifies that 35,000 of the first type pen were made so to have 4 survive might be the most we could expect. We do know though that company reps would often replace stock and since Sheaffer knew that the first type pen was defective many of these would have been replaced. Now maybe the factor of 1 in 10,000 surviving holds true no matter if we have early replacement or the been broke/wore out over time with this being a special case. Sheaffer would have pulled back many defective pieces that they could. We know from Sheaffer's biography that they recalled all of the first ink that they sold circa 1921 due to its negative interaction with residue of other ink types that may have been used in the pen prior to the use of Sheaffer's ink. This may have lead to Skrip being uniquely named and called writing fluid rather than ink on its introduction a couple of years after Sheaffer ink.

Roger W.

Back on topic. There is one imprint that I had mentioned that was not included, that of the Large S's. I had assumed before that this was the third imprint after the central S with pen thru it. Upon compiling my data on 124 different hard rubber models I noted two things about this imprint. First, it could not be the third imprint due to it having flat profile barrel threads which weren't introduced until late 1919 at the earliest. Well, the first block imprint stradles raised threads and flat profile threads so this made the large S's a concurrent imprint with other imprints in use rather than an imprint that was in some way sequential. Secondly, and if anyone has an example contrary to this I'd love to see it, the large S's imprint is only found on 2 sized pens! Of 13 examples I have and of a few more examples other collectors have, I have not seen this imprint to be on any pen larger than a 2.

No indication about the large S's can be gained from ads as from 1914 on Sheaffer's logo was a large second "S". So from the characteristics of the pens we have a range from late 1919 to 1922. Around the end of the range the 22 Student Special is introduced. I need to emphasize however, that not all 2 pens of this period had the large S's imprint as some of them have the first block imprint. The large S's tend to be 2's a draped long thin pen with a clip though 1/4" and 1/2" band models were made as well. Therefore, 2's with large S's are clearly concurrent with other 2's being made at the same time.

The reason for the large S's imprint is not able to be determined at this time however, I've some bold speculation. What if these specially marked small pens, that you will note leave off the first two patent dates, (the meaning to that eludes me even taking into account the rest of what I am going to state) are the evidence of what was produced in Kansas after Sheaffer took over the Kraker factory? It would explain the use of a concurrent imprint that we do not often see and maybe why it is found only on 2 sized pens as that might be the only size that was ran in Kansas. This could be all wrong but, I think it has merit though. Yes, they are marked Iowa but, Sheaffer wasn't likely to say they had pens coming from the Kraker works but, we know that Sheaffer did not dissolve Kraker until December 30, 1921!


Roger W.


Large S's imprint found on 2's 1919-1922



The large S's ran concurrently with this first block imprint and the second block imprint (first block 1917-1921 approx.)

Back on topic. There is one imprint that I had mentioned that was not included, that of the Large S's. I had assumed before that this was the third imprint after the central S with pen thru it. Upon compiling my data on 124 different hard rubber models I noted two things about this imprint. First, it could not be the third imprint due to it having flat profile barrel threads which weren't introduced until late 1919 at the earliest. Well, the first block imprint stradles raised threads and flat profile threads so this made the large S's a concurrent imprint with other imprints in use rather than an imprint that was in some way sequential. Secondly, and if anyone has an example contrary to this I'd love to see it, the large S's imprint is only found on 2 sized pens! Of 13 examples I have and of a few more examples other collectors have, I have not seen this imprint to be on any pen larger than a 2.

I don't follow this reasoning. Why must the large-S imprint have been concurrent with other imprints? Is it possible it was used briefly after the first (trapezoidal) block imprint and before the second (rectangular) block imprint?

I would like to note that I've located an example of a large-S imprint pen bearing no model stamp but it was found with a No. 3 nib in it.

--Daniel

David:

It is well-documented that Sheaffer made a prompt and vigorous effort to recall all of the single-bar pens once the double-bar pen was introduced.  I am not surprised that this would have been very successful, since the original design was seriously defective (think of a Wahl, but without anything to keep the lever in the closed position, and with no linkage of the pressure bar and the end of the lever).  I would expect that virtually every single-bar pen would have ended up malfunctioning as soon as the sac took a bit of a set, with the pressure bar slipping sideways, the lever flopping about, and the sac getting tangled in both.  The pen would then have been brought back to where it was purchased, and the retailer -- under direct instructions from Sheaffer -- would have given the customer a new double-bar pen and forwarded the old single-bar pen to the factory for full credit: a win-win-win situation for customer, retailer, and manufacturer.

It is also well-documented that Sheaffer destroyed nearly all of the recalled/exchanged single-bar pens, the remainder being recycled as cutaway demonstrators for the double-bar mechanism.  A few such survivors are known.

Regarding the overall survival rate, this is clearly a bit of a special case.  I would also urge caution with that 35,000 figure.  That is cited as the number of single-bar pens produced, but that does not mean that 35,000 were sold.  At the time the problems with these pens became apparent, a significant number likely were still in process: either sitting in the factory, ready to be shipped, or held by distributors and retailers.  This would have contributed yet further to the success rate of Sheaffer's recall effort.

For a review of all this, readers should take a look at my article here, originally published in the PENnant in 2001.

David:

It is well-documented that Sheaffer made a prompt and vigorous effort to recall all of the single-bar pens once the double-bar pen was introduced. I am not surprised that this would have been very successful, since the original design was seriously defective (think of a Wahl, but without anything to keep the lever in the closed position, and with no linkage of the pressure bar and the end of the lever). I would expect that virtually every single-bar pen would have ended up malfunctioning as soon as the sac took a bit of a set, with the pressure bar slipping sideways, the lever flopping about, and the sac getting tangled in both. The pen would then have been brought back to where it was purchased, and the retailer -- under direct instructions from Sheaffer -- would have given the customer a new double-bar pen and forwarded the old single-bar pen to the factory for full credit: a win-win-win situation for customer, retailer, and manufacturer.

It is also well-documented that Sheaffer destroyed nearly all of the recalled/exchanged single-bar pens, the remainder being recycled as cutaway demonstrators for the double-bar mechanism. A few such survivors are known.

SNIP

Hi Devid,

Thanks for chiming in. While of course it is good that something claimed is well-documented, Roger did not mention in his post its well -documentedness,

And... I am- obviously- unfamiliar with said documentation.

If not able to post the documentation, per se, I'd be interested to know at least what is the involved documentation... an internal memo, advert announcing recall, etc.

In meantime, I will read your article.

Thanks

David

I don't follow this reasoning. Why must the large-S imprint have been concurrent with other imprints? Is it possible it was used briefly after the first (trapezoidal) block imprint and before the second (rectangular) block imprint?

I would like to note that I've located an example of a large-S imprint pen bearing no model stamp but it was found with a No. 3 nib in it.

--Daniel

If you could be so kind as to supply the diameter and length I'd be glad to compare it to the others I have and see if the 3 nib is likely correct or not. The differences between the two block imprints are so minor as to exclude in my mind that the one is not a direct continuation of the other. Model stamps on the large S's is about a 50/50 propostion as are two breather holes in the cap compared with four. The large S's 2 1/2S model that I have is sporting a 1930's "3" nib but, the model is stamped on the barrel. Of the 13 models of large S's imprints 3 have uncharacteristic nibs.

The range of manufacture of the large S's imprint and its method of manufacture fit into how Krarker pens were produced. The one Kraker pen I have is different mainly in the lever position and the lever specifically (cap length is slightly longer on the Kraker). The pens are approximately the same length and the caps are interchangeable. Another subtle difference is that the Kraker's ends are somewhat domed as earlier Sheaffers were. I suspect that the 2 was selling the most units for Sheaffer and is the size most commonly found. We know Sheaffer was operating the Kraker factory with an open question as to what was being produced. 2's being the type pen most commonly needed the overflow of production may realistically have been handled in Kansas. The large S's imprint would allow for Sheaffer to identify those pieces produced there though retaining the corporate headquarters on the imprint - Fort Madison. There are three or so boxes of materials in the Sheaffer archives that are specifically Kraker and I hope the proof lies there though access is not possible at this time.

Further, Sheaffer did not adopt the flat profile threads until a little over a year after Sheaffer had acquired Kraker. In Dennis Bowden's collection of Krakers they were all found to be flat profile threaded barrels with Kraker having been incorporated in 1914 so Sheaffers switch to flat profile threads is likely to have come from adopting Krakers barrel threading techniques.


Roger W.

David:

It is well-documented that Sheaffer made a prompt and vigorous effort to recall all of the single-bar pens once the double-bar pen was introduced. I am not surprised that this would have been very successful, since the original design was seriously defective (think of a Wahl, but without anything to keep the lever in the closed position, and with no linkage of the pressure bar and the end of the lever). I would expect that virtually every single-bar pen would have ended up malfunctioning as soon as the sac took a bit of a set, with the pressure bar slipping sideways, the lever flopping about, and the sac getting tangled in both. The pen would then have been brought back to where it was purchased, and the retailer -- under direct instructions from Sheaffer -- would have given the customer a new double-bar pen and forwarded the old single-bar pen to the factory for full credit: a win-win-win situation for customer, retailer, and manufacturer.

It is also well-documented that Sheaffer destroyed nearly all of the recalled/exchanged single-bar pens, the remainder being recycled as cutaway demonstrators for the double-bar mechanism. A few such survivors are known.
SNIP

David;

I'm very likely to have read this years ago and retained the sense of it though, did not recollect and quote from it. As I recall it is a very solid article and stood up to my scrutiny as it was at the time. Being based so much from the Barrett case (commonly called Kraker case) it was based on a first hand document with numerous citings of same. My speculating that the large S's imprint comes from Kansas is not so neatly done. I hope more substantiation can be made as I would not like to have the large S's imprint called the "Kansas Sheaffer" or such if it ultimately is not true - certainly a clear danger.

Roger W.

Roger,

If I may be so bold, please stop referring to Kraker as having been in Kansas. Either use Kansas City (Missouri) or just Missouri. Just a matter of local pride.

Thanks,

Dennis

Roger,

If I may be so bold, please stop referring to Kraker as having been in Kansas. Either use Kansas City (Missouri) or just Missouri. Just a matter of local pride.

Thanks,

Dennis

Dennis;

Yes, I mean the city (in Missouri) not the State. So "Kansas City, MO - Sheaffer". I don't think it flows so well but, point well taken as people can't generally read my mind. Maybe we should upset Walter, if we're right on this, and call them "Kraker Sheaffer" - that sounds kinda cool!

Roger W.