Show us your Sheaffer Autographs

[Roger W.]

Pete;

 

A 3-25 nib would never be stock for 14K hardware. A 3-25 nib is a limited gaurantee item and 14K trim is high end lifetime stuff. So a small diameter lifetime nib would be appropriate for your pen.

 

Roger W.

[kirchh]

Pete;

 

A 3-25 nib would never be stock for 14K hardware. A 3-25 nib is a limited gaurantee item and 14K trim is high end lifetime stuff. So a small diameter lifetime nib would be appropriate for your pen.

 

Roger W.

I would generally agree, but limited-production items like this may not always follow these principles. Simple question:

 

Is there a White Dot on the top of the cap?

 

--Daniel

[Roger W.]

Daniel;

 

I would think barring a white dot that this was then a flex nib model. Still, not a 3-25.

 

Roger W.

[kirchh]

Daniel;

 

I would think barring a white dot that this was then a flex nib model. Still, not a 3-25.

 

Roger W.

I don't think this can be asserted with any degree of support. Sheaffer was already providing flexible nibs on Lifetime pens by the time this pen was made, so there's no basis for the hypothesis that this pen lacked a White Dot because it was sold with a flexible nib. However, the absence of a White Dot would be consistent with a 3-25, and until a better explanation is presented, I think that's the most likely model designation given what we have before us.

 

--Daniel

[Guest PeteWK]

Daniel, do you actually read my posts before making comments about them? I can't find one place where you haven't either warped or misquoted me. That's the reason I quit discussing the issue of the Tuckaway pen. You're either not paying attention or. . . the other options aren't good.

 

PeteWK

[Guest PeteWK]

(Entertaining Reading Ahead)

 

 

***kirchh said*** I think you're mixing up two concepts: trusting clips (and other features) for dating, and trusting reference guides that refer to clips (and other features) for dating. The fact that Richard's site may have errors doesn't mean that one can't trust clips

 

(PeteWK) When did I say that? I said “Its pretty good but it has it’s limitations”. Which in fact you’re about to admit in the very next sentence…wait for it…

 

***kirchh said*** (or other features) for dating; it means we must always understand that references can have errors, and that it's important to track back references' assertions to their sources to confirm (or up-end) the references' claims. I find clips to be an excellent method for dating pens (or, more precisely, for providing "no earlier than" dates for pens). As with all feature-based dating, this is subject to the continual refinement of our knowledge of when features appeared, but given the ready availability of patents, ads, and reinforcing correlation with other attributes, dating by clip style is quite powerful, I feel.

 

 

(PeteWK) I certainly agree, but as I’ve said, its not perfect and open to some discrepancy.

 

 

***kirchh said*** Several specific comments: The fact that you see both early varieties of Balance clip in the 1930 catalog does not invalidate Richard's assertion that the shorter clip is the next generation, as that next generation's introduction could certainly pre-date the issuance of the 1930 catalog

 

 

(PeteWK) What are you talking about? I don’t care about that at all nor have I made any assertion that the shorter clip isn’t a longer existing model (the actual reality is that it lasted longer ie was produced to a later date). I’m talking about dating a pen. Richard, you, me – nobody – can say with certainty that a full length clip is made in 1929 or 1930 or whatever because we only know when it began, not when production ceased. My point only has to do with and is limited to the issue of dating any particular pen.

 

 

***kirchh said*** (note that I make no specific claims here -- I am only pointing out a fault in your logic).

 

 

(PeteWK) The only fault here is that your grasp of the English language is highly suspect.

 

 

***kirchh said*** You assert, "In fact they were sold side by side from the beginning and are both in the 1930 catalog", but as the Balance patent was filed in late 1928 and it was advertised in 1929, your reference to the 1930 catalog provides no support for this claim. Do you have other evidence to support that assertion?

 

 

(PeteWK) As you’re already aware, the 1930 catalog is as good as it’s going to get until someone pulls a 1929 pricelist out of their hip pocket (I could have written something else here). The various ads show, what, three or four models? The definitive statement is that in Sheaffer’s only full catalog from the period (and earliest Balance catalog) the two models are sold side by side. Clearly the long and short(er) clip are both 1930 models and there’s absolutely no proof that the shorter clip isn’t also a 1929 model because a catalog or other information simply doesn’t exist to reveal it.

 

 

***kirchh said*** By your reliance on the depictions in the 1930 catalog, you imply that it is reliable as regards the configuration of the pens that were actually being offered at the time. I would generally caution against drawing this conclusion. For example, the 1930 catalog has mocked-up pictures of some items that do not actually exist as shown, as far as I know.

 

 

(PeteWK) Maybe so. But then these things are a large part (not the only part) of what we as collectors have to rely on. And just because a catalog doesn't agree with you doesn't invalidate it.

 

 

***kirchh said*** I don't know which example on Richard's site you are referring to that violates the dating he provides; can you point it out?

 

 

(FROM RICHARD'S SITE) "A shorter clip, but still a round ball: In 1932, Sheaffer shortened the clip further and slightly streamlined its top. This new clip, called a short round ball humped clip, was used during 1932, 1933, and 1934. Some reference books state that this streamlined version came into use in 1933, but I have in my collection a Blue 3-25 Balance, engraved on its band DL TO EMP 5-26-'32, with a clip of this design."

 

 

***kirchh said*** As regards the pen I have that is BHR with a 14K clip, as you acknowledge, the fact that it is not in any catalog (or, more correctly, it is not in any catalog that you or I know of -- an important distinction often not made)

 

 

(PeteWK) I feel pretty confident saying that I have every Sheaffer Catalog made from 1912 to 1935 except the c. 1921 with the Secretary on the front (you probably have that one, though I do have the 1918 catalog with the Secretary that is currently not known to exist. (I’ll be making it and many other rare catalogs available at the Los Angeles Pen Show). These are not my property but I’m scanning and producing them for a friend.

 

 

***kirchh said*** doesn't mean that it is a Frankenpen (consider the many other models of pen that are known to be factory-correct yet uncataloged). You don't offer any evidence for your conclusion that it is probably a Frankenpen (the fact that you believe it could have been created by assembling parts does not, of course, mean that it probably was produced in that way).

 

 

(PeteWK) The bottom line here is that if wasn’t your pen you’d be on this like white on rice. That pen reeks of Frankenpen. Looking at the catalogs from 1918, 1923 (A-1), 1924-5 (A-2) and 1928 the pens without a cap band are the cheap-o variety. Of the 24 Lifetime pens shown in the A-1 catalog fully 20 of them have 14k bands (14K top cap rings for the ladies pens). The others have gold-filled furniture. Clearly Sheaffer was interested in high ending the pens he considered to be his “Masterpieces” as quoted in the catalog. Further, a contrarian argument just doesn’t hold any water. Just because I can’t jump in a time machine and hold the hand of the guy who made the pen doesn’t mean your brain shouldn’t shift out of neutral. Do I really need to use that tired axiom about a river in Egypt?

 

 

***kirchh said*** You state, "Sheaffer sold silver, gold filled and 14k clips to dealers for both repair and upgrade at a customers request." That is an interesting fact; what documents might you have that are the source for that information?

 

 

(PeteWK) Please note the attached “Sheaffer Confidential Discount Sheet” from the A-1 Catalog. It makes reference to the clips of all three varieties. The back of the A-2 catalog includes the three types of clips (page 37), also with pricing. Just for the sake of argument note that by “silver” I meant nickel plated. As for the installation at the behest of a customer, this information comes to me via Fred Krinke, owner of The Fountain Pen Shop in Monrovia, California. You will note that Fred is the third generation family owner dating back to 1922 and has been repairing and selling pens since 1945. He informed me that a talented pen repairman of the day could replace a clip so that it looked factory installed. If your clip was broken, you would be presented with the various options available to you. 25 cents for a nickel plated clip, 1.00 for a gold filled clip and 2.00 for the 14k model as per the A-1 Document.

 

 

***kirchh said*** - I base the date of 1931+ for your small pen with 14K clip on the design of the clip. Do you have some data that indicates that the clip style on that pen was being produced before 1931?

 

 

(PeteWK) My two responses to that in my previous posts were, “That may well be, don't know”, and “In the case of my little pen, its a weird variant. No white dot but the higher grade solid gold fittings and a 3-25 nib to top it all off. A strange pen, late 1920s to 1931. I have no qualms with that.”

 

I’m not sure how I could be clearer about it. Also note that I’m talking about the WHOLE PEN in the last quotation! I say it is a STRANGE PEN with SOLID GOLD FITTINGS and a 3-25 NIB. It may be from several different pens and years, who knows?

 

PeteWK

Edited January 9, 2007 by PeteWK

[kirchh]

Daniel, do you actually read my posts before making comments about them?  I can't find one place where you haven't either warped or misquoted me.  That's the reason I quit discussing the issue of the Tuckaway pen.  You're either not paying attention or. . . the other options aren't good.

I read your posts quote thoroughly before commenting on them, as I do with all posts before I respond. Here you make a specific charge that I "misquoted" you in my post. I would ask that you provide these instances where I quoted your statements incorrectly so that I might correct those misquotations, or should no such instances actually exist, that you retract this accusation. I wouldn't want other readers to be left with the impression that I would fabricate statements and post them as quotations of yours if that were not in fact the case, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that either.

 

***kirchh said*** I think you're mixing up two concepts: trusting clips (and other features) for dating, and trusting reference guides that refer to clips (and other features) for dating. The fact that Richard's site may have errors doesn't mean that one can't trust clips

 

(PeteWK) When did I say that?

 

on Jan 8 2007, 03:01 PM, you wrote,

 

I have, however, learned not to trust clips as much as I once did

 

You then explained that you had found what you considered errors on Richard's clip dating page. I clarified the distinction between not necessarily trusting references that discuss clip dating and not trusting clip dating itself. I hope that clears it up.

 

I said “Its pretty good but it has it’s limitations”. Which in fact you’re about to admit

 

Let's be accurate; I wrote,

 

I find clips to be an excellent method for dating pens....given the ready availability of patents, ads, and reinforcing correlation with other attributes, dating by clip style is quite powerful, I feel.

 

Again, that should serve to clarify any confusion about my position on that issue.

 

(PeteWK) The only fault here is that your grasp of the English language is highly suspect.

 

I doubt that your assessment would be met with wide (or even narrow) agreement. More importantly, I would suggest that resorting to such personal insults in the course of a discussion about historical and factual matters of general interest is distinctly unproductive.

 

***kirchh said*** You assert, "In fact they were sold side by side from the beginning and are both in the 1930 catalog", but as the Balance patent was filed in late 1928 and it was advertised in 1929, your reference to the 1930 catalog provides no support for this claim. Do you have other evidence to support that assertion?

 

 

(PeteWK) As you’re already aware, the 1930 catalog is as good as it’s going to get until someone pulls a 1929 pricelist out of their hip pocket (I could have written something else here). The various ads show, what, three or four models? The definitive statement is that in Sheaffer’s only full catalog from the period (and earliest Balance catalog) the two models are sold side by side. Clearly the long and short(er) clip are both 1930 models and there’s absolutely no proof that the shorter clip isn’t also a 1929 model because a catalog or other information simply doesn’t exist to reveal it.

 

Here you engage in a fallacy of reasoning; you appear to assert that if a claim cannot be disproven, it can then be stated as a matter of fact. I trust the error here is apparent.

 

Let's review the specifics of this matter. You wrote,

 

[Richard's clip dating reference page] shows the early clip as being the one that very nearly touches the cap band. Then he lists a slightly shorter one as the next generation. In fact they were sold side by side from the beginning

 

Here, you make a very specific claim, and you explicitly refer to it as a "fact". The claim is that both low and higher clips "were sold side by side from the beginning". As your proof, you cite their apparent appearance together in a 1930 catalog. However, 1930 was not "the beginning" of the Balance, as you have acknowledged. Therefore, it cannot be asserted based on the catalog that both clip styles "were sold side by side from the beginning".

 

In defense of your claim, when this error is pointed out, you say that "there’s absolutely no proof that the shorter clip isn’t also a 1929 model because a catalog or other information simply doesn’t exist to reveal it." As you have produced not a single iota of evidence to support your contention, no evidence -- much less proof -- needs to be summoned to dispute it.

 

In sum: The 1930 catalog provides no evidence that the higher clip was being sold from the beginning of the Balance's run. There is no evidence that has yet been presented here that the higher clip was being sold from the beginning of the Balance. There is evidence that the lower clip was being sold from the beginning. Therefore, with what is before us, it cannot logically be asserted that it is a "fact" that both clip styles were being sold side by side from the beginning.

 

As always, I am completely open to examining additional evidence; as new data appears positions are changed and refined, and confidence increases. Logic, however, remains immutable.

 

And just because a catalog doesn't agree with you doesn't invalidate it.

 

Certainly not. But in what way does the 1930 catalog not agree with me? I have not made any such assertion.

 

***kirchh said*** I don't know which example on Richard's site you are referring to that violates the dating he provides; can you point it out?

 

(FROM RICHARD'S SITE) "A shorter clip, but still a round ball: In 1932, Sheaffer shortened the clip further and slightly streamlined its top. This new clip, called a short round ball humped clip, was used during 1932, 1933, and 1934. Some reference books state that this streamlined version came into use in 1933, but I have in my collection a Blue 3-25 Balance, engraved on its band DL TO EMP 5-26-'32, with a clip of this design."

 

I'm confused by this response. You indicated that Richard Binder's Balance clip dating page had an actual example cap that violates his own dating guide ("Richard even pictures a pen that bucks the system"). But here, you refer to a cap that bears a 1932 inscription, and it has a clip that Richard's guide dates to 1932-1934.

 

How does this 1932 example "buck the system" that includes 1932 as a date for such a clip?

 

***kirchh said*** As regards the pen I have that is BHR with a 14K clip, as you acknowledge, the fact that it is not in any catalog (or, more correctly, it is not in any catalog that you or I know of -- an important distinction often not made)

 

(PeteWK) I feel pretty confident saying that I have every Sheaffer Catalog made from 1912 to 1935 except the c. 1921 with the Secretary on the front

 

Several points here. As we have both already agreed, absence of a particular pen model from a catalog is not a strong indication that the pen is a Frankenpen, because there are many models of pens that are demonstrably correct yet do not appear in a catalog.

 

Next, we should generally exercise caution when being confident that we have every one of anything in this field, as new and surprising discoveries continue to be made. Which retail or dealer catalogs do you have from the 1930s?

 

***kirchh said*** doesn't mean that it is a Frankenpen (consider the many other models of pen that are known to be factory-correct yet uncataloged). You don't offer any evidence for your conclusion that it is probably a Frankenpen (the fact that you believe it could have been created by assembling parts does not, of course, mean that it probably was produced in that way).

 

(PeteWK) The bottom line here is that if wasn’t your pen you’d be on this like white on rice. That pen reeks of Frankenpen.

Your speculation regarding my opinion of the pen were it not mine is erroneous.

 

Looking at the catalogs from 1918, 1923 (A-1), 1924-5 (A-2) and 1928 the pens without a cap band are the cheap-o variety.

 

Would it really matter if a Lifetime pen without a cap band were shown in a catalog?

 

Of the 24 Lifetime pens shown in the A-1 catalog fully 20 of them have 14k bands (14K top cap rings for the ladies pens). The others have gold-filled furniture. Clearly Sheaffer was interested in high ending the pens he considered to be his “Masterpieces” as quoted in the catalog.

 

So a pen with a Lifetime nib but no cap band or with a nickel-plated clip would, by your reasoning, be a Frankenpen?

 

By the way, in your Frankenpen theory, which model was my pen before the various "high-end" parts (14K clip, Lifetime nib) were added to it?

 

Just because I can’t jump in a time machine and hold the hand of the guy who made the pen doesn’t mean your brain shouldn’t shift out of neutral. Do I really need to use that tired axiom about a river in Egypt?

 

I wouldn't think you would need to resort to such insults as "doesn’t mean your brain shouldn’t shift out of neutral", yet you have, nonetheless. I'd ask that you make more of an effort to stick to the salient points of the discussion if you have a genuine interest in exploring this issue.

 

***kirchh said*** You state, "Sheaffer sold silver, gold filled and 14k clips to dealers for both repair and upgrade at a customers request." That is an interesting fact; what documents might you have that are the source for that information?

 

(PeteWK) Please note the attached “Sheaffer Confidential Discount Sheet” from the A-1 Catalog. It makes reference to the clips of all three varieties. The back of the A-2 catalog includes the three types of clips (page 37), also with pricing.

 

I was specifically interested in any Sheaffer materials that indicated that customers' pens were to be upgraded by dealers by exchanging clips. The sheets you refer to discuss repair stock (A2) and the price for dealers to order pens from Sheaffer with various trim (A1); for example, the sheet for catalog A1 posted here merely shows that clips were to be separately specified when pens were ordered with clips installed (presumably because clips were an option on many items). Note the example given -- a model 89C is ordered with a 14K clip on it, and the pen and clip are separate line items, but these would be factory-assembled to produce a standard model, of course.

 

***kirchh said*** - I base the date of 1931+ for your small pen with 14K clip on the design of the clip. Do you have some data that indicates that the clip style on that pen was being produced before 1931?

 

(PeteWK) My two responses to that in my previous posts were, “That may well be, don't know”, and “In the case of my little pen, its a weird variant. No white dot but the higher grade solid gold fittings and a 3-25 nib to top it all off. A strange pen, late 1920s to 1931. I have no qualms with that.”

 

I’m not sure how I could be clearer about it. Also note that I’m talking about the WHOLE PEN in the last quotation! I say it is a STRANGE PEN with SOLID GOLD FITTINGS and a 3-25 NIB. It may be from several different pens and years, who knows?

 

I'll explain how you could be clearer, so we can try to make progress on this point.

 

I date the clip to 1931 or later based on the style. My question is, do you have some data that indicates that the clip style was being produced before 1931?

 

I also have a related question; why do you select 1931 as the latest production date?

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

(PeteWK)  As you’re already aware, the 1930 catalog is as good as it’s going to get until someone pulls a 1929 pricelist out of their hip pocket (I could have written something else here).  The various ads show, what, three or four models?  The definitive statement is that in Sheaffer’s only full catalog from the period (and earliest Balance catalog) the two models are sold side by side.  Clearly the long and short(er) clip are both 1930 models and there’s absolutely no proof that the shorter clip isn’t also a 1929 model because a catalog or other information simply doesn’t exist to reveal it.

As the same situation and reasoning would apply to Black & Pearl pens and Marine Green pens, would you therefore assert that it is a fact that both Black & Pearl and Marine Green pens "were sold side by side from the beginning"?

 

--Daniel

[Guest PeteWK]

Good news Daniel! I just got back from my trip back in time, holding the hand of the guy that made your Frankenpen. He said its probably going to be one of these on page two (half of the page shown) of the Sheaffer 1918 catalog. Size your pen to fit.

 

I hope that helps. Perhaps someday we'll get to the point where we don't need my time machine to solve these vexing questions.

 

PeteWK

TimeMachine

[kirchh]

Good news Daniel!  I just got back from my trip back in time, holding the hand of the guy that made your Frankenpen.  He said its probably going to be one of these on page two (half of the page shown) of the Sheaffer 1918 catalog.  Size your pen to fit.

I'm puzzled. Why do you conclude that my pen started out as one of these pre-Lifetime pens that then had its clip, nib, feed, and section swapped rather than simply being a bandless Lifetime pen with a 14K clip?

 

I hope that helps.  Perhaps someday we'll get to the point where we don't need my time machine to solve these vexing questions.

 

Actually, it doesn't help at all; the pen in question is larger than the Model 6 but smaller than the Model 8. Perhaps you were unfamiliar with these models, and so you did not know that the later Senior-sized Lifetime pen is not the same dimensions as the earlier Model 8.

 

Now that you are aware of this information, do you have a candidate model for a non-Lifetime pen that you believe would be the basis for my pen?

 

I trust you will also be responding to some of the issues and questions that I raised in my previous post so that we can continue to make progress towards improving our knowledge of the issues under discussion.

 

--Daniel

[Guest PeteWK]

I say and write all these things because I am completely ignorant and quake in the face of your greatness. You alone know all and see all. We humbly bow at your feet.

 

You know Daniel, just for your own self improvement you should do a search of every post you've thrown up on FPN. You'll find that an amazing percentage is a bunch of self-agrandizing circular logic (so-called). Then search mine and you'll find an honest person genuinely trying to help other people and make this a better, more enjoyable hobby for everyone.

 

BTW, the reason people stop arguing with you isn't because they think you're right, its because they're tired of your ranting.

 

Information is power, but only if you put it to work.

 

Oh, and please break apart this post into your usual dissected portions so you can tell me exactly what you think word by word. I can't wait.

 

(isn't sarcasm a worderful literary device?)

 

PeteWK

 

-and I approve of this message.

[kirchh]

I say and write all these things because I am completely ignorant and quake in the face of your greatness.  You alone know all and see all.  We humbly bow at your feet.

 

You know Daniel, just for your own self improvement you should do a search of every post you've thrown up on FPN.  You'll find that an amazing percentage is a bunch of self-agrandizing circular logic (so-called).  Then search mine and you'll find an honest person genuinely trying to help other people and make this a better, more enjoyable hobby for everyone.

 

BTW, the reason people stop arguing with you isn't because they think you're right, its because they're tired of your ranting.

 

Information is power, but only if you put it to work.

 

Oh, and please break apart this post into your usual dissected portions so you can tell me exactly what you think word by word.  I can't wait.

 

(isn't sarcasm a worderful literary device?)

I take it from the above that you are declining to further the discussion on a factual and logical basis. That's disappointing; I was hoping that you would be able to maintain focus on the specific issues being discussed so that we could refine our knowledge. However, as you appear unwilling to respond to my points, and thus will not provide evidenciary support for your claims, the assertions you have made will remain in the realm of the unsupported. A shame, for sure, as there were several related interesting lines of inquiry regarding Sheaffer history.

 

You know Daniel, just for your own self improvement you should do a search of every post you've thrown up on FPN.  You'll find that an amazing percentage is a bunch of self-agrandizing circular logic (so-called).  Then search mine and you'll find an honest person genuinely trying to help other people and make this a better, more enjoyable hobby for everyone.

 

A most curious claim in light of your last few posts in this thread. I would ask you to provide even a single example of "circular logic" in one of my posts, but I suspect you will be unable to actually produce one (though there are "an amazing percentage"), and then you will respond with a personal insult in its stead, which will be both telling and dismaying.

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

I would also like to note that in addition to the other assertions that you now decline to support, and that thus must be viewed with doubt, I specifically observe that you have not backed up your charge that I misquoted you. Such a failure to provide any evidence for this charge is reasonably taken as an implicit retraction.

 

--Daniel

[Johnny Appleseed]

Knock it off you two. This isn't Pentrace.

 

John

[kirchh]

Knock it off you two. This isn't Pentrace.

 

John

Quite right. Let's continue the discussion by sticking to the evidence and reasoning, avoiding personal insults, sarcasm, and such.

 

I believe I made the last set of substantive responses, so I will await Pete's reply.

 

--Daniel

[Guest PeteWK]

Knock it off you two. This isn't Pentrace.

 

John

John my friend, I'm a quiet and gentle soul. But I take perverse joy in giving puffed up self-aggrandizing types their comeuppance. Its my one fault (wait, is that my wife coming?. . . nope) like I said, my one fault in life.

 

PeteWK

[kirchh]

I take perverse joy in giving puffed up self-aggrandizing types their comeuppance.

I would expect the optimal mechanism to achieve such a goal would be the production of evidence and the application of logic.

 

Shall we proceed on that basis?

 

I await your responses to the outstanding points.

 

--Daniel

[Guest PeteWK]

As the same situation and reasoning would apply to Black & Pearl pens and Marine Green pens, would you therefore assert that it is a fact that both Black & Pearl and Marine Green pens "were sold side by side from the beginning"?

 

--Daniel

Well, golly-gee no. Those of us who rely on Catalogs know that page 3 of the 1930 catalog clearly lauds the NEW Mariine Green Sheaffer line. But then since you distrust catalogs. . . or maybe there was a super-secret underground Sheaffer Factory that made it as a prototype and it didn't have a cap band and it was made in 1928 and only you know about it and have one, well then the catalog must be wrong.

 

Again, I bow to your superior powers or reasoning and logic. Your servant and loyal subject,

 

PeteWK

[kirchh]

As the same situation and reasoning would apply to Black & Pearl pens and Marine Green pens, would you therefore assert that it is a fact that both Black & Pearl and Marine Green pens "were sold side by side from the beginning"?

 

--Daniel

Well, golly-gee no. Those of us who rely on Catalogs know that page 3 of the 1930 catalog clearly lauds the NEW Mariine Green Sheaffer line.

Precisely -- the 1930 catalog, as you show, makes it clear that all the items shown within were not necessarily made side by side from the beginning of production of the Balance -- the Marine Green items being one example, as you acknowledge.

 

Therefore, we can conclude that if an item (or a feature, such as the higher clip) appears in the 1930 catalog, it does not mean that therefore that item or feature was in production from the beginning. As a specific example of the application of this conclusion, we can conclude that just because the higher clip may appear in the 1930 catalog, it does not mean that therefore the higher clip was made side by side with the lower clip from the beginning.

 

Do you agree, and if not, what is the specific factual or logical fault in this reasoning?

 

But then since you distrust catalogs. . . or maybe there was a super-secret underground Sheaffer Factory that made it as a prototype and it didn't have a cap band and it was made in 1928 and only you know about it and have one, well then the catalog must be wrong.

 

Again, I bow to your superior powers or reasoning and logic.  Your servant and loyal subject,

 

PeteWK

 

Please try to resist the urge to descend to this sort of unproductive utterance. Let's try to focus on the issues under discussion.

 

I am looking forward to your specifically addressing each of the other points I raised. I hope that you are able to do so in a constructive way that furthers the discussion.

 

--Daniel

[jaytaylor]

A question for you guys, any idea when Sheaffer started the nib Palladium plating?