Jump to content


Photo

Early Waterman Eyedroppers


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 brando090

brando090

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 03:20 AM

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and their current values (given these auctions were from time ago).

http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838

Edited by brando090, 14 May 2013 - 07:53 PM.


#2 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:40 AM

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago).

http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838


The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school...


regards
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#3 FarmBoy

FarmBoy

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 676 posts
  • LocationSFO USA

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:13 PM

I predict that the Internet will someday be so big that there are companies that do nothing but search it looking for answers.

Until that happens click HERE. Choose the second link to answer your questions.

#4 Inkysloth

Inkysloth

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 166 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:12 PM

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838

The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regards



I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling

Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."

Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml

If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.

However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.

Edited by Inkysloth, 14 May 2013 - 02:21 PM.

My prints and cards: http://www.etsy.com/shop/Inkysloth

#5 brando090

brando090

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 07:54 PM


I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago).

http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838


The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school...


regards


Fixed?...

MIT would be great, they encompass all the careers I'm looking into. University of Chicago is also in the realm :)

#6 Inkysloth

Inkysloth

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 166 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:18 PM

Fixed?...

MIT would be great, they encompass all the careers I'm looking into. University of Chicago is also in the realm :)


Nearly!

"I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and their current values (given these auctions were from time ago)2."

1) would otherwise have never known prior OR, more simply & clearly, "didn't know before"
2) When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)

Best wishes!

Robin

Edited by Inkysloth, 14 May 2013 - 08:21 PM.

My prints and cards: http://www.etsy.com/shop/Inkysloth

#7 brando090

brando090

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:55 PM


Fixed?...

MIT would be great, they encompass all the careers I'm looking into. University of Chicago is also in the realm :)


Nearly!

"I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I would otherwise have never known prior to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and their current values (given these auctions were from time ago)2."

1) would otherwise have never known prior OR, more simply & clearly, "didn't know before"
2) When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)

Best wishes!

Robin


Thanks Robin, that second mistake I can't believe I missed. So the final version;

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)

Edited by brando090, 15 May 2013 - 01:39 AM.


#8 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:11 PM

SNIP

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)


Do try the first sentence again...

regards

david
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#9 BrianMcQueen

BrianMcQueen

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 1,017 posts
  • LocationLynchburg, VA

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:07 AM

Brandon, if I were you I would click on each link that has been shared in this thread. While David Nishimura's site about Waterman's numbering system is particularly useful for pen collecting (especially for someone like yourself who seems to love Waterman overlays) the links to grammatical assistance are useful for your life in general. You will NOT make it into MIT with grammar as bad as I have seen from you in your posts.

#10 brando090

brando090

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:40 AM


SNIP

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)


Do try the first sentence again...

regards

david


Got it. Finally!

#11 brando090

brando090

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:41 AM

Brandon, if I were you I would click on each link that has been shared in this thread. While David Nishimura's site about Waterman's numbering system is particularly useful for pen collecting (especially for someone like yourself who seems to love Waterman overlays) the links to grammatical assistance are useful for your life in general. You will NOT make it into MIT with grammar as bad as I have seen from you in your posts.


Nishimura's site regarding the Waterman numbering system is incredibly useful. I use it at least once a week, if not multiple times a week. I'll check out the grammar site.

#12 brando090

brando090

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:54 AM

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838

The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regards



I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling

Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."

Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml

If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.

However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.


I appreciate the time spent to get those wonderful English resources. They did help, and I'll be sure to re-use them if I forget how to use some of those words in the correct way.

#13 PatMorgan

PatMorgan

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:16 AM


I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838

The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regards



I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling

Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."

Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml

If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.

However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.


I appreciate the time spent to get those wonderful English resources. They did help, and I'll be sure to re-use them if I forget how to use some of those words in the correct way.


Brandon

There is a great deal of information at the Oatmeal link. The information is a good refresher for me and invaluable for a student such as yourself. I suggest making it a daily practice to read this resource until the drills are standard. It will help you in high school, college and it will help you later in life. Your choice as to what you plan to do. Perhaps spending more time at honing your basic educational skills rather than researching pens will make a bigger impact on your life financially.

#14 PatMorgan

PatMorgan

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:19 AM

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838

The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regards



I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling

Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."

Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml

If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.

However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.


Thanks for the resources.

#15 brando090

brando090

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:31 AM



I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838

The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regards



I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling

Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."

Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml

If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.

However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.


I appreciate the time spent to get those wonderful English resources. They did help, and I'll be sure to re-use them if I forget how to use some of those words in the correct way.


Brandon

There is a great deal of information at the Oatmeal link. The information is a good refresher for me and invaluable for a student such as yourself. I suggest making it a daily practice to read this resource until the drills are standard. It will help you in high school, college and it will help you later in life. Your choice as to what you plan to do. Perhaps spending more time at honing your basic educational skills rather than researching pens will make a bigger impact on your life financially.


Let's try to keep this short and sweet, as I'm trying to learn about the pen I recently found online.

I definitely will continue to look over that site, and it would help me financially if I was not in this hobby, but than who would buy those pens found in remote corners of the globe...? I enjoy what I do, and I enjoy finding rare pens around the world, or even in my back yard.

We recently changed classes at my school, we have a new program called Maymester, and one of the classes is called "How To Double Your Money In 30 Days." Today I learned about compounding interest, and let me just say... Wow, the money you can start enjoying in your late 50's, early 60's.

Edited by brando090, 15 May 2013 - 02:32 AM.


#16 Procyon

Procyon

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 725 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:38 AM



SNIP

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)


Do try the first sentence again...

regards

david


Got it. Finally!



Really? Where is the corrected version? I am still not sure you understand the problems with your first sentence.

Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar.  And doesn't.

 

 

Regards,
Allan


#17 brando090

brando090

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:44 AM




SNIP

I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)


Do try the first sentence again...

regards

david


Got it. Finally!



Really? Where is the corrected version? I am still not sure you understand the problems with your first sentence.


I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never of known of previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)

#18 BrianMcQueen

BrianMcQueen

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 1,017 posts
  • LocationLynchburg, VA

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:28 AM

Brandon, did you even read the grammar links yet?

Let's try to keep this short and sweet, as I'm trying to learn about the pen I recently found online.

I definitely will continue to look over that site, and it would help me financially if I was not in this hobby, but than who would buy those pens found in remote corners of the globe...?

SNIP


I definitely will continue to look over that site, and it would help me financially if I were not in this hobby, but then who would buy those pens found in remote corners of the globe...?


Really? Where is the corrected version? I am still not sure you understand the problems with your first sentence.


I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never of known of previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)


This "corrected" version is even worse than the original.
Try: I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would have never known of before this find.
Or (much more simply): I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I didn't know about until this find.

A trick that I learned in school and has served me well over the years is this: Read aloud to yourself anything you write. If it sounds funny, you should take a second look at it.

Edited by BrianMcQueen, 15 May 2013 - 03:35 AM.


#19 FarmBoy

FarmBoy

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 676 posts
  • LocationSFO USA

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:35 AM

Having looked at the vintage pens reference, can you determine if there is a Waterman pen identified with the codes 111 and 333? If such pens exist provide the decoded descriptions; if such codes are not plausible, state why.


Farmboy

#20 BrianMcQueen

BrianMcQueen

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 1,017 posts
  • LocationLynchburg, VA

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:48 AM

Removed this post. Basically asked the same thing as FarmBoy.

Edited by BrianMcQueen, 15 May 2013 - 03:49 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users