Imperial II

[Ernst Bitterman]

I just got this item off eBay:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/takematsu/ImperialQuestion001.jpg

 

and it's a jolly enough pen except for the Parker Pli-Glass sac (of perfect clarity) which had been thrust inside its sac protector. I have misgivings about the cap, though. Looking over at PenHero.com, it seems to me that the clip on the appropriate cap should be longer than this one.

 

Also a concern:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/takematsu/ImperialQuestion002.jpg

 

The top surface of the cap is gold... coloured. Can this be an outcome of a finish being polished away by use or abuse, or it is appropriate to whatever sort of pen this is actually a cap for?

[Ondina]

Basically same question here..... I did not even know that the Imperials II had this kind of filling system (what is it called? Touchdown I know, I mean the sack and the protector) I assume if inner sac is in bad condition we are in trouble, right? Looks complicated to replace.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2108/2480953962_b92f288c27_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/2480952554_3093db83e4_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2480952954_ab844af133_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/2480139631_061d2d414c_o.jpg

Edited May 10, 2008 by Ondina

[wege]

if it is like mine, that I posted a little further down, then it is a touchdown Imperial.

 

Have a look at the base of the barrel, and there should be a 'seam' that you can unscrew to expose the filling system.

[Ondina]

The original question was if the cap is a mismatch or not. But thanks for the info.

http://www.penhero.com/PenGallery/Sheaffer...erialsEarly.htm

This article from Pen Hero shows a very different one and I assume Mr. Bitterman, as myself, want to know if the cap is right or belongs to other Sheaffer.

[Ray Roewert]

Basically same question here..... I did not even know that the Imperials II had this kind of filling system (what is it called? Touchdown I know, I mean the sack and the protector) I assume if inner sac is in bad condition we are in trouble, right? Looks complicated to replace.

 

 

The sacs are not that complicated at all, really. The sac protector will need to be removed (gently), then

remove the old sac, clean the nipple, install new one, replace sac protector. I use a pair of jewelers pliers

to re-crimp the sac protector for a tight seal. If the present sac is rotten it may be stuck all over the inside

of the sac protector and a pain in the patoot to clean out. But all in all it's not hard to do.

You will also want to replace the "O" ring. That's not hard either. Just make sure you use the

right size sac and "O" ring. All in all those are fairly easy pens to restore to working condition.

[Ernst Bitterman]

I use a pair of jewelers pliers to re-crimp the sac protector for a tight seal.

 

This seems overkill to me-- when, in futurity, the sac needs replacing again, the person doing the work is going to be pretty cranky at having to work so hard to get the protector off. After all, the only seal needed at that point of the pen is the one the shellac provides between the nipple and the sac.

[Ondina]

So, we don't know if the cap is right or not?.

[Ron Z]

Daniel Kirchheimer can give a definitive answer to the cap question. (the guy knows more about the history and model nuances than is healthy ) I think that it's the right cap though - if the pen has a round end on the barrel, the cap should be right.

 

As Ray pointed out, these are not difficult pens to repair. The sac should be a 14 1/2, the 0 ring is the same one used for snorkels and all but the early (and larger) touchdowns. The 0 rings are cheap enough that I make it a standard part of the repair. They do compress and lose their seal over time. Put a little bit of silicone grease on the tube and test with your finger over the end of the barrel. You should hear a good "chiff" at the end of travel when the air is released. If not, then you can't get a way without replacement.

 

The sac guard is designed to slip off and onto the section. There are dents in the side that grip the nipple on the section. If the guard is loose, you can bump these dents in a bit to tighten the fit, but it should not be crimped.

[david i]

not sure that is an Imperial, though outside PFM, my involvement with 1960's-70's Sheaffer is... limited.

 

Maybe Stylus? The nib is not inlaid.

 

-d

 

[Ernst Bitterman]

I'm pretty sure, from frequent staring at PenHero.com, it's an Imperial (yahr, dat make me expert! ). I was resacking it yesterday, and while thus engaged took this picture:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/takematsu/SheafferImperialIIguts.jpg

 

This is something that should be in Repair, to be honest; I'm having a devil of a time establishing a proper seal, which is why I took it as far apart as I did. That little washer just below the feed is hard... plastic? I hope? If it's not, it's rubber gone wrong and getting this thing running is not quite the dawdle I indicated in a private exchange with Ondina (we both got one from the same eBay seller). The leak is definitely in the section, and the solution seems to be either some section sealant on the forward end of that connector or have a deep enough ink bottle to entirely submerge the section (which I suspect would not be that good for the little stud-ring that holds the cap on).

[Univer]

Hi all,

 

The nomenclature of the Imperial and Imperial-extended-family pens can be a bit bewildering (for me at least).

 

To my eye, the pen in question looks like a marriage between an Imperial II body and a cap from another model: possibly a 440 (resin barrel, chrome cap) or a 444 (all brushed chrome). As far as I know - as has already been observed - the cap top and the barrel end should match.

 

The Imperial II should have a blind cap that ends in a rounded square rather than a circle; from the photos, it looks like that's the case.

 

The 440s were very Imperial-like, but they had some notable differences. The cap top and the barrel end were round; the pen was shorter overall; the clip was shorter; they carried a shorter version of the Inlaid Nib, sometimes with the arrowhead-shaped cutout (I'm not sure whether they all had the arrowhead); and, if I remember correctly, they were all cartridge fillers.

 

I believe that the 440s (and similar models) came along later than the first-generation Imperials (I bought my old 444, new, around 1969 or 1970). I've got a few NOS 440s, among them a 440XG (14K nib, resin barrel, brushed chrome cap, gold filled clip) and a "standard" 440 (steel nib, resin barrel, brushed chrome cap, chrome clip). That latter cap is a twin of the cap shown in the photos. And for what it's worth, my NOS 440 caps have labels like the one shown; I seem to recall that Imperials were typically chalk-marked rather than labeled.

 

It's no wonder, really, that collectors tend to use the "Imperial" name for any pen that's broadly similar to the Imperials in design. What with the "Lifetimes," the "Dolphins," the Target, the 440s (and siblings), the odd Inlaid Nib Imperial/Stylist hybrids, the clipped Lady Sheaffers, and the elusive Slim Imperials...well, as I said, it's all a bit bewildering. The one fundamental commonality among all of these models: their writing quality.

 

I do hope there's something useful in all of that. It's all from memory, and there are probably more than a few errors and omissions.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[Ray Roewert]

The sac guard is designed to slip off and onto the section. There are dents in the side that grip the nipple on the section. If the guard is loose, you can bump these dents in a bit to tighten the fit, but it should not be crimped.

 

 

Clarification: Crimp was the word that came to mind when I made my original post. "Bump"ing in the dents was what I was referring too. Most of the ones I

have worked on had sac protectors that were basically loose. A few of the new old stock ones I've had had tight fitting protectors, so my assumption is that

this is how they should be.

[david i]

not sure that is an Imperial, though outside PFM, my involvement with 1960's-70's Sheaffer is... limited.

 

Maybe Stylus? The nib is not inlaid.

 

-d

 

Apologies. Reviewing my recently acquired stunning heavy weight original 1963 Sheaffer catalogue, the barrel indeed appears to be Imperial II. Until now i'd not known they use the cylindrical nib in Imps.

 

Concur cap does not look right for barrel though.

 

d

 

[Ondina]

On barrel and cap ends; they both are squarish, so the cap is probably right. On the rest of the pen; HELP!. This darn thing does not take water -is being tested that way only- and I have the impression is not only the sac that needs a replacement.

[david i]

On barrel and cap ends; they both are squarish, so the cap is probably right. On the rest of the pen; HELP!. This darn thing does not take water -is being tested that way only- and I have the impression is not only the sac that needs a replacement.

 

My 1963 catalogue (at least) shows non WD cap for Imp II

 

d

 

[Ondina]

The Imperial II should have a blind cap that ends in a rounded square rather than a circle; from the photos, it looks like that's the case.

 

I'm totally confused now. If at least I could make this whatever work..... Mr. Bitterman, any progress?

 

Edited to add that I've seen several identical models on the Bay lately....http://cgi.ebay.com/SHEAFFER-Imperial-II-Burgundy-Touchdown-Fountain-Pen_W0QQitemZ130221250141QQihZ003QQcategoryZ14003QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

http://images.channeladvisor.com/Sell/SSProfiles/10003239/Images/0423BurgundyTDII.jpg

Edited May 15, 2008 by Ondina

[Ernst Bitterman]

Progress indeed. Apparently the lack of seal was being caused by a little bit of dried ink between some of the components in the section. After cleaning and rebuilding, it's working as it ought, and I didn't have to apply any goop to the connection.