What, besides the obvious look difference, is the historical difference between the old Lifetime Flat Tops with two bands versus the ones with the single fat band. I know the Duofolds went to double cap bands in about 1927 or so. However I've seen Sheaffer Lifetime Flat Tops with single bands (seem more common) and Lifetime Flat Tops with double thin cap bands (seem less common). Was this a time period difference or did the two variations exist at the same time? I'm specifically talking about Lifetimes here, by the way.

I think part of what confuses me is that I've seen Lifetimes with what appear to be the older style (straight) Sheaffer'S clip, with serial number monotone gold nibs, but with double cap bands. I've seen them both in the lighter green and the darker green.

Single bands came out first and lasted longer. Double bands started out in 1928 as a distinction on 5-30's and 7-30's and were not on lifetimes. Quickly after they made a brief appearence on lifetimes. Double and triple bands did persist on balances as well but, they are quite exceptional. Single and double bands on lifetimes are probably concurrent whereas on the 5-30's and 7-30's double bands likely gave way to single bands at the end of their runs.

Roger W.

That's quite interesting- I ask because I have a Lifetime Flat Top on the way with the double bands and was trying to approximate a date on it. I wasn't originally planning on getting one but the color was very nice and it looked like a very good match for my jade Duofold Jr. The Duo is a '28, so it sounds as if the Sheaffer will be quite close in date, making the pair all the better.

Bowen's pen guide shows only one Flat Top Lifetime with a doulble band. It has a straight long clip and is ID'd as being 1927. Other double banded flat tops are from 1927 and 28 but are not Lifetimes. In late 1929 or early 1930 the Balance pens were introduced. As far as I know the only flat tops after that (except for modern pens) were in 1935 with short hump clips with a flat ball but they also had single cap bands.

ANM;

You can not rely on the books for detailed Sheaffer information. They are geared for Parker and Waterman accuracy and the rest is very hit and miss. Otherwise all red 3-25's are red hard rubber, according to the books, and none are as radite in rubic (orange) was intro'd on 46's which predate 3-25's by three years. The 1928 catalogue (order form printed March 1, 1928) is the first to show double bands and then only on the 7-30's and 5-30's. I scanned the ads I have from '27-'29 (27 in all) and find no double bands illustrated (interesting). The conclusion I draw is that originally the double band was one more distinction of the 7-30's and 5-30's when compared to the lifetimes. The lifetimes, not so catalogued, may have received double bands in 1928 or '29. This was short lived as the 1930 catalogue does not have double banded flattops or balances. Balances are known in double and triple ring models but never catalogued. This illustrates that marketing must have included a sales force that had non catalogued items for offer.

Flattops were regularly produced into the late '30's though not catalogued after 1930 nor advertised. The 1935 flat ball models weren't a mini reintroduction by any means. A firm date on the lowered clip (humped) for the flattop has not been established and may be as late as '30-'31 when I speculate that the imprint on the pen changes to a uniform standard between balances and flattops (made in U.S.A. as opposed to the patent dates). Just because Sheaffer started selling the balance in 1929 doesn't mean the flattops instantly died. I think I can show that it took years for radite to fully catch on and so with the balance as well. The balance was huge but it took some time to take over completely.

Roger W.

Interesting indeed- I think it also goes to show that today we almost instantly expect or take for granted the fact that catalogs and online ads list virtually every major product that can be found at market (if you look hard enough). However in the days when photography was not cheap, and catalogs had to be printed using old technology and more expensive resources, that ads and catalogs often omitted what might be "less common" products. It seems like today we are barraged with catalogs and ads, but in the late 1920s, perhaps these companies wanted a somewhat narrowed focus on where they spent their time, money and resources on ads and catalogs.

Sir, I am not an authority by any means and it is obvious that you have looked into to this in great depth, but I think you may have made assumptions and drawn conclusions that don't follow the information you yourself give. You say flattops were not cataloged or advertized after 1930 but you state that they were still produced. I think you could be jumping to an untrue conclusion. I suggest that flattops were still sold well into the 30's, not because Sheaffer was still making them on the side but rather because it took a few years for the old stock in their distribution system and in the hands of individual sellers to sell off the last of the old stock. Of course the Flattops didn't instantly die, but it is entirely possible that Sheaffer did not keep making them into the 30's. The same can be said for radite. Sheaffer stopped using hard rubber for pen bodies, but it took a while before all the old stock was gone.

You also made some generalizations about the source I cited that were inaccurate assumptions.

1) it is not clear to whom you respond, lacking quotations of prior text.

2) Please clarify which assumptions and conclusions by Roger- if it is Roger you address- don't follow the information he or you gave.

3)

I think it could be entirely possible your conclusion could be entirely wrong that Roger jumps to an untrue conclusion.

First, iirc Sheaffer's were not catalogued in any catalogue or advert dated after 1930, though perhaps one slightly later dated order sheet included with a 1930 catalogue references them. If you have evidence these pens were catalogued after 1930 many of us would be grateful to see it. Otherwise Roger's "conclusion" regarding that would seem entirely true.

Second, I disagree with you that Roger draws an untrue conclusion when he suggests post 1930 production of Flat Tops. Heck, i'm a wee hack amateur newbie pen collector and I know of evidence that Sheaffer produced flattops after 1930.

4)

Your suggest mixes an irrelevant partial truth with a misleading conclusion. None to whom you respond have suggested here, tbomk, that any pen disappeared from the distribution chain the day manufacturing ceased. That no doubt some pre-1931 manufactured pens might be in dealers windows to 1975 or 2005 of course can be true. However, this has no bearing on Roger's point. Evidence exists for production (manufacture) of fresh Flat Tops into the mid-late 1930's. Whilst i am but a hack amateur newbie sheaffer collector no doubt, i would assert the following information is supportive of this claim and is at least in part to what Roger refers to by "evidence"

a) type of celluloid rod stock used on the pens.
b: appearance of striped plastic inner caps on the pens.
c) possibly the clip text style (iirc one of Daniel's old posts)
d) clip style itself
e) possibly barrel imprint

These four points (more?) argue for more than simple exhaustion of parts, though even continued production to 1935 due to exhaustion of parts (five years production?!) indicates production (not just distribution) well past 1930.

And, i would observe that the souces you cited are "mere" secondary sources, ones that do not provide themselves any evidence for their claims. Pen books are grand things. They generally provide a shallow overview, nice photo examples, lack of supporting data, and generalizations themselves based on casual observation. To paraphrase a well known pen dealer/researcher who wrote about pen books when a chat of this sort arose several years ago- pen books are not bibles and should not be cited as having divine import. I would be interested to hear what evidence is cited in the books you reference, that flat top manufacture ceased in 1930.

The evidence i cited above- right or wrong- can be addressed here, but it constitutes far more info than a random date cited in some book that itself provides no hard data to back claims.

5)


"Entirely possible" is a nebulous and noncommittal expression. Evidence suggests that it is highly- perhaps overwhelmingly- likely that Sheaffer did keep making them into the 1930's

The appearance of Sheaffer flat tops with mid-late 1930's parts including clips, inner caps, rod stock, perhaps imprint etc, makes it entirely unlikely that Sheaffer stopped making flat tops by 1931.

regards

david

There is evidence for the production of Sheaffer flat tops after 1930 that rises to the level of proof (not in the mathematical sense, but, I contend, certainly to the legal standard applied in US criminal court -- there is no reasonable doubt). David enumerates most of this evidence nicely, and we can add in materials likely datable to 1937 and possibly vermeil trim parts likely not made until WPB restrictions were instituted in 1942. The clip imprint David refers to likely dates to no earlier than 1941, and inner cap materials found in flat tops date to 1937 according to all available evidence. Add in nib/feed styles that are found in flat tops of later configuration in other respects that occur ar rates that clearly exceed that of what would be expected from later replacement alone, and I would contend that there can be no reasonable disagreement that Sheaffer produced flat tops well into the 1930s. For a more detailed discussion, I refer you to my article, "Here Come Old Flat-Top" in Vol. XXI No. 1 of The Pennant.

Roger's opinion (echoed by David) of the accuracy of the pen books currently available agrees with my own; they are not to be relied upon when it comes to matters of dating and other historical details, and the nearly complete absence of citations and references makes it impossible to assess any particular assertion by exmining the source of the information.

I would be interested to hear your view of the evidence supporting the claim of production of Sheaffer flat tops after 1930.

---Daniel

Yet, with no citations or chain of reasoning, Bowen's assertion as to the dating of this example cannot be assessed as to its accuracy, and thus it must be offered as nearly valueless second-hand evidence.


Again, no specific evidence is offered for these assertions.


A proveably incorrect assertion.


No evidence is offered for the claim that flat tops with flat-ball clips were only produced in 1935, but not earlier or later; can you provide any?

--Daniel

My belief has leaned toward this: I tend to think that the view that the Flat Tops were not produced in the 1930s is not right, if only because the economic logic of the time demanded that production. During the grips of the Depression, producers had to make ends meet at the production line any way possible. I'll be willing to bet if Sheaffer had any Flat Top stock, parts, or production capabilities already present, that they would've tried to get mileage from those assets, simply because ignoring them would be an economic mistake with the economy being what it was.

I also have a few vintage typewriters around from the 1920s and 30s, and I have found that makers often used old parts and technologies right into the 30s because they had to use what they had on hand.

I have a small collection of vintage bicycles and noticed many bicycles in the time used old parts or continued production parts from the 1920s because companies were making due with machine capital they already had, rather than going on the limb of totally converting over to new production.

I don't have any specific pen evidence that Sheaffer actually did this, but the practice was VERY common throughout the economy after the Depression hit, that it would not be far-fetched to see a pen maker do it too.

I would also put out there that the balance was probably a radical idea for the younger set. Pens had been flattops for a generation and I doubt a serious presentation would have been made of a balance. I think that explains why a lot of 89C's (big Sheaffer flattop with wide 14K gold bands) lean towards late production certainly post 1930.

I thought that late production flattops were hammered on a few years ago to the extent that balances "replaced" flattops was relegated to the category of myth status. I'm surprised that this belief still persists so I am glad this discussion has arisen again. As Daniel and David have pointed out there is ample evience to disprove that flattops suddenly ceased production or were made out of parts pens. We've often discussed how diliberate Sheaffer often was. There would have certainly been a market for flattops into the 30's.

I'm also surprised that books are believed to the extent that they are. I go off of primary source documents and the books don't site their sources so where is the logic in that? I would hope that people starting into research would appreciate the limitations of their materials. Even with source documents we often have to draw conclusions using the evidence we find from actual examples of the pens. I should have added that comment to my text that the primary source documents and actual examples support my conclusions.

Roger W.

I want to emphasize that no argument based on the economic benefits of using up parts or materials needs to be invoked to support the contention that Sheaffer produced flat tops into the 1930s, because the physical evidence is that flat tops from that period were produced not from leftover parts but from contemporary parts, and the stock or materials from which those parts were produced were not leftovers but contemporary. They were making new pens from new parts made from new materials.

--Daniel

This is an interesting idea- one that makes sense. I suppose from a business standpoint you want to reach a nice, wide audience. The Flat Top may well have stayed for the traditional pen crowd.

I stand corrected and apologize for any anger my post may have caused. I clearly stated my inexperience and the souce i was using so there would be an understanding of the limitations of my information. I was upset because the attack on my souce were generalizations with specific examples that were about this kind of source in general and did not specifically apply to the source itself.

I never made any assertion of facts, just statements of beliefs, but based on the generalization of the attack on my souce apparently without specific knowlege (which Mr. Bowen himself acknowleges is a very modest attempt) and the lack of specific information backing his assertions and conclusions in his original reply to me, I retorted wilth my beliefs, not my knowlege of the facts. Again I stand corrected and apologize.

I have learned my lesson. In the future I will refrain from any attempts at providing historical information about pens.
i

I would imagine the best lesson to learn in this thread is not that one should make no attempt to provide historical information about pens. Perhaps the real lesson is that learning historical information about pens is a non-trivial endeavor. Few classic secondary sources are perfect. Pinning down history and context is a process in evolution

regards
david

I don't agree at all- I am grateful for your having gotten out the book and tried to find the information. I didn't know the answer, myself, and if it weren't for people trying to help out I wouldn't have found it.

I think the big lesson is that in the pen hobby we're still trying to nail down somewhat obscure information and iron the kinks out of our sources as a group. Bringing up these books and finding out that the book isn't right is actually one of the best ways to work towards better sources in the future. I think the pen hobby is still young enough that there's a learning experience for everyone in it, including the people making the sources.

David is correct to refer to information as evolutionary. My most egregious sin was using secondary information that was older than someone else's secondary information. Let's face it, 99% of poor smucks like me must rely on secondary information to learn anything. As soon as someone passes on information they accept as fact, that information itself has become secondary or is even tertiary at best. Only the future can decide which assumptions to accept or reject.

I disagree. One way to pass along information is to simply repeat the conclusions to the recipient; when doing that, it becomes secondary, and thus, detached from its source, it cannot be easily verified by the recipient and it must then be suspect; once cut loose from its roots, how can anyone know what weight to assign it? Another way to pass along information is to support the conclusion by directing the recipient to the source; in that case (barring errors in citing the source), the connection to the original evidence and reasoning is preserved and it can thus be independently examined and assessed -- and this procedure can be repeated, with the recipient becoming the provider, without distancing the information further and further from the source.

I think that everything I believe about my collecting field of interest has a traceable origin in evidence and reasoning, and when I pass on information I am always able to provide that source information, so the information does not become secondary. When I accept information from others, I weigh it according to my knowledge of the provider's policy for the basis of his/her assertions; for example, I know that if David Isaacson makes a claim regarding a historical point regarding the Vacumatic, he is not simply repeating what he has heard (unless he qualifies his statement as such) -- he possesses evidence and reasoning to support his assertion, and he can provide it, thus preserving the essential rooting of the claim.

Poor shmucks or otherwise, no one should rely on unsupported statements, as they are not only unverifiable, but such statements have been shown to be inaccurate at such a high rate as to be of questionable value.

--Daniel

Daniel
I don't for a second dispute your scholarship and I am not trying to pick a fight, but you can't footnote every assertion you ever made.

I was an art major. My mind doesn't work like that of a scientist or researcher. My use of the language isn't precise. My use of the term secondary information refers to any information passed on without back-up to the original source. By that criteria, the following statement is secondary information. Whether it is verifyable or not, by your own definition; in and of itself, it isn't a supported statement.


I want to emphasize that no argument based on the economic benefits of using up parts or materials needs to be invoked to support the contention that Sheaffer produced flat tops into the 1930s, because the physical evidence is that flat tops from that period were produced not from leftover parts but from contemporary parts, and the stock or materials from which those parts were produced were not leftovers but contemporary. They were making new pens from new parts made from new materials.

--Daniel

I think you mis-read my post. I didn't state that I provided the source for every assertion I made; I said that I am always able to provide the source, so that no reader must simply trust that what I claim is accurate. It may seem like a subtlety, but there is a crucial qualitative difference between a statement that is unsupported in the sense that the offerer is simply repeating a supposed fact or conclusion absent any underlying evidence, and a statement for which the speaker has support but where the support may not be included in the assertion, as in the case of my statement above.

As for footnoting every assertion -- in a unidirectional medium such as a book, where the reader can't ask the book a question, I would expect every assertion to be accompanied with evidence and reasoning that the reader could independently investigate (though the form of these references may not always be so formal as a footnote). Thus are errors corrected and discoveries made.

As for disputing my scholarship, you should dispute it -- as you should question everything anyone claims, no matter how high or low they may be considered to be on the imaginary totem pole of esteemedness. Those who have their facts together take no offense when questioned -- quite the opposite, in fact, as it allows them to have an opportunity to refine their own knowledge. Beware of those who sneer at such questioning and who rebuff requests for evidence; what are they afraid of?

And picking a fight may be objectionable, but picking a sincere argument? A valuable mechanism for bringing out data for all to assess. Pick away. You will find an enthusiastic and receptive audience here, I think.

--Daniel

Touché

That isn't quite my point, as per...



The process is ongoing, the information available evolves. How we treat this information is not one of random agreement or of equal-value-to-all-claims. Our challenge is to separate the wheat from the chaff, to generate a process that promulgates good information and minimizes the promotion of bad information.

I do not begrudge older books. I do not resent imperfect past sources. In many cases available primary information was limited. And, if one holds out to have "perfect" info before proceeding with a pen text, we might never have any pen text out there, especially for the large general books.

Assumptions do not play a role. Observation/Data/Hypothesis/Theory and yes Assertion all allow for stronger evaluation. Assumptions occur, but should be flagged for what they are.

In meanwhile... we keep learning.

regards

david

You say assertions, I say assumptions. Let's call the whole thing off.

ANM;

I'd love to have more people bringing up questions about Sheaffer and using primary source documents (copies). I'm reluctant to suggest it though, from the standpoint of the $100's+++ I know I've spent. A good free source for many ads (117 from 1915-1942 and another 17+ to be added soon) and Walter Sheaffer's unofficial biography (which is historically wrong on several points - fun none the less) can be downloaded as a PDF is on my website www.sheafferflattops.com. Visit My Website

Roger W.

I'd rather not, though I am fond of Fred.

-d

You've got a really nice group of ads there- I'm especially partial to pre WWII Sheaffers for sure.