Since an Autograph Picture Topic has been started, I'll begin one that reflects my favorite Sheaffer category, the Masterpiece. If you have a full Masterpiece or Crest Masterpiece or something similar do us all a favor and share it with the community. I'll start it off with an Early 1960s Sheaffer Imperial Masterpiece. They only came in the Touchdown filling variety and, initially at least, in 14k gold. The 9ct English models came about 10 years later. This one is completely dent and ding free. I would only need to employ the services of a good jewler to buff it into mint status.

PeteWK

beautiful pen! I've been hoarding the Signatures as olf late, but a mid-40's lever filler Masterpiece is on my "next" list. I did however pick up it's little brother today in an auction. THis is a completely ding/dent free Masterpiece pencil, although it could use a good buff to shine it up. poor picture i know, the seller took it. i'll shine it up and take some pics when i receive it.

Yep, those are very nice pens. Mine has a medium nib. It also sports some other chaps name but such is life.

PeteWK

...as if the Autograph thread wasn't bad enough!

a pretty decent looking user grade TD Imperial went for $51 on ebay tonight, and me between paychecks as usual

my only all GF Sheaffers are a mismatched and well worn TM TD set, both engraved and battered but functional (well at least after I swapped off the nib that some moron attacked with pliers).

some day I will have a clean all GF Sheaffer, but it's a long term goal...

Hi David. I'm sorry if I've left out a very important fact. The Masterpiece pens are solid gold rather than gold filled. Most of the Sheaffer Masterpiece pens are 14k but there are some English and Australian pens that were made in 9ct and 18ct gold as well. Below you'll find my solid gold TD set circa 1950. For good measure, I also have two of the gold filled sets that I use on occasion.

Regards,

PeteWK

...which I *know* if I would just stop to think about it...

well either way, it leaves me wanting more pens that I *definitely* don't need, and solid 14k certainly ups the ante!

nice pens no matter the gold content.

Well, I don't think I'm the only collecter of Sheaffer Masterpieces but I'll keep the thread going just in case. This pen is probably the rarest pen in my collection. Its a 1941 Tuckaway Masterpiece Vac-Fil.

PeteWK

Look into my eyes look into my eyes, not around the eyes, look into my eyes.....your under...

now send this pen to Jay.......now send this pen to Jay......




I'm also trying a long distance jedi mind trick...m'mmmmm...argh......ummmmmmm.

Hi Jay. I certainly would only Jedi Mind tricks only work on me from 50km away or less. Sorry about that.

Ahhh, the force is strong in that one...

PeteWK

hey it was worth a try - that pen is very nice and is itchin for some photo action.......

Well, if you'd like a certain photo or angle I'll try and post one for you. What would you like?

PeteWK

A crisp posted view......

Don't know if this is a Masterpiece or not but here it is. It is 14K gold Snorkel Desk Set Pen that was given to a very long time employee of Sheaffer, in Fort Madison, on (I assume) June 14, 1957. The nib and casing is 14K gold and it had never been inked in over 45 years until It was given to me. I had it restored and promply filled it (With Sheaffer Skrip Black Ink, of course) and have been using it on my office desk ever since. It writes just beautifly, has a 14K fine gold nib. I'm sure the value fell by more than half when I did that, but to be able to use this fine pin has more than made up for any loss of value. The real value comes from being able to use such a fine writing instrument. The model number on the box that it was in is 2702J if that means anything to anyone.
Thanks for looking.

Fantastic Pen! I think I bid on that one. I'm envious to be sure. That is indeed a Masterpiece Pen.

PeteWK

PeteWK, how about a couple more pics of that EXTREMELY cool (and rare) Tuckaway?
Particularly the imprints and the "banded" engraved areas?
Thanks! greg (lover of Tuckaways)

OK Greg, will do. But it will have to be after I get back from getting the old mane and beard sheered.

PeteWK

Here's the Masterpiece (Vac-Fil) next to my lever Gold-Fill Model of the same year (1941).

PeteWK

The imprints aren't really that interesting.

More of the same.

And a detail shot.

Dang! That's one sweet pen- the first I've seen of its kind. In some circles, there is (was) debate on the existence of a masterpiece 1st year Tuckaway. Yours is the only one I know of. Are you aware of others?
Any info (or guesses) on the relative scarcity/ratio of the masterpiece vs. the g.f. model? Was there a lever-fill masterpiece?
Thanks for the pictures too!
Best, greg

Hi Greg. I've seen a 1941 Sheaffer catalog in which both the lever and vac-fil Tuckaway Masterpieces are listed. As such, I always assumed that they existed but I had never actually seen one or heard of one existing until I found this one.

And I only purchased this one recently. The Irving Goldman collection was being finished off on eBay and I saw one lot of 24 Sheaffers. Most of them are junk or also-rans but there was this Tuckaway pen pictured among the others. I happen to live near the auction house so off I went to preview the lot. I went in hopes that the pen was a Masterpiece but my eyes almost popped out of my head when I actually saw the imprint 14k staring back at me.

I won the auction and so now it lives at my house. I base my assumption that its a 1941 because I'm pretty sure that was the year the Vac-Fil model was introduced. I know my lever fill is a 1941 because it has a very rare enclosed feed that was only made for two months during the close of that year.

As for a ratio between the GF and 14k, no guesses here because the 14k models just aren't out there.

As for the debate, who were you having it with?

PeteWK

As is often the case, so-called "1st-year" models are more accurately called "first version". The style shown appears in both 1940 and 1941 catalogs.

--Daniel

I'd be most interested in any documentation you may have to support this.

--Daniel

Hi Daniel. Some time ago I posted a question about my Tuckaway feed. Its odd as its completely enclosed as shown below.

PeteWK

Further, the pieces look as follows. . .

Someone was nice enough to post the Sheaffer Patent number. It was registered in May of 1941. (sorry but I don't recall who it was or what the number was either) I also found out that Sheaffer ended its production runs in September of any year (info source: long time Sheaffer salesman/repairman Fred Krinke). From what I could tell, Sheaffer ramped up production in the last two months of their production cycle and ended it with the introduction of their next model Tuckaway with the Triumph Nib. That would make the enclosed feed the rarest on the early Tuckaway pens.

PeteWK

Hi again Daniel. I just did a check over in the Pen History section and the patent number is 2,241,865 registered on May 13, 1941. Regards,

PeteWK

The error here is the belief that a product would not be manufactured prior to the granting of the patent for the item.

The feed patent was applied for on December 28, 1939, prior to the first appearance of the Tuckaway in catalogs. Companies often manufactured products for which they had applied for patents but not yet received them; you may recall seeing items of all sorts (including pens) marked "PATENT APPLIED FOR" or "PATENT PENDING". Such items enjoy protection even before the patent is granted.

I also do not see any basis for the belief that Sheaffer terminated production of the open-nibbed version of the Tuckaway in September of 1941; what evidence is there that it did not extend to September of 1942, for example?

You'd previously asserted that the feed was made for just two months; I also don't see how you derive that from a patent date of May 13, 1941 and a stoppage of production in September of 1941 -- a period of about four months. Note that this point is of peripheral interest only in light of my explanation of pre-patent production of products.

--Daniel

hey PEte,

if ya mite wanna sell the solid gold tucky, do give me ayell at

isaacson@frontiernet.net

No sweat if not interested :doh:

david

Hi Daniel. You certainly have some good points there but then some aren't so good. There are several facts to be considered first of all.

1 is that this feed is rarely seen on the Tuckaways. I've seen more than a few over the years and this is the only one like it I've seen. Of course, that's only anicdotal.

2 is that the Tuckaway series 1 (as I'll call it) were dismal sellers. Sheaffer certainly wanted the pen to succeed and probably added it (the new feed) to the end of the product run in an effort to increase sales of existing but unsold pens. I'm quite sure that this internal feed is interchangable with the externally finned variety. One would assume this because they never advertised the feed at all, probably because they knew the new model was on the horizon.

3 You'll remember from your Macro Economics class (if a business major) that a company makes money from manufactoring processes that are intensely short. Sheaffer would have tooled up for the early Tuckaway and made all the ones they thought they could sell. This pen didn't sell well at all so I seriously doubt they continued to make them into the following year. Their money is made by getting the product out and then tooling up for something else.

4 Fred advised me (Fred started repairing and selling Pens in 1945, at a store begun by his grandfather c. 1922) that Sheaffer reps stated they retooled for new models in September so that they would be available for Christmas.

Your point about registering for Patents is a strong one. But then Companies were issued many patents they either never used or sat on until the time was right so I suppose neither of us can say when they would have begun production.

Just some extra thoughts,

PeteWK

Hi David. For the time being, I'll have to keep the Tuckaway in its new home. I'm more the type to (as the stockbrokers say) Buy! Buy! Buy! rather than sell, sell, sell.

Regards,

PeteWK

Embedded error here is the assumption that because the feed may be relatively scarce, it therefore was only produced after the patent was granted, or that it was only produced at the end of the production or marketing life of the series 1 Tuckaway. The conclusion drawn is unsupportable.



This assertion is internally contradictory. You claim (without any specific evidence) that Sheaffer "probably" added the "new feed" at the end of the product run (an unestablished claim) "in an effort to increase sales" of the model -- yet you also state that Sheaffer "never advertised the feed at all". If Sheaffer were so concerned with increasing sales, why would they go to the trouble of tooling up to manufacture an improved component, yet never advertise it?

I again point out that this dubious line of reasoning relies on the unsupported assertion that the feed was not introduced until after the patent was granted -- a completely unsubstantiated claim.



So are you claiming that Sheaffer made all the series 1 Tuckaways in one intensely short production run, presumably in 1939 or early 1940? And, by your reasoning, that Sheaffer in general made, in one intensely short production run "all the ones they thought they could sell" of all their models, then kept them in inventory for whatever number of years they anticipated the model's lifetime was to be?

Do you have any documentary evidence that this was the way Sheaffer production was performed?



How does this bear on your claim that Sheaffer waited until their feed patent was actually granted before they began production of that feed?

Here you state that Sheaffer retooled for new models in September; previously, you stated that Sheaffer ended their production runs in September after two months of production. Can you clarify?



That was my point -- you stated that Sheaffer wouldn't have begun production until after the patent was granted. I appreciate that you now acknowledge that you can't say when production of the feed would have begun, and, thus, that the reasoning underlying your original claim that the feed was produced after May but before September of the same year is erroneous.

It is no less likely that the feed in question was, in fact, the first style feed used in the Tuckaway, and that it proved unsatisfactory, so it was supplanted by the more common version.

--Daniel

Sorry that I've been absent because of a fried power supply.

Daniel, now you're just being silly. I'll comment further later. Off to work.

PeteWK

to get us all back on the subject of pens.......

This is not a Sheaffer, but a kissing cousin. I was just informed that the top bidder on this solid 14k capped Waterman Taperite was NARU'd from the 'bay. I almost cried when i lost this pen, as it is really a beauty! I met the offer from the seller, and i should have it later this week. isn't it great when things just kinda' fall into place!?

Pete;

Good discussion though I have some thoughts that run counter to your conclusions.



It is hard to say that Tuckaway series 1 were dismal sellers. How many pieces had to be produced for us to find models today? A 14K pen (not a big Sheaffer line ever) would have only had limited sales to begin with. I have to agree with Daniel that if Sheaffer wanted to increase sales with the new feed that the new feed would have been advertised.



We have lots of examples with Sheaffer of lines being produced over very long periods even after they stopped advertising support as in the case of flattops which were produced well into the mid thirties. Flattops in the mid thirties were certainly not all produced in the late 20’s as they continue to receive all the innovations of current production through the 30’s. The 14K tucky model is in the August 1940 catalogue and again in the August 1941 catalogue which happens to be the last catalogue until after the war. There isn’t anything that would have proscribed Sheaffer from making this model into the 40’s though, I suspect, with the war that 14K items were probably discontinued or special order only and may well have been produced in '42.



I think that supports a “general” policy of Sheaffer at best. There is no reason to believe that Sheaffer ended all lines in August and started all lines in September. Shy of an internal Sheaffer document supporting your conclusion I would take it to mean that Christmas production was started in September with little affect on what was in production. Tooling is a bit overrated in your conclusion as Sheaffer tooling is pretty general for all Sheaffer models. Early flattop caps fit late balances so not a lot of change in tooling. I would tend to agree that the cost accountants are likely to have gotten a hold of the tucky 1 with its extra production costs and eliminated such extra machining as the threads on the end of the barrel for cheaper production practices used on later tuckys.

The lack of catalogues and advertising during the war years leaves us with a lot to guess about. The August 1941 catalogue states the following;

"...we have not been able to build the substantial back-log of merchandise necessary to carry out Christmas business."

And further down;

"You can buy Sheaffer merchandise with confidence that the designs are stable and that what you buy will not be obsoleted overnight."

The 14K Tucky is in this catalogue and there is no reason to believe that if dealer orders demanded additional production that it would not have continued into 1942, it very likely did in my opinion.

Roger W.

Well, I'll keep things going with my most recent member of the team. A c. 1970 Sheaffer Imperial Masterpiece in solid 18k gold.

PeteWK

whoa Nellie! 18k gold?! that is one sharp set!

They're scarce pens, that's for sure. Andreas Lambrou was nice enough to shed some light on the set (edit). I've pieced together some info as follows. There was a 14k US made pen that was sold for a number of years as the Masterpiece Model of the Imperial series in the 1960s. Sheaffer later came out with both 9ct and 18ct models made in England. The 9ct model was commonly available and sold through dealers but the 18ct gold pen was mostly given to dignitaries, heads of state and Sheaffer Execs. I can't swear to some of the story but that's what I was told. I purchased this set from the family of a Sheaffer Executive and Sales Representative (Regional Director?) who had passed away recently. I'm trying to indepentantly confirm various aspects including the reported production number of 100.

Pretty interesting stuff as I've never seen another one in the wild.

PeteWK

That was the origional cardboard box. This is the set in its origional Sheaffer Walnut Case.

And lastly the Sheaffer plaque. It wouldn't be complete without that!

PeteWK

Oh, I almost forgot. There are two things that are rather strange about the pen(s). Even though they're made in England, they're just marked "18k Made in England" as opposed to having all the hallmarks like the 9ct models do.

And second is the fact that the Fountain Pen has an 18k nib. Its the only 18k Imperial nib I've ever seen.

PeteWK