We were with friends last night and were shown a fountain pen, the like of which I haven't seen before.

It is brown (HR?) and both cap and barrell have chased herringbone or chevron markings.

The barrell is marked Watermans Ideal Fountain Pen NY USA -- the word Ideal is surrounded by a globe. Also marked "Pat'd 1884 May 23,1899 & Aug 4, 1903"

There is no external filling mechanism so I presume it is an eyedropper.

There are no barrell rings on the pen and it is stamped 12 or 52 on the end of the barrell.

The cap is a push fit and is split at the end and the barrell screws out of the section.

Am I correct in assuming this is a Waterman's Ideal 52 eyedropper and can anyone date its manufacture from the information supplied. Sorry, I am unable to supply a picture.

Many thanks.

Hello mfwebb,

From the information I have, which is not definitive, the pen should be a #12 which is an eyedropper with a cone shaped(tapered) slip on cap. numeral 1 in the 'tens' column indicates a regular or eye-dropper filler, the 2 indicates nib size

5 in Waterman designation indicates a self filler so a 52 would be a lever filler with the same size #2 nib.

As for date somewhere round about 1910 ish, say 1906-14. Cracks in caps are a common occurence with slip cap hard rubber pens.

As I say this is in no way a definitive answer and there are likely to be things I've missed so hopefully someone will chip in with further information when the see the post, hope this is of some help.

Cheers, John

Many thanks Oxonian.

Your explanation of the 12 and 52 is a great help. I read the number as 12 originally, although it was not particularly clear and I was not aware that there was such a beast as a Waterman #12 -- hence my thought that the number could have been 52.

The pen is brown. I am assuming it is Hard Rubber. Do you know if this is its original colour or whether it might have started out black and has faded?

Many thanks,
Malcolm Webb

Hi Malcolm,

The pen is hard rubber and would have started out black with a gloss or semi gloss finish.

Hard rubber fades when attacked by atmospheric gases and certain liquids that can oxidise the surface, some of them very quickly, for example plain ordinary cold water can cause hard rubber to turn a rather sickly olive green/brown in a matter of minutes in many cases.
If it was unpatterned black hard rubber one could polish through the oxidised layer back to the black underneath, this isn't recommended by most people, the patterning on so called chased hard rubber makes this a non-starter

There are various methods to get it back to black but there are as many opinions on whether these are a good idea or not and indeed whether some of them even work. The two systems which seem to be thought most highly of and that actually work are the G-10 treatment done by Richard Binder and a black resurfacing compound provided by Syd the Wahlnut and used by him and others.

BTW I should have referred to the cap on a 12 as a conical cap, the tapered cap would make it a 22.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, John

Hi John,

I'm extremely grateful for all the help. I had assumed it would have been black originally. As for restoration -- the pen is not mine, nor is it in my possession. If it was I wouldn't consider restoring it back to black anyway. The body is in very good condition although the cap is split where it has been forced too tightly on the barrel at some stage.

I shall let my friend know what I have found out and then try getting her to part company with it -- but I doubt that as it has a great deal of sentimental value to her.

Many thanks.

I am afraid to say there is no solid way to fix the split cap. There are a few fixes out there, but I don't hink anyone has a solution strong enough to fix a slip-cap withut cracking again down the road.

John

The pen started out black.

Waterman Nomenclature offers significant challenges, and in particular it is noted that some basic styles of pen had different series numbers (usually based on the "tens" position of a two digit number, eg- the "4" of a model 42) before 1917 vs 1917 and later.

Three eras of model name evolution occur...

1) Pre 1902 or so, each new style of pen (based on shape of pen mostly) was designated by a new number in the tens spot. The original model was single digit model number based on nib size, eg. the Waterman #2, #4, #6 respectively had nibs of #2, #4 and #6 size. As there was (probably) no other structure pen besides the eyedropper fill, straight cap/barrel assembly, this worked well. Once other shaped pens using same name came into play, a number was placed before that nib size. So, the Cone Cap eyedropper such as you seem to decribe here recieved a "1" in the "tens" spot. Note that Cone cap is straight sided, not pointy. Long story. Thus a straight pen with #2 nib was just a #2 (one can think of it as an "02" if he feels need to put something in that tens spot), but the cone cap (cap fatter than pen) with same nib was a #12. If that same #2 nib found its way into a taper cap (a cap that came to a long point at top), that pen now would be a #22.

By early 1900's, had at least those three series of pens, with the final number defined by nib size.


2) the 1902-1916 era got messy, probably leading to the big shift in renaming pens in 1917. During 1902-1916 we saw the introduction of threaded caps (screw caps), safety pens (the nib dials out when the bottom knob is turned) and a variety of self-filling mechanisms.

Instead of making new series by coming up with new numbers in the "tens" spot to add to the tens, twenties and "nothings" pens cited above, Waterman started adding one or another suffix to the end of the tens-series pens. From 1902-1916- using a little #2 nib as our base- the 12-J, 12-S, 12-P, 12-SF, 12-PSF and probably some i'm forgetting, all in addition to the original three series cited above.

3) in 1917 much of this was revamped, especially as some of the pens no longer even were being made.

Most of us see 1917+ pens most often.

Core series post 1916 include (keep X as nib size- a variable)

a) 1-x (tens series) pens- the plain old eyedropper fill, friction fit cap (cap wider than pen, cone cap).

the 0-X pens (the first model Waterman) apparently already had been discontinued

c) the 2-X pens ( the taper cap waterman) apparently already discontinued

d) 4-X (safety pens, previously 1-X-s)

e) 5-X. Probably the most commonly seen series today. Threaded Cap, Lever Filler. Several colors.

f) 7-X. Threaded screw cap (like 5-X pens) but eyedropper fill (like the friction capped 1-X series).

g) 6-X a couple desk pens the fat 67 (which did not have a classic larger #7 nib, but seems to have borrowed name from the late, rule violating "#7 series") and the skinny 62-1/2. Lever fillers.

h) 8-X- apparently a retrospective renaming of the 1-X-P pump filler. Gives me headache. Also used, iirc, for the Waterman Ink View at some point or other.

that's it. I'm fried. Back to work.

david

I also have this pen marked PAT'D 1884 MAY 23.1899
WATERMAN'S (IDEAL) FOUNTAIN
PEN.NY.USA AUG.4.1903
At the Ideal mark there is a globe on the end of the barrel the number 12 1/2.
I have read all the other reply's however I have not seen any with the 1/2 number, can anyone explain or does anyone know the value of this pen?
Thanks JC

1/2 means it is skinny.... V means it is short... for Vest pocket length...

deleted redundant

Both styles were still being marketed at least until 1919.


'6' in the tens place in the late teens indicated a slip-cap lever filler.

I disfavor inserting a hyphen between code characters (e.g. "2-X"), as the codes were not formed in that way by Waterman. Similarly, I don't use the form 0x (e.g. "02") as, again, that 'spelling' was not used by Waterman, notwithstanding their use of the '0' in the tens place when a prefix code was needed (e.g. "402").

--Daniel

In the context of most core models having two digits, i do favor a placeholder for the original straight cap pens. -X or 0X appeal.

Straight cap and taper cap were marketed until 1919? Interesting. Had not known that. Source would be appreciated so i can update my notes.

Wonder when 6-x started to indicate desk pens, then. Mid 20's i'd guess.

regards

david

deleted redundant

I don't think the addition of a symbol where none was present enhances the understanding of the numbering system Waterman used; to the contrary, I think it serves to mislead. If the purpose is to explain the system that Waterman employed, I don't see the value in altering the system with this form that Waterman did not employ. Catalogs used '2' as a pen model code; pens themselves bore just '2' as their model code; why refer to that model's code now as '02'?


1919 catalog.

--Daniel

As you have said before. I disagree from pragmatic perspective. Sort of like calling in retrospect any of three colors simply Grey Pearl, even though Sheaffer did it that way.

But, to clarify, my preference for place holder when engaged in general case (variable) discussion- eg 5x vs 52- does not extend to the citing of actual model number. Waterman 4 is fine by me, along with 0x or -x for the general case.

Don't have the 1919 catalog. Next on the list.

-d

Thanks

Normally I would NEVER jump in when there's a wrangle between David I and Daniel K, but here I must weigh in:

Please don't start referring to the number code format of the original straight-cap series (2, 3, 4, etc) as "0X". It is horribly misleading, especially since Waterman did use leading zeroes in other contexts. If you feel a need to use a placeholder, at least use some symbol that didn't get routinely used by Waterman in this context -- "-X", perhaps. What I don't understand, however, is why a placeholder should be added at all. And if one feels a placeholder should be needed in the tens place, why not in the hundreds as well -- or the thousands, since four-digit Waterman model numbers are not at all unusual, even when leaving off added fractions and letter suffixes. "0X" makes no more sense than "00X" or "000X".

Aw, the wrangles are so much more fun when you do wade in.

Couple issues raised above:

1) Why use a placeholder at all?
2) Why use a placeholder- if one must at all- only for the tens spot, rather than for a potentially infinite number of other spots

My personal choice to use a placeholder at all- in this case the tens spot- serves to provide consistency to the general case descriptions we use when discussing Waterman model codes which overwhelming employed 2 digit core model number for most of its models from 1980's through early 1920's. Yes, suffixes (letters) and prefix numbers are used as modifiers. But, the 1x, 2x, 3x, early 4x, and the later 5x,7x,late 4x, etc etc all sare 2 digit codes. I'm not familiar with Waterman using any "X" for a general case description of these series, but collector convention seems to employ this progressively more often.

I'm ok with -X vs 0x, but the simple answer to why use it is that I find to do so makes it easier to present and discuss the various series. Others might not find it so, which is fine.

Why not use more 0's, eg. 0000x for the first type of Waterman? Simply becuase no core style requires more than 2 numbers for the era under discussion. Three and Four digit model codes during this era apply to overlay differences and for carved (?) barrels.

And that's the tragedy of hard rubber- it really is nice stuff once you learn to live with its flaws as a material. But once you cross the threshold and crack it or break it, you're in trouble for sure. It's a shame so many pens are lost to damage like that and can't really find a permanent fix besides replacement. Here's to hoping I guess...