I've come across an odd Triumph nib of the mid-40s that is VERY flexible, and I don't mean "soft". It is not one of the later ones associated with Touchdowns and Snorkles of the 1950s. I have seen the nib chart of flexible Triumphs, but these are much later than the one I have. They do not fit in the early to mid-1940s Triumph pens as this one does.

On design grounds, I would estimate its date at 1942-46. This early date is suggested by the inscription design: the "Sheaffer Lifetime" forms an arch, not a straight line; and the font is with serif, unlike the later plainer font.

Here's the kicker: the feed is stamped with a large "O" or "0".

I have restored over three hundred 1940s Triumphs, but this is the first that is as flexible as some of my early Swans or Watermans. It's not quite a wet noodle, but with very little pressure, the tines spread to 3 or 4 times the width of the unflexed nib, which is a smooth fine.

Can anyone tell me about the "O" or Triumph flexies of this early period? Were they factory products or after-factory alterations?

Cheers,
Gerry

I don't think there's any nib stamp where "Sheaffer Lifetime" forms an arch, so I'm assuming you mean the styles where "SHEAFFER'S" is arched as opposed to straight.


Various nib styles including several flexible varieties are shown in ads and other materials from the period when your nib would have been offered.

--Daniel

Various nib styles including several flexible varieties are shown in ads and other materials from the period when your nib would have been offered.

--Daniel


Thanks, Daniel, but my understanding is that those ads refer to later Triumphs that fit into Touchdowns and Snorks. As for the arch, yes: only the "Sheaffer's" is arched the "Lifestime" is in a straight line under it. The specialty nibs in the ads to which you refer are from a later period. The word "Lifetime" does not appear, nor do these nibs fit earlier Sheaffers. The diameter of the cone's base is too small for the earlier pens and the threads don't fit. There are other minor difference that don't affect the fit. This difference in fit has come to my attention because I have always wanted to put a real flexie into a c. 1945 1250 "Valiant". The one to which I refer is the first example I've found that fits exactly and matched the other Triumph nibs of that period.

As stated, I was referring to materials from the period when your nib would have been offered, not to some later ads; I'm not sure why you are assuming otherwise.

--Daniel

That is a great find, Gerry. Any chance you could post some pictures and writing samples? I'm quite interested in seeing a truly flexible Triumph nib - and the 1940's Triumph design is my favorite!

Best,
Summer Greer

As stated, I was referring to materials from the period when your nib would have been offered, not to some later ads; I'm not sure why you are assuming otherwise.

--Daniel

Indeed, the ad to which you refer is 1942/43, while the later one is 1953. I have never seen a specialty nib from the earlier ad, other than the flexie I just mentioned.
Do you recall whether any of the specialty nibs from EITHER period have a number code stamped on the feed? The early flexie I have has a "0" stamped on the feed.
Gerry

The materials to which I refer are not from 1942/43, and as I stated, they show various nib styles including several flexible varieties. I'm not sure why you've made an assumption to the contrary.


I don't have information on that.

Here's an example of a specialty nib from the period:

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

--Daniel

Thanks, Daniel. The Sentinel was introduced in 1947, right?
I asked Sam Marshall about nibs before that.

He has compiled more info on Triumph nibs than anyone I know. Here's what I found out from him. Though the variety of special Triumph nibs is well known for the post-1953, after the introduction of the Snorkel, knowledge for the early and mid-40s remains conjectural.
According to Sam, the 16 point styles offered in 1953 included:

Extra Fine, Flexible Extra Fine, Fine, Flexible Fine, ‎Medium, Flexible Medium, Accountant, Shorthand, ‎Course, Flexible Course, Stub, Flexible Stub, Broad Stub*, ‎Left Oblique Stub*, Flexible Left Oblique Stub* and ‎Music*.
The 12 point styles without the asterisk were ‎available for exchange for no charge.
The four nibs ‎marked with the asterisk were “available at slight extra ‎charge.” ‎

The earliest documentary evidence known to Sam for these 16 point styles date to c.1946, so we can assume (?) that these styles were available for the few years before 1946, perhaps even back to the inception of the Triumph in 1942.
I feel fairly confident that I have a "Flexible Extra Fine" Triumph nib from the period before 1946. I've dated it to that period because of the following features:
1. the nib's inscription is in a font with serifs;
2. in the nib's inscription the word "Shaeffer's" forms an arch; and
3. the nib fits into a c.1945 "fat" 1250 Valiant plunger-filler that uses the entire barrel for ink ( in other words does not have the inner tube system introduced c.1947).

Now: the next thing I need to figure out is why there is an "O" stamped on the feed.
Suggestions?
BY ANY CHANCE, IS THERE ANY ODD MARKING ON THE FEED OF THE SENTINAL'S NIB THAT YOU SCANNED?
Gerry






Hi Summer:
I'll take some pics later this week and post them. I'll be sure to include a shot of the feed with the "O" stamped on it.
Gerry

There are ads, catalogs, and other materials dating to before the introduction of the Snorkel and of the Touchdown models that show the variety of Triumph nibs available.


The availability of all these styles dates back to the post-war Triumph lines as evidenced by period ads, catalogs, and other materials. (Note the spelling of 'Coarse' and 'Accountants' [or Accountant's].)


I don't understand the basis for that assumption given that there was complete turnover of the Sheaffer product line after the war; none of the wartime Triumph pens continued to be marketed after 1944 or '45, and none of the models marketed in the post-war period were introduced during the war or earlier.


1. This font still appeared on items made 1946 and later.
2. The arched "Sheaffer'S" mark still appeared on items made 1946 and later.
3. The "fat" pens were still made in 1946 and later, but the wartime Triumph pens that appeared starting ~1942 were all thinner.


No, and I have no information about that feed mark.

--Daniel

"There are ads, catalogs, and other materials dating to before the introduction of the Snorkel and of the Touchdown models that show the variety of Triumph nibs available."

Do you have any specific ones in mind that can be dated before 1946?


"I don't understand the basis for that assumption given that there was complete turnover of the Sheaffer product line after the war; none of the wartime Triumph pens continued to be marketed after 1944 or '45, and none of the models marketed in the post-war period were introduced during the war or earlier."

My assumption is that the turnover was not "complete". It seems reasonable to assume that parts of Triumph nibs manufactured before 1945 were used in manufacturing Triumph nibs after 1945 (feeds might remain unchanged which the collar that screws into the pen changes dimensions). Your assumption seems to be that the new line was created de novo without continuity with the earlier line.


1. This font still appeared on items made 1946 and later.
2. The arched "Sheaffer'S" mark still appeared on items made 1946 and later.
3. The "fat" pens were still made in 1946 and later, but the wartime Triumph pens that appeared starting ~1942 were all thinner.

A good of example of some continuity. My dating of periods, which takes in to account some continuity, allows for an overlap of a year or two.



No, and I have no information about that feed mark.

Do you have info on OTHER feed marks that relate to specialty nibs?
Cheers,
Gerry

None. My point is that your nib style existed at the same time as documentation of that nib style, as you acknowledge, so I don't understand the basis for your belief that your nib is earlier or that such nib styles existed earlier than the models of pens that were being marketed contemporaneously with these nib-type documents.

You've agreed that your pen could date to the same time as nib-style materials you yourself have cited. Yet you say that you're fairly confident that your pen dates to before that period, and you supply as your evidence a set of attributes that do not date the item to the claimed time, as you admit.


I was referring to the model lineup, not to individual components. Indeed, from all the documentation I've viewed, there was complete turnover in the model lineup.

And again, the point is that your nib bears attributes that are consistent with the same post-war time period as the documentation you have cited for special nibs, and your pen is a post-war model. You have stated that you are not aware of a single piece of evidence that such nib styles were offered on earlier pen models. Yet, you say we can assume that these special nib styles were available prior to the documented period. I don't see how that is a logical assumption given the acknowledged complete absence of evidence for it.


You seem to have missed my point here. You specifically cited these three attributes as your evidence for your claim that your nib dates to the period before 1946, yet, as you acknowledge, every one of these three attributes was present after that period. How then is it evidence for your belief?


Let me summarize:

- You acknowledge that the nib on your pen bears attributes that do not date it to only before 1946

- You acknowledge that the pen itself does not date to only before 1946

- You acknowledge that you know of no documentary evidence that the special nibs were being offered on the wartime Triumph models

Yet, you conclude that your nib dates to before 1946, and you say that we can assume that such nibs were made for the wartime Triumph models.


I do not.

--Daniel