Need help on Sheaffer Fountain Pens

[Pjculbertson]

I am interested in learning about Sheaffer fountain pens from the 1920 to 1950 era. Can anyone suggest a book or site that I can refer to for information on telling the age of the pen, facts about the features of that time, etc.?

[whych]

You can start here:
http://penhero.com/PenGallery/Sheaffer/Sheaffer.htm

[Pjculbertson]

Thank you.

[Lazard]

I am interested in learning about Sheaffer fountain pens from the 1920 to 1950 era. Can anyone suggest a book or site that I can refer to for information on telling the age of the pen, facts about the features of that time, etc.?

Hello. To begin with here you are a Sheaffer´S Catalog with the iconic Jade Radite forward. Enjoy them.

Catálogo Sheaffer´S

[whych]

@Lazard
Thanks for the catalogue link - I now know approximately when my sterling silver pencil was made.

[Roger W.]

"Hello. To begin with here you are the 1926 models with the iconic Jade Radite forward. Enjoy them." - Lazard

Per usual you can't get your facts straight. This is a 1925 catalog. No it is not dated so you have to research what is in it and when the most probable year in which it was produced. Secretarys were actively advertised in the summer of 1925. If it were a 1926 catalog it would likely have the jade 3-25's which it does not. This catalog is then, most likely, 1925 and not 1926.

Roger W.

[Lazard]

It is possible 1925 ¿1925 date paper edition or 1925 selling season? I do not know and neither do you seem to know. I will not argue this as well Skrip traveler´s case 1925, Jet (black) Radite 1926 ads and some desktop patents filed in first part of 1926 leave me calmer placing this catalog in 1926 or 1926 season. In the absence of confirmation I prefer not to speculate with 3-25 serie but you can do it. In any case I think nobody cares if this catalog was for seasons 1925 or for 1925 evening or 1926 morning.

[Roger W.]

It's a 1925 catalog until you can prove otherwise - I have submitted my proofs. I must correct myself though as I meant the jade 46 and not the later 3-25 which is a very important distinction. I'm not letting you get away with "who cares" as you often have beaten up on fine details where you have lacked facts in the past. I have presented pertinent facts to date the catalog to a specific year. 1926 would be too late for the presentation of red Secretary pens. A dealer catalog (and the catalogs were for dealers and not the general populace) would proceed general advertising to the public as the Saturday Evening Post ad was in the summer of 1925. So, based on the information contained in the catalog, make sure you correct your referencing of it to 1925.

Roger W.

[Lazard]

You mean that is a catalog printed in 1925 for the 1925 season because you say so despite in the catalog there are not date references?

All your speculation is based on conjecture whether if first is the ad and then a catalog or catalog first and then ad. You take what you want and let other ads as Jet Radite. Your claim is pure and simple speculation.

You have proven absolutely nothing -and nothing you could prove because print date would not necessarily to coincide with seasonal sales so it is better be wiser as I do- but this ausence of probatory evidence as well as your mistake and confusion about jade 46 with 3-25 does not care anyone and less even to this thread.

On the dates that we are proper to men of good will and because your insistence on the matter I have removed all references to the year that seems not like you.

As I said I will not argue this.

For you: Do not look at others. Look into your own website and corrects Walter Sheaffer Memories in which lack a page. Not, better two pages. I could tell you where to find this pages.

For other: Do not eat popcorn. You will get fat and in the Pendom playgroup other children will laugh to you and they will joke with your thick.

[SFKenk]

Gentlemen, please take your disagreement outside. I really don't care to smell your dirty laundry.

Back to our OP, also check out Richard Binder's site http://richardspens.com/ under reference pages.

[Roger W.]

lazard;

What are we to do with you? Jet radite is too wide a point so no reference would be proved by it. I offer you specifics that pen down the catalog to a reasonable year. At least call it mid 20's if you won't believe my reasoning. The Sheaffer memoirs (not memories) are missing a couple pages is a common copy - I think it lacks the details of moving the large tree - none too significant and I've seen the missing two pages. That's just you and your paper tigers however. My claim on the catalog is reasoned illustrations as to when it would logically have been printed and not "pure and simple speculation". 1925 is a good basis for the catalog in question and until proved otherwise, is the widely accepted date.

Roger W.

[HughC]

Interesting catalog, I'm not sure that adding ones "logo" ( Lazard....) to a Sheaffer publication now in the public domain is acceptable practice as you have no claim to the material ( nor does scanning it or reposting a scan acquired from some one give you a right), perhaps a discreet " Scan provide courtesy of Lazard" would be both sufficient and acceptable. Suffice to say I've seen it called a 1926 one ( did you acquire this copy from Billspens ?) which on fact would appear a year late, most likely a '25 one. Still given the relative unimportance of this to most ( of the non hardcore folk) a year either way isn't such a big deal.

Regards
Hugh

[kirchh]

Lazard:

You are incorrect. The catalog was issued in advance of the Christmas, 1925 selling season, per announcements in the trade press.

You make a lot of errors, which is fine. However, you never admit your errors, even when faced with proof. That is a crippling flaw in a researcher, and until you change your attitude about being corrected, you will forever be imprisoned by your irrational stubbornness.

--Daniel

[Lazard]

K. You are doing a great contribution to the sale of popcorn and malt "chupitos".

In the first entry qualify someone of irrational stubbornness (more hardcore folk) could be understood as not polite but I could excuse this if the writer lacks reason o have nerves.

Your post is so full of words and adjectives as absent of proof. You do not contribute a single justification for what you say. We want see announcements in the trade press of this catalog.

it is pitty, you once more forget to provide the document that justifies the date, please, the date of the letter that S´S sent to dealers attach to this catalog. We've seen you another time try justify the existence of a 1945 fpen with 1948 documents. What you going to do again?

Additionally, to meddle correctly, you would have to provide evidence that Sheaffer'S put vigency to this catalog only until 1925 because if prices and models were maintained in all or most of 1926 there is nothing to prevent say 1926 catalog, because it was certainly effective in 1926.

Although obvious , I will also say that if I say 1925 you would have asked me. ¿1925? Do you have any evidence of this? Have you any evidence that was not in force in 1926?

Everything is so predictable that, frankly, bored.

I put task for you: Show us the S´S letter accompanying the catalog to dealers with date and limiting catalog effect only until 1925. When you find it, please warn me.

[kirchh]

K. You are doing a great contribution to the sale of popcorn and malt "chupitos".

In the first entry qualify someone of irrational stubbornness (more hardcore folk) could be understood as not polite but I could excuse this if the writer lacks reason o have nerves.

Your post is so full of words and adjectives as absent of proof. You do not contribute a single justification for what you say. We want see announcements in the trade press of this catalog.

it is pitty, you once more forget to provide the document that justifies the date, please, the date of the letter that S´S sent to dealers attach to this catalog. We've seen you another time try justify the existence of a 1945 fpen with 1948 documents. What you going to do again?

Additionally, to meddle correctly, you would have to provide evidence that Sheaffer'S put vigency to this catalog only until 1925 because if prices and models were maintained in all or most of 1926 there is nothing to prevent say 1926 catalog, because it was certainly effective in 1926.

Although obvious , I will also say that if I say 1925 you would have asked me. ¿1925? Do you have any evidence of this? Have you any evidence that was not in force in 1926?

Everything is so predictable that, frankly, bored.

I put task for you: Show us the S´S letter accompanying the catalog to dealers with date and limiting catalog effect only until 1925. When you find it, please warn me.

You are very confused about how catalogs are dated. When someone knowledgeable, such as Roger Wooten, says a catalog dates to 1925, he means the catalog appeared in 1925. He makes no representation about when it was superseded, which is an entirely different matter. The point, of course, is that dating the appearance of the catalog allows us to know more about the dating of the pens that appear in the catalog. Therefore, your attempt to paper over your error by claiming that the catalog may have remained in effect in 1926, and therefore you are correct in calling it the 1926 catalog, is a failure.

You deemed the catalog to be 1926. You were wrong. A researcher with integrity would simply admit it, rather than frantically scrambling to find some tortured reasoning to squirm out of admitting the mistake. This has become a pattern of yours, along with simply fleeing threads when you are proven wrong, as has happened many times now on FPN.

Furthermore, as you have now expressed your position that you would still consider it a 1926 catalog even if it was issued in 1925, there is no point in going to the effort to give you further evidence -- you will not change your position. That's your loss.

--Daniel

[kirchh]

Gentlemen, please take your disagreement outside. I really don't care to smell your dirty laundry.

Unless you are a moderator, you do not have the authority to tell others what they may post here.

If you do not like someone's posts, I suggest you simply skip them, or use the ignore function.

--Daniel

[Lazard]

We now eat popcorn left over from the Sunday session.

You dont convince anyone, you have to try harder. To date a catalog by the presence or absence in it of a simple model is typical of newbies despite who can say it would be very Pendom wise. To try correcting someone who has not been directed to you by month/s a document 90 years old rather own something Childcare... do so without evidence nor proof, own child tantrum.

Users let you put the last post because they do not want to be answered with your strong words but you can be sure that many see your intervention as unnecessary. It's tacky that you punching wash clothing in the garden as someone also said and you answered him with your proverbial wrong way. He is right although he did not bother to answer you.

Do you think that your last post was remaining, really unanswered because the popcorn is finished, you have the right?. Not so, you are simply encouraged by a small something corporatist group. In the majority of users you stay as intransigent without proof. Your personal comments about me enabled me to say you that is the intransigence what lost you.

I open another thread about another topic: a less usual Sheaffer´S one-stroke vacuum. Be true to yourself and leave one last post here. I ran out of popcorn now.

[Lazard]

@HughC. I´ve noted your reflections for possible future occasions. Thanks

[kirchh]

We now eat popcorn left over from the Sunday session.

You dont convince anyone, you have to try harder. To date a catalog by the presence or absence in it of a simple model is typical of newbies despite who can say it would be very Pendom wise. To try correcting someone who has not been directed to you by month/s a document 90 years old rather own something Childcare... do so without evidence nor proof, own child tantrum.

Users let you put the last post because they do not want to be answered with your strong words but you can be sure that many see your intervention as unnecessary. It's tacky that you punching wash clothing in the garden as someone also said and you answered him with your proverbial wrong way. He is right although he did not bother to answer you.

Do you think that your last post was remaining, really unanswered because the popcorn is finished, you have the right?. Not so, you are simply encouraged by a small something corporatist group. In the majority of users you stay as intransigent without proof. Your personal comments about me enabled me to say you that is the intransigence what lost you.

I open another thread about another topic: a less usual Sheaffer´S one-stroke vacuum. Be true to yourself and leave one last post here. I ran out of popcorn now.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying.

In any event, for others who are interested, the catalog was issued in 1925. An announcement is found in a 1925 issue of the National Association News. Given past history, I have no expectation that Lazard will issue a correction, but others may find the truth to be of value.

To those who do not see any importance in dating a catalog as precisely as possible, I would explain that the absolute date is useful, but determining the relative dates of catalogs (and ads, and patents, and so on) is crucial to understanding the history of the fountain pen (and of other items as well), and knowing the absolute dates, of course, leads to knowing the relative dates. If we don't care whether a catalog was printed in 1925 or 1926, we must also not care if, for example, one maker's new pen model follows or precedes another's. But those facts are crucial to figuring out what happened and why.

--Daniel

[HughC]

To those who do not see any importance in dating a catalog as precisely as possible, I would explain that the absolute date is useful, but determining the relative dates of catalogs (and ads, and patents, and so on) is crucial to understanding the history of the fountain pen (and of other items as well), and knowing the absolute dates, of course, leads to knowing the relative dates. If we don't care whether a catalog was printed in 1925 or 1926, we must also not care if, for example, one maker's new pen model follows or precedes another's. But those facts are crucial to figuring out what happened and why.

--Daniel

Hi Daniel,

No doubt it's important to be precise with dates especially when you wish to acquire the deep understanding that you have gained over the years. With my interest in steamline Conklins I've found two versions of the 1931 catalog....with two different versions of the same pen (catalog ID)..which caused me some angst until I realized there where two cataloga so I understand where you're coming from. Still for the person with a casual interest ( as I have in this case) I suspect a year or two makes little practical difference for them, the more interest you develop this would no doubt change.

Regards
Hugh