Like many other collectors I can't always find out the model No or age of some pens. Could anyone help me with this one. Must be a fairly late model as the whole plunger system is made of plastic. It has " made in australia " stamped on the upper body just below the cap. Photos should explain the rest. Thanks Colin
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
Full Version: Another Sheaffer ID
Hi Colin,
It looks like an Imperial I....
Check this out: http://penhero.com/PenGallery/Sheaffer/She...erialsEarly.htm
Nice pen!
It looks like an Imperial I....
Check this out: http://penhero.com/PenGallery/Sheaffer/She...erialsEarly.htm
Nice pen!
QUOTE(Maja @ May 17 2008, 05:47 AM) [snapback]613565[/snapback]
Hi Colin,
It looks like an Imperial I....
Check this out: http://penhero.com/PenGallery/Sheaffer/She...erialsEarly.htm
Nice pen!
It looks like an Imperial I....
Check this out: http://penhero.com/PenGallery/Sheaffer/She...erialsEarly.htm
Nice pen!
Thanks Maja, Thats a definite ID, much appreciated. Regards Colin
A follow-up question for those who've seen this mark of Imperial with it's pants down before-- is the stubby sac the way it's meant to be? I seem to recall that it came without the usual TD protector, but I'd never have expected so short a reservoir.
I completely agree with Ernst, the stubby short sac is surely not as per the original design.
It may work though !
It may work though !
I'm torn:
1) Using a sac that's of different size from every other TD or Snork would require an inventory of different parts just for a single low-tier pen. Not alot of sense financially.
2) However, from an engineering standpoint, I can see that there may not be enough structural support to have a long, slim #14 sac full of liquid extend into the barrel without a sac protector. Likewise, because the plunger is plastic, it may need additional thickness or length to make the pneumatic action without cracking (unlike the metal plunger). Without looking at the innards, I can't say.
Note the PenHero site linked above references a "bulb shaped sac." So it could be the original design.
1) Using a sac that's of different size from every other TD or Snork would require an inventory of different parts just for a single low-tier pen. Not alot of sense financially.
2) However, from an engineering standpoint, I can see that there may not be enough structural support to have a long, slim #14 sac full of liquid extend into the barrel without a sac protector. Likewise, because the plunger is plastic, it may need additional thickness or length to make the pneumatic action without cracking (unlike the metal plunger). Without looking at the innards, I can't say.
Note the PenHero site linked above references a "bulb shaped sac." So it could be the original design.
Your fully right jhsiao, the short bulb sac looks to be original, never seen one like this.
As Maja already stated, it looks to be an early Imperial 1
The Penhero site really is an amazing source of knowledge.
Sorry for my wrong conclusion, glad I've learned something new !
Francis
As Maja already stated, it looks to be an early Imperial 1
The Penhero site really is an amazing source of knowledge.
Sorry for my wrong conclusion, glad I've learned something new !
Francis
QUOTE(jhsiao @ May 20 2008, 01:18 PM) [snapback]616725[/snapback]
I'm torn:
e
1) Using a sac that's of different size from every other TD or Snork would require an inventory of different parts just for a single low-tier pen. Not alot of sense financially.
2) However, from an engineering standpoint, I can see that there may not be enough structural support to have a long, slim #14 sac full of liquid extend into the barrel without a sac protector. Likewise, because the plunger is plastic, it may need additional thickness or length to make the pneumatic action without cracking (unlike the metal plunger). Without looking at the innards, I can't say.
Note the PenHero site linked above references a "bulb shaped sac." So it could be the original design.
e
1) Using a sac that's of different size from every other TD or Snork would require an inventory of different parts just for a single low-tier pen. Not alot of sense financially.
2) However, from an engineering standpoint, I can see that there may not be enough structural support to have a long, slim #14 sac full of liquid extend into the barrel without a sac protector. Likewise, because the plunger is plastic, it may need additional thickness or length to make the pneumatic action without cracking (unlike the metal plunger). Without looking at the innards, I can't say.
Note the PenHero site linked above references a "bulb shaped sac." So it could be the original design.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.