This started as a reply to Rob in the Eclipse topic but as I wrote I thought that it was more of a stand alone topic that might merit it's own discussion.

Rob's post read:

"To explain about that term "tier" a bit. If Waterman, Parker, Sheaffer, Eversharp and, arguably, Mabie,Todd/Swan represent the top tier of pen companies, Moore, Conklin, Chilton, LeBeouf, Wirt and a quite a few others few others would have to be the second tier separated more by sales volume than quality of product. In the third tier would be all those companies that have produced good, but obviously lesser quality pens regardless of production volume. I'd place in that tier, Eclipse, Esterbrook, National Pen Products Company, Wearever, Salz Brothers, and a few others. Then in the botton tier producing high volume and cheesey pens I'd place Arnold, Welsh, Spors and the producers of a lot of very schlocky pens that sold in the dollar range."

Although many compainies are referred to as being 1st, 2nd or 3rd tier I also use the term tier to reflect a specific pen model's design and build quality. The Big 4 pen companies also designed and marketted pens to appeal to the budget concious consumer that sold for a fraction of what their first tier models sold for and sold some "first tier" pens that weren't so great or all that successful.

Some examples of 1st tier makers and 2nd tier pens:

Parker Challenger, Parkettes, and 21
Waterman Taperite and 3 series pens from the 40's
Sheaffer's WASP and Imperials.

These are all generally well made pens (excluding the Taperite) but all were designed and marketted at much lower prices than the top of the line models these companies offered.

How many pens a company sold should not determine a company's rating as some smaller companies really made some exceptional pens in smaller quantities while other's made millions upon millions of low end dollar pens.

And then some companies like Wearever, who is usually relegated to being a third tier maker, came pretty close to making some first rate pens in the D100 and Zenith of the 40's. These can sometimes be found with fairly decent 14k nibs, are well made, and only suffer from having lighter gold plating.

This is what got me going....

How anyone could describe an Esterbrook J series pen as being "lesser quality" pen is beyond my comprehension as they are arguably one of the toughest and most dependable pens ever made that sold in the millions upon millions. I once heard that Esterbrook was making 18 million J series pens a year while the total production of Parker's "51" in all variants was somewhere near 20 million over 30 years.

So Esterbrook was selling a pen that was (and still is) bulletproof and they were selling more of these than Parker or Sheaffer was selling "51"s and Snorkels.

By that criteria I would have to argue that they were making a first rate pen and should bot be relegated to the basement. Perhaps I'll start referring to Esterbrooks as the Rodney Dangerfield of pens rather than the Timex of pens cause they don't get nearly enogh respect from some quarters.

Among the examples I listed there are also variances as the Royal Challenger is certainly a top of the line pen and many Sheaffer WASPs could actually be first tier pens that were simply sold at a 2nd tier price. Many WASPs are nearly the equal and sometimes even better than their Sheaffer counterparts of the same era.

I'm sure I have more to add to this...

Rob - You just inspired me to start the topic and no offense was taken except when you described Esterbrooks as 3rd tier.

Being that they (Esterbrooks) cost around $2.00 - $3.00 new in a time when many people were making $15.00 - $20.00 a week they were probably not considered a cheap pen but well worth the money you paid for one. I have looked at ads of the time and buying a pen like a "51" or Snorkel would have cost many working folks a week's pay in 1950.

I think we should consider them as a first rate pen that was made by a company that simply wanted to make the best pen possible that they could market at a targetted price. I'm sure their target was to retail their pens at a lower price than their loftier competitors like Sheaffer or Waterman.

Their ideas for using common components through the size ranges was quite brilliant and cost effective which probably kept them from having to market the pen at a higher price. This would have brought it's price in line with some lower end Sheaffers and Watermans and may have resulted in lower sales.

The fact that so many were produced and sold speaks volumes about how popular they were. I once heard that Esterbrook was making 18 million pens a year.

So, despite the fact that the guys at Esterbrook were just trying to be as competitive as possible they managed to build a little masterpiece in their J series and Waterman came up with what is considered a failure in their Taperite series even though the Taperite was supposed to top their line up.

Funny how things work out.

I don't have any Taperites but I sure have a nice little bunch of Esterbrooks here.

Maybe it's because I appreciate well designed pens that work well.

You haven't missed much with the Taperites, Keith I have a couple and IMHO, the Taperite "Crusader" is one of the least attractive citizens in pendom. Jim "PenHero" Mamoulides has one as a wallpaper download on his site here. Jim's photographic skills and good taste in backgrounds make it look attractive, but when you see one without the pretty background and in harsh light.... I have heard some people say you can find some flexy or semi-flexy nibs on them, but my two have nail-like hooded nibs.

Just curious about the Sheaffer Imperials, Keith....You used them as an example of a 2nd-tier pen line from a 1st-tier company... I never thought of them as 2nd-line pens, but I guess they were cheaper than the PFMs and the Lifetime pens....I won an Imperial VIII (cartridge-filler) on Ebay and it's a nice-looking pen

I was thinking of some of the all plastic type Imperials with steel nibs which are still well made pens but not top of the line white dot models.

For 2nd-tier pens, they sure stood the test of time, though! I love Sheaffers .....

I think part of the problem with the 'tiers' argument is that confuses form with function. Fountain pens, at least as long as they were primarily intended as writing instruments, served two functions. They were useful to write with and they conferred status on the owner. It was perfectly possible to have a solid reliable pen that lacked status conferring power, e.g. the Esterbrook J, just as nowadays many pens are about conspicuous display of wealth and are essentially useless as writing instruments. Clearly Shaeffer and Parker competed for the spot, in the public's mind, of most prestigious pen.

What I think is interesting about the Parker 51 and Shaeffer Snorkel is that in a very real sense they are both engineering failures. Sjure, they are well made, robust pens but they have critical flaws. The 51 was designed specifically to write with instant drying Superchrome ink and much of the complexity of it's nib/feed assembly are a product of that design point. It didn't work so in reality tghe Parker 51 owner was stuck with additional cost for no benefit. The Snork is a bit different. It does what it is supposed to but at a high price in complexity. Consider how much more elegant the cartridge pen is as a solution to not having to clean off the nib when refilling.

I'm speculating that both companies were consciously trying to compete on gimmickry. It seems to me entirely consistent with the zeitgeist of the 50's. After all this was the era where before long we would all have household robots and flying cars. The 51 and the Snork clearly belong in the world of the Jetsons!

The "51" and Snorkel are actual marvels in pen design and engineering.

I will agree that the vac filling "51" and Snorkel are overly complex as the aerometric filling 51 and Sheaffer touchdown filling pens work just as well and are much simpler in the design of their fillers.

Still... I love those vac filling 51's and Snorkels because they are quite simply, two of the finest pens ever conceived and sold.

none of this is what I thought of as "tiers" at all. I would say Rob's designations are about perceived quality (recognizing your "weasal room" with all due respect.) I have always thought of tiers as levels of corporate division. Such that - a manufacture like Pelikan might be producing cheaper pens under a different name. We know many manufacturers of many products do this.

Well, apparently I'm wrong but i'm having trouble with the concept as Rob, et. al. explain it because it seems so highly subjective. While using the expression to denote a corporate structure makes more sense to me and eliminates the subjectivity considerably.

An example from a different world would be Lincoln-Mercury vs. Ford. L-M is considered higher quality, more luxurious than Ford but they're the same company overall. There are examples of the same body design but more luxurious from L-M vs. Ford (Specifically I recall when the Taurus came out years ago and being confused by an outwardly identical car with a different name and higher price tag.)

so... as I said - I guess I'm wrong and I'm not arguing. Just confused.

The sugar high probably isn't helping.

So where is Conway-Stewart or Pelikan?

well, I'm not up to looking through your lists right now. As I said, I wasn't arguing. It's just a matter of no one ever explained it to me otherwise so I was led to believe that it was organizational vs. qualitative. Know what uh mean?

I'm just talking about definitions here - not about decisions on what pens fall into what categories. Is the qualitative definition of "tiers" (sans applying tiers to actual models/brands) the accepted view? That's all I'm trying to figure out. I just never would have thought of it that way because of the inherent subjectivity. IOW, it's fact to say that company Y is a subsidiary (second tier) of company X. And that has been my interpretation of the term based on no real knowledge at all. Perhaps a bit of "engineer's disease" has led me down that path. Always thinking in terms of low and high levels of detail and "top down" construction and so on. Neat little boxes. I like facts. so much easier to deal with than opinions.

Personally, I categorize pens on what I like. That puts Pelikan, Namiki, and Senator way up there... and Krone and a few Italian companies.... well, not at the top.

Tomorrow - hopefully i'll stop heaving long enough to take a pic of a new "third tier" pen that showed up quite by surprise in my mailbox. Three guesses as to which brand it is - and the first two guesses don't count.

I hope I'm not taking you too seriously. The day I get overly serious about pens I'm going back to Bics.

What a releif. Keith KCat Elaine Brian and I can put away the rope, cancel the lynchin' and get back to collecting pens after seeing our beloved Esterbrooks drop down into the FOURTH tier.

All just in fun sez he <_<

Doesn't really understand Estie people, does he...

Mumble, sputter...

I'll be OK in a minute......

Gerry

yo, Rob.

I'm not taking your post seriously at all. Hence the occasional smiley. as I said, it's just one of those things I want to grasp technically.

If I took everyone's opinions about pens seriously I wouldn't be the adamant Pelikan nut that I am and I wouldn't own probably half the pens I own.

to quote a certain deceased curmudgeon - It's just pens.

This is a great discussion methinks and I don't think lynching is needed... a more appropriate punishment (if needed) would to make Rob use nothing but 5th tier pens for a few weeks until he begs to be handed an Esterbrook.

I'll keep rating pens on their individual merit as I still think the best and biggest companies made some dogs and some of the smaller companies really came up with some true gems.

I agree with Rob in his opinion on the top four pen companies in the US as all made many of those spectacular pens so many of us look for in the present day.

And they are of course, just pens.

Rob,

Where the heck did this fifth tier come from?! I would collapse Tier 3 into Tier 2, because most of the companies you list there are just too good to be stranded way up there beyond the stratosphere, light-years away.

I think four tiers is quite sufficient.

George.

And yet... those Esterbrooks are getting put in the basement.

Rob,

This strays from the "tiers" discussion, but I hope to be forgiven as a first time poster: in an earlier post, you wrote: "And you are exactly right in that the top tier companies had lower tier pens although the Taperite was not one of them."

I think you are saying in this post that you do not regard the Taperite as lower tier pen. Is this correct? I know they were made w/ GF caps, in solid gold, and--to adopt a quote from something you wrote a while back--had those wonderful nibs that Waterman's nib makers continued to make even as the rest of the company when to hell. I have three, all with wonderful flexy nibs.

My marginally informed viewpoint is that their plastic has not stood the test of time as well as other contemporary pens, but that overall, it is a well made pen and worthy of interest. What is your opinion? Am I misunderstanding your statement above?

By the way, here I am and after reading several threads, I am glad to be here!

Dan

Dan - It's good to see you here!

The Taperite is the pen that really killed Waterman in North America as they continued to make excellent nibs but put them in really sub par pens.

The Taperites I have had pass through the shop have been very decent and even excellent writers but when compared to their Parker and Sheaffer counterparts, they fall short in the quality department.

Again...welcome and enjoy the hospitality FPN has to offer!

Hey Dan, welcome!

Love your terrier avitar. I think somewhere around here there is a thread where we all traded snapshots and dog/cat stories. Feel free to tell us about your terrier.

Kendall--

That's my Red Girl, an Irish Terrier. I have gushed to Maja about her and my other terrier, a Welsh Terrier named Jack, often. I grew up with terriers and while I love many type of dogs, terriers are what I understand. My Welshie is a good guy, but Red Girl is the apple of my eye. She is more like a mid-sized dog, although she is only about 33 lbs. and 17" high at the withers. Tough, kind-hearted, and loads of fun!

So you have one or more standard poodles? They are great dogs, but I like them best in a sports cut, as in your photo. What big, beautiful dogs they are!

best regards, Dan

What one hand gives, the other takes away. <_<

George.

My wife and I were watching the Eukanuba nationals this year and she saw a Welsh terrier and really liked it. Our dog trainer has smooth fox terriers and loves the breed as well.

We however, have cats, and to tough-as-nails terriers, bred to hunt vermin, cats = vermin. Moxie just thinks they're litter mates.

They're great dogs though. Smart and fiesty, like my wife

I'll go find that old thread and put some updates of Moxie on them...

I think that's "carnuba" lol