I was doing some research for work, when I discovered the Time Online Archive (200 years worth of digitised newspapers -- an incredible feat). If you've not seen it, have a look. Try typing in Parker 51 for example, and see the numerous ads from the 1940s and 1950s.

What I did find in the brief time I was looking (got to do that work thing) was this review ...December 27th, 1889!

Enjoy!

Mark

Wow, thanks, London. Love the disparaging tone towards the pens from America being sold by agents!

I wonder if any survive and what they look like?


Greg

Not the earliest review But an interesting pen. The pen was invented by E. Lacon - patent number 8534.
Maybe George knows but this looks like of the early efforts for a visible ink supply.

So many revs interested!

'I am so much pleased with the contrivance that I am desirous to procure another'. (Oh dear, seems like the bug would bite even in those times!)

That Times Archive link is amazing. So much Conway Stewart history. I'm waiting for my login to work.

Greg

That link was very interesting. Took a look myself and found this interesting article where 1000(pounds) of Fountain Pens were stolen from the Conway Stewart factory. As this was 2,900 some pens, you get a good ideal of their value at the time...

http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewA...urrPgSmartSet=1

Hope the link works - you may have to be registered to read it...

Regards,

Gerry

PS: What's the code for the British Pound symbol anyway?

Mark, thanks for the link to the Times Online Archive. More things to search!

But the earliest review of a fountain pen on FPN, so far, was posted by Johnny Appleseed near the end of this FPN thread.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...30056&st=30

It's from the New York Times, May 11, 1853, and it's for the "Spring Fountain Pen", probably an early name for "Prince's Protean", but there are probably earlier reviews. By the way, most ads in those days took the form of a pseudo-review.

Antonios, when citing British patents between Oct 1852 and 1915 it is imperative to give the year, because the numbering sequence starts at 1 every year during that period. If you give just the number, then the readers will still have to try to figure out the year, and the exact publishing or issuing date, in order to find the patent.

George Kovalenko.

Here it is:

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b325/azavalia/lacon.jpg">

So it is 1889, George.

There Antonios, was that so hard? I had the date already, but I didn't want to spoil your fun. As someone else said, you should really cite your sources. It would save a lot of time. I see from your other thread that you found the Lacon pen in the Maginnis lectures. It's a great resource, but another of those Google Books that's available only in the US. Thanks for posting it. It's nice to have a digital copy as well as one in hardcopy.

George, my fun is to bring you into the game Instead of complaining about the incompleteness of my
posts, which are such and will always be, why don't you just tell us what we are more eager to hear, what were the early efforts for visual ink supply?

I should have known there would be an earlier one. But the sub-title was a little tongue in cheek. And, I should have know it would have been from Jonny.

Thanks for the Patent image Antonios.

Mark

But my complaining about the incompleteness of others' posts is such and will always be. ;~)

I'm sorry, Antonios, but what you are most eager to hear shall have to be postponed. Perhaps someone else is willing to do all the work collecting all those early efforts for a visual ink supply. I do seem to recall various transparent ink chambers of glass, and ink-vue windows on the barrel, and ink-vue apertures, and transparent celluloid used on pens long before Le Boeuf, etc.

In other words, YHTWFTB. ;~)

George Kovalenko.