I've written an article discussing Prosperity pens that will be appearing as the next "Cryptopenology" installment in the forthcoming Journal of the Writing Equipment Society (Cryptopenology and Toolmaker's Journal have left The Pennant). I think there is still time to subscribe to the Journal and to receive the issue with the article:

Writing Equipment Society

--Daniel

I'ts too bad that the Cryptopenology series will no longer appear in the Pennant. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you will continue to publish it.
Phil

Why not share it here?

Do you mean why didn't I publish it online at FPN rather than seek out an alternative print publisher, or do you mean why don't I post it here in addition to in the WES Journal?

--Daniel

I'm looking forward to your article .

The Winter Journal will land on all paid-up members' doormats very soon (I know this because I have just provided the printer with the address lists). If anyone joins the WES between now and the end of 2007 they will receive a bonus copy of this edition of the Journal, as well as all those for 2008.

Martin

Share it here in addition to the WES Journal.

Kurt

For Daniel to answer but seems to me it would be discourteous to a print forum that needs subscriptions to continue and that has accepted material for publication, for one to offer same content in a free venue without some time lag, even if one has the "right" do do so.

Similarly it seems that Daniel offers more than enough content to this site that he quite reasonably is viewed as serious supporter of the site even if he opt not to parallel publish his occasional print article online here. I would imagine the gist of that article will find its way here in the not too distant future.

Whilst i've done no formal review, off the cuff i'd place Daniel in the top 3-5 contributors of vintage Sheaffer content to FPN. Content breeds discussion. Answers to questions breed a following to the site. Heady debate with vackwacks drags in the spectators, especially as Daniel and most who debate with him tend to leave their words- right or wrong- in place and maintain a debate that focuses on issues, even if perhaps discussing in a hyperfocused and persnickity manner.

Seems there is room to play in more than one environment whilst maintaining good feelings for all.

I guess the simple counter question is, why should Daniel print the article he offered to another venue, here now?

best regards

david