“Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton
I have so many spare PFM's...
-d
David R. Isaacson, MD
http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.
The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.
The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.
Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy
There you go! You have to appreciate the effort Sheaffer put in on that one. I believe the original name for the Intrigue was "Carrera," but perhaps the fact that Montblanc had already used that label caused Sheaffer to pick a new one before the product got to market. Sometimes these things are unpredictable, and other times reactions are compulsively fast. One could almost make a game of it (and the Internet makes it possible for many to participate these days). Something new comes out, then folks predict how quickly it will elicit a reaction. "Intrigue" is a good name, actually; what's with the sponge cake? I heard it's a lie...
--Daniel
^91/1
“Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton
Jon Szanto (January 24th, 2015)
Actually, it was Daniel Kirchheimer who invented the North Tower/South Tower terminology, back in 2006. I wanted to adopt it into my PFM profile, but everyone I consulted was horrified because of the tremendous emotional baggage those two names carried at the time. Now, with One World Trade Center standing, I might have to go ahead with the adoption. Food for thought.
Good to know. We wee dabbler's had been discussing the pattern variation for years of course-- hardly anything new there-- but when you used those terms over drinks, you didn't cite source. Naughty Richard.
Good to see Danny is following this chat so closely, as I knew he must. Bonus.
-d
Last edited by david i; January 24th, 2015 at 12:28 PM.
David R. Isaacson, MD
http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.
The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.
The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.
Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy
(1) I am old enough to have seen TV commercials for the Snorkel. Suggested that the snork works like a mosquito...or one of those evil bugs in a 1950s horror movie. Bad association.
(2) The PfM and the Parker 61 show the different design directions the Big Two took toward the end of the "Golden Era". Goal, probably, was to minimize ink spills, to reduce messiness so a fountain pen could compete with ballpoints. Sheaffer designed a complex system -- many moving parts, the fiddly-weird Rube Goldberg quality that JAR mentions. "Takes the dunk out of filling", a slogan that Sheaffer put on their ink boxes. Parker went for simplicity, and the capillary system is nearly perfect. No moving parts. I suppose you could make a large mess by breaking off the capillary tube, but an owner would not have done that by accident. Parker then moved to the cartridge / converter, a system so good that it is used 65 years later.
(Consider: about 1963, Sheaffer was selling the snorkelized PfM, cartridge-only school pens, and soon Imperials with a touchdown filler, cartridge-only Imperials, and c/c Imperials. It looks as if Sheaffer was "thrashing": computer database jargon. They probably should have adopted one filling system, and stuck with it)
Ah, if Eversharp had been able to market a pen with their wonderful nibs but using the cartridge and converter rather than lever-and-sac. Eversharp might have survived, or, at least, survived longer.
The 61 may have had not moving parts, but it had plenty of parts (actually, there is a moving part -- the valve in the rear of the barrel), as restorers know all too well. And the Snorkel was a great success, while the capillary-filling 61, not so much. The absence of a built-in way to force liquid through the filling/feeding channels was a serious defect.
I would condense your characterization of Sheaffer's filling systems; the PFM is an enhanced Touchdown, and I'm not sure what a cartridge-only Imperial is, though I'm no expert on all the models being offered in '63, so fill me in on that. And the school pens, I believe, could use a converter, though they weren't sold with one due to their positioning low in the line, price-wise. So there was a Touchdown system (with a Snorkel variation) and there was a C/C setup, really (barring a true cartridge-only setup).
I also don't consider the Snorkel to be fiddly; properly restored, they can work without repair for a decade or more. As for the part count, a Vacumatic "51" had plenty of bits, too, though it's not considered a complex pen.
--Daniel
“Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton
Found it.
A rare PFM. See if you spot the good stuff.
regards
d
David R. Isaacson, MD
http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.
The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.
The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.
Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy
In most disciplines, the person whose discovery is documented to the earliest date is the one who gets credit for it. You may have been discussing the variation for years, but it wasn't with me. I have no memory of discussing PFM cap patterns with anyone until I discovered the difference in 2006 and asked Daniel about it. A couple of emails went back and forth concerning the loan of a cap in the pattern I didn't have (the block pattern), and in one of them Daniel mentioned the North Tower/South Tower names. So I hereby award credit for this one to Daniel.
- Sure, the snorkel was a successful system in that Sheaffer sold many of them. However, the several steps needed to fill are a long way from a simple design: twist the blind cap to extend the ink-sucker, then pull out the touchdown part, whoosh it in, and retract. It is among the cleanest filling systems, which was a big selling point in the '50s to people who had completed high school about 1940 using inexpensive lever/sac fountain pens, had seen (and experienced) sacs breaking, had survived WW2, had begun buying houses and having kids in the late '40s and '50s. They knew about ink-stained shirts and the ballpoint appealed to them: especially after ballpoint-makers learned to make a writing ball with many crevices to scrape ink from ballpoint paste. Ballpoints became more reliable.
- The 61 solved the same problem in a simpler way, but had a show-stopper design flaw. Sheaffer's design got more complex while Parker's became simpler.
- Both the snorkel PFM and the 61 depended on a selling and support system -- a supply chain -- that began to fade away after about 1960. Pen counters began to disappear from department stores and department store chains began to fail. The owner of a PaperMate ballpoint could unscrew the cap and replace the writing / ink paste unit...without smearing ink on themselves unless they did something foolish. If your PfM had a problem with the ink-intake tube or the touchdown component, Sheaffer expected you to take the pen back to the dealer, which had Sheaffer repair people or would send the pen to a Sheaffer repair center. The ballpoint made that unnecessary. Similar problem for Parker, which designed the 61 about 1955, when the fountain pen supply chain was about the same as it had been when they sold the Vacumatic. Maybe a worse problem if the 61 dried out.
- the solution, of course, was the Parker 45. I think the 61 is a beautiful pen, but the Parker 75 was easier for an owner to maintain: an upscaled gift pen, a high-end pen that let the owner replace a nib or a barrel or a converter.
- Sheaffer filling systems: I used a Sheaffer school pen from 4th grade through 6th grade, roughly 1957 - 1960. Never saw a converter before I got a P-45 in 1961. Bought one for nostalgia a few years ago, but could not fit a current Sheaffer converter. Cartridge-only Imperials? I have one that seems to be an Imperial IV (gold nib, says Imperial IV on the box) but won't take a Sheaffer converter. Modern cartridges will work, but a modern twist converter won't fit and neither will an older squeeze converter -- from a Sheaffer 330.
Straw man. You are arguing positions that are not in debate, as if they are in debate.
Following your revelation as to where you heard the cited terms, I made no assertion about credit that required any further response from you *to me*. Generally speaking, "Good to know" is an acknowledgement of a point, not something to be argued *against*
And, you appear to have misread my sentence. I did not say that you and I were discussing the variants for years, so you neither confirm nor refute anything by saying you and I hadn't been discussing the subject for years (or, more specifically, for years prior to your gaining awareness of the jargon in question). My sentence reads specifically, "We wee dabblers had been discussing...", not "You and I had been discussing...".
Best to keep details clear so as not to mislead readers.
I do rather enjoy that Danny is kept so involved.
regards
David
Last edited by david i; January 24th, 2015 at 05:26 PM.
David R. Isaacson, MD
http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.
The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.
The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.
Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy
It should be noted the 61 ended up being offered in c/c form which solved the capillary issues.
'63 did see the introduction of cartridge Imperials, these where labeled "Lifetime" on the clip as well as the Dolphin 1000 ( 1962) , a higher end model, and the Compact Cartridge pens from the same period (?) . This late '50's early '60's was a productive period for Sheaffer when you look at the models available , the following come to mind :Lady Sheaffer, Skripsert cartridge, Imperial ( the first TM TD style) , Target, Imperials ( I-VIII, Triumph, Masterpiece) Craftsman 52, Cadet 23, Craftsman/Cadet tip dips, Compact, Dolphin, PFM and TM Snorkel (up to '62 in Aust.) I tend to agree with Daniel that the snorkel should be considered as an enhanced TD for the sake of simplicity despite the differences. I'm not sure I find filling a Snorkel or a TD any more demanding than a converter ( even changing a cartridge requires a few steps ) , a capillary or a piston. I do find a lever the simplest though.
I have to agree with Welch, the P45 was a groundbreaking pen ( even if originally conceived by Eversharp) and something Sheaffer never quite managed to match ....but I do prefer Sheaffer regardless.
Regards
Hugh
This characterization puzzles me. It is identical as far as the number of steps needed by the user to the ordinary Touchdown system, which can hardly be considered "far from simple," and it is simpler than, say, the Vacumatic system.
Well, in fairness, your not having seen a converter doesn't bear on whether, around 1963, Sheaffer pens that took cartridges could also use a converter. You have a couple of pens from the time that you say won't take a current Sheaffer converter or a squeeze converter, but Sheaffer converters from the mid-'60s might fit perfectly.- Sheaffer filling systems: I used a Sheaffer school pen from 4th grade through 6th grade, roughly 1957 - 1960. Never saw a converter before I got a P-45 in 1961. Bought one for nostalgia a few years ago, but could not fit a current Sheaffer converter. Cartridge-only Imperials? I have one that seems to be an Imperial IV (gold nib, says Imperial IV on the box) but won't take a Sheaffer converter. Modern cartridges will work, but a modern twist converter won't fit and neither will an older squeeze converter -- from a Sheaffer 330.
So again, I'd say Sheaffer had two filling methods around 1963: the Touchdown (and it's equal-number-of-filling-steps Snorkel version) and the cartridge/converter design.
--Daniel
t-1:37
Last edited by kirchh; January 24th, 2015 at 08:39 PM.
“Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton
And, too, there is that Burgundy Autograph.
regards
-d
David R. Isaacson, MD
http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.
The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.
The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.
Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy
Did Sheaffer have converters in 1963? A lack of factual documentation leaves this open, personal opinion is often not the best to rely on.
“Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton
I'd thought I'd shot it, but perhaps not.
Soon...
-d
David R. Isaacson, MD
http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.
The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.
The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.
Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy
Indeed, the obvious answer is yes (therefor questionable) but the lack of anything concrete does make it questionable. I used Sheaffer school pens ( in the '60's in Aust.) and never saw a converter but the cartridges where so cheap it negated the need. I only have one cartridge pen from the early days, a Lady Sheaffer ( clipless like an early Tuckaway, also an ideal woman's pen as you've noted previously), it takes standard cartridges but neither a slim (Targa) nor standard converter fit. Perhaps this point can be discussed in a civil and factual manner as it's relevant. You have the '63 catalog, does it mention converters ? It may be possible Sheaffer was late to use converters which in some ways negate the benefit of a cartridge and perhaps seen as pointless as they offered a variety of similar TD models. It's worth pointing out this is something Parker stopped doing making converters more relevant to them.
Hugh
Bookmarks