I'm New At This Fp Stuff And I Like Sheaffer Pens But ...

[zchen]

The only pen that is exciting in the current Sheaffer line up is the Legacy Heritage and that is a pretty expensive pen. I own and use plenty of Sheaffer's pens but none of them are part of the current production line.

[terim]

It seems like the non-US pen community is fueling much of today's interest, and in many countries Sheaffer was poorly distributed or not available at all. We get a lot of nostalgic interest in our 1970s Sheaffers from the middle-east, but earlier pens are not getting much love internationally. Maybe the lack of flex is dampening interest ....

[CaseyK]

You know what they say about wealth: First generation earns it, second generation keeps it and the third generation spends it. Sheaffer as a company is sort of that way, I think. Walter A. Shearer founded the company and made it a leader with marketing, and innovations. After him, the leaders were not as excited about pens but rather more interested in keeping the company viable without any real passion about pens. The company has since changed hands and now is owned by a company that sold off all the assets except the name and makes a profit on the name with pens that aren't even made very well. Just my opinion.

Edited November 15, 2014 by CaseyK

[kirchh]

You know what they say about wealth: First generation earns it, second generation keeps it and the third generation spends it. Sheaffer as a company is sort of that way, I think. Walter A. Shearer founded the company and made it a leader with marketing, and innovations. After him, the leaders were not as excited about pens but rather more interested in keeping the company viable without any real passion about pens. The company has since changed hands and now is owned by a company that sold off all the assets except the name and makes a profit on the name with pens that aren't even made very well. Just my opinion.

 

I don't think you have your history correct. W. A. Sheaffer stepped down in 1938. The company continued to innovate and to lead for decades after that. And Sheaffer is not now owned by a company that sold off all the assets.

 

It does not serve the hobby to spread misinformation.

 

--Daniel

[CaseyK]

It's my opinion that the company remained viable after W.A. Sheaffer but it began to decline and eventually passed out of the family. At some point the employees were laid off, the buildings were sold and today only the name remains. If I wasn't vague enough I will try to be more so in the future.

Edited November 15, 2014 by CaseyK

[kirchh]

It's my opinion that the company remained viable after W.A. Sheaffer but it began to decline and eventually passed out of the family. At some point the employees were laid off, the buildings were sold and today only the name remains.

 

But it's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact, and the fact is that the company did not begin to decline after 1938, as you claim.

 

The company did eventually pass out of the family, but that was almost 30 years later.

 

If I wasn't vague enough I will try to be more so in the future.

 

I assume you mean "specific." You were sufficiently specific; you were simply in error.

 

--Daniel

[pgmrdan]

So it sounds as if buying new writing instruments under the Sheaffer name may not be a wise thing to do.

 

True statement?

Edited November 15, 2014 by pgmrdan

[CaseyK]

I meant vague. I was trying not to be too specific. I did not mean the company declined after 1938. It remained viable for a time. I don't think fussy filling systems and boring shapes are the same as innovative. You obviously have another viewpoint. I leave it to you to have the last word.

[Parker51]

No one knows what the future holds for the Sheaffer Brand. Cross has been week in Fountain Pens, has moved it's production off shore and it is an unknown as far as what the Cross management hopes to do with it, but maybe, just maybe we will start to see some new pen designs that help turn both of these Brands around.

[kirchh]

I meant vague. I was trying not to be too specific. I did not mean the company declined after 1938. It remained viable for a time.

 

Can you explain what you mean by "remained viable"? Do you mean they continued to be profitable, or do you mean they continued to make pen models that you like? Or something else entirely?

 

I don't think fussy filling systems and boring shapes are the same as innovative. You obviously have another viewpoint.

 

To which fussy and non-innovative filling system(s) are you referring? The Vacuum-Fil? Touchdown? Snorkel? Which shapes that were introduced after WAS handed over the reins of the company do you consider boring?

 

I leave it to you to have the last word.

 

I don't want or need the last word per se; I would much prefer to have a constructive discussion.

 

--Daniel

[jar]

So it sounds as if buying new writing instruments under the Sheaffer name may not be a wise thing to do.

 

True statement?

 

Not in my opinion at all true.

[Eduardo]

So it sounds as if buying new writing instruments under the Sheaffer name may not be a wise thing to do.

 

True statement?

 

Not just Sheaffer... All "modern" fountain pens are worst than the old ones... A simple Esterbrook J, is twice as good as a "modern" Montblanc 146...

[CaseyK]

The newest Shearer i have is a Prelude. It wrote a paragraph and started skipping. I took it apart and worked on the nib and it wrote two paragraphs before it started skipping. I cleaned out the feed and it wrote three paragraphs before e it started skipping. I corrected the baby bottom and it now writes a page before it stops writing completely. The most previous Sheaffer i bought before that was a Balance II. It wouldn't write either and the plastic was weak and broke easily. I won't buy another new Sheaffer ever.

Edited November 16, 2014 by CaseyK

[AJ50]

 

Not just Sheaffer... All "modern" fountain pens are worst than the old ones... A simple Esterbrook J, is twice as good as a "modern" Montblanc 146...

Sweeping statement and one that is really only your own personal opinion. As to taking a swipe at the Montblanc 146, well there are many satisfied owners of the modern Montblanc 146 and I am just one of many.

[RMN]

Sweeping statement and one that is really only your own personal opinion. As to taking a swipe at the Montblanc 146, well there are many satisfied owners of the modern Montblanc 146 and I am just one of many.

Where is the swipe? He just says it is twice as good. He did not say the 146 was bad...

 

D.ick

[AJ50]

Where is the swipe? He just says it is twice as good. He did not say the 146 was bad...

 

D.ick

Well I see it as an unnecessary remark about a well loved and well respected pen. Saying that all modern pens are worse than the old ones and then giving an example of the modern 146 is in my view wrong. Your view is obviously different.

[RMN]

If it is his honest view that this pen is indeed better than a modern 146, it is not wrong.

That you have a different opinion is not wrong either. To start bickering about it IS wrong, in my view.

 

D.ick

[Eduardo]

Montblanc always havê a strong ideological patrol... Regards RMN... You've understand...

Edited November 16, 2014 by Eduardo

[AJ50]

If it is his honest view that this pen is indeed better than a modern 146, it is not wrong.

That you have a different opinion is not wrong either. To start bickering about it IS wrong, in my view.

 

D.ick

He put his point of view and I disagreed and put my point of view. You would seem to be the one going on about it and 'bickering' in my opinion.

[AJ50]

Montblanc always havê a strong ideological patrol... Regards RMN... You've understand...

Point is that we all have our favourites and tend to defend them