Show us your Sheaffer Autographs

[david i]

I seriously doubt he would be the first to admit anything.

 

I personally have witnessed Daniel admit all sorts of things, so- whilst i concede your right to harbor whatever doubts you so choose- your doubts do not impact the reality of my personal awareness.

 

Furthermore, beyond Daniel admitting "anything"... I have witnessed him admit he is wrong on one perspective or another about pendom, when provided with actual evidence to that effect.

 

And this end of the "discussion" is after much water under the bridge. To comment on this side of it like that without admitting what's gone before isn't fair to anybody, me least of all.

 

I would have to ask you to clarify this statement. Which water under which bridge? I have read this entire thread. Daniel's argumentation no doubt is tenacious. Perhaps (or perhaps not) elements of his viewpoint are in error. But, i did not comment on who might or might not be correct about a given catalog entry number or what have you. I comment on the nature of the dialogue and thus reiterate. Daniel objected to points about pens. He did not hurl personal insults in place of issue-related debate.

 

I've simply tired of watching the supposed fact police attack one person after another. He doesn't offer any input or tangible matter other than - nope, you're wrong etc. Its old.

 

Verily, whether his line of argumentation might or might not seem "old" to one or another reader has little to do with using ad hominem attack vs issue-related debate. I merely observe that- independent of the correctness (or lack of it) of his argumentation and independent of the "oldness" of his approach- Daniel does in fact argue about the pens, and does not engage in simple insult in place of argumentation about pens.

 

Certainly i respect your right to be tired of the discussion, per se, though i'm not clear what this has to do with the issue at hand.

 

I do observe that the term "police" often is used as a pejorative in net discussion, but to degree that our hobby is laden with myth and supposition, the injection and analysis of fact- when possible- is a good thing.

 

And the person who confronts the bully should never been construed as a bully.

 

This gets painfully close to the "woe is me" argument.

 

Putting aside all the entertaining ad hominization, i saw little evidence of bullying of any sort, other than someone calling someone "sad, bully. etc". A very chewy pen subject was raised. It was discussed vigorously. I hesitate to use the word, "loses" in this context since we all are here to clarify our knowledge base about pens, but to the degree that one loses a debate of this sort, he should be grateful for having learned something, not complain that the facts of the "victor" lack merit because he's just a bully.

 

I saw no sign in this discussion of anyone waging the good fight to protect the world against bullies. I saw a situation in which a possibly losing pen argument was subverted into a "war against bullying"

 

 

And the person who confronts the bully should never been construed as a bully. The people who take it that way are usually self condemned to living lives afraid of conflict. A little conflict is a good thing if it brings difficult issues to the surface, as painful as that might be for some.

 

I admit to confusion. A point about pens was discussed. Angry ad hominem epithets were hurled by one contributor against Daniel. Daniel did not do the same in response. Daniel shows no signs of of not wanting to bring difficult pen issues to the surface. Rather, i see that view in the ad hominem attacks upon him, which no doubt do not bother him, as they probably are seen as sign the hurler has conceded the pen argument.

 

And the main issue here has been lost. I don't care that Daniel is wrong somewhere. I'm wrong a lot, just ask my wife! The issue here is one of civility and congeniality. Daniel sets himself up as a self-agrandizing expert so he can feed his ego at the expense of others. I take great umbrage at it.

 

If so, the main issue was not lost by Daniel. He kept close eye on the PEN issues on hand, and did not hurl personal insults. I would venture the guess that the main issue was lost by those who hurl personal insults in place of argumentation about pens. The question is whether the main issue was deliberately lost by someone who perhaps saw himself losing on the issues.

 

Daniel did not say the following...

--You are clinically sick dude.

 

--You need to get help soon or your ego and giant pile of BS are going to swell up.

 

--Common courtesy is offered to all though may be recinded.

 

--I thought I showed great restraint.

 

--I could go into a long (boring) clinical description of why some people try to lord over others but I won't. Its never good to ignor the problem hoping it will go away because it doesn't until confronted.

 

--folks out there reading in on this comedy I'll say this. Bullies like Daniel drone on and on and on until good people stand up to them.

 

--In any case, don't under-estimate the damage done over the course of weeks and months by bullies.

 

--Daniel sets himself up as a self-agrandizing expert so he can feed his ego at the expense of others.

 

Someone else wrote all that in response to Daniel's dogged citation of catalog data and the like. I see many personal insults and attacks heaped upon Daniel. Daniel on other hand has committed the crime of being dogged in his pursuit of the facts about the pens.

 

On the one hand its insulting and on the other, he's usually wrong while he's doing it to boot!

 

I would suggest that one's perception that he's been insulted is not the same as another having hurled an actual insult.

 

I would suggest that if Daniel is in error in his argumentation, it is best to point out said errors, rather than to engage in ad hominem attack.

 

 

I don't comment on a thread where I dont' have anything helpful or insightful to add (ok, maybe something funny as well). My intent is to add to the discussion and value of the Board.

 

An admirable intent. I fail to see why you don't accord the same view to Daniel's posts.

 

-d

Edited January 26, 2007 by david i

[Guest PeteWK]

Hi again David. I'm certain that I've made myself abundantly clear. I won't stand by any longer and watch Daniel attack people. If you think I'm stooping to his level, I'm sorry you fail to see the importance in what I'm doing. The police sometimes need to employ violence to apprehend criminals. That doesn't make them criminals in the process. They make the streets safer for everyone else.

 

If people do and say nothing, they're every bit at fault as the abuser for allowing it to continue. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way about Daniel. I'm not going to sit by cowering in a corner and allow him to continue unchecked.

 

PeteWK

[david i]

Hi again David. I'm certain that I've made myself abundantly clear. I won't stand by any longer and watch Daniel attack people.

 

Hi Pete,

 

 

Clarity of expression is not at issue here. One can make abundantly clear that he believes the sun revolves around the earth. I can concur that such a person has made his belief abundantly clear while still noting that this abundance of clarity has no significant impact on real issues of the day.

 

To be more clear...

 

To the degree that anyone has done attacking of people (i assume you mean in writing and not physically, of course), well... you not Daniel appear most guilty of said crime.

 

Daniel has doggedly pursued a point or three about pen history and nomenclature. That he is abrasive at times can be seen as annoying or as charming. I would be happy to donate cash to send him to charm school.

 

But, I would agree- or at least assert- that shallow ad hominem attacks do diminish the value of any pen discussion. Whilst Daniel's approach might be abrasive and might be hyperfocused- both things i don't really mind- I do note quite a number of personal attacks on people from this thread. Allow me to cite attacks on people from this long thread. See if any sound familiar. Perhaps you should act to prevent this fellow from attacking people. Here we gooooo....

 

 

--Geez, what Middle School is your Alma Mater?

 

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

comeuppance.

 

--You sir, are a legend in your own mind. I will, however, enjoy

tormenting you from time to time.

 

--you'll get the therapy and I won't be bothered.

 

--Daniel decided to continue making an ass out of himself.

 

--Daniel is just talking out of his posterior oriface [sic]

 

--you are Daniel, Great Oriface [sic] Talker

 

--And before Daniel jumps in with his moronic "why would it be latex?"

That's what unrefined rubber is often refered [sic] to in its more

natural state. Read a little, it will do you some good.

 

--You are clinically sick dude.

 

--You need to get help soon or your ego and giant pile of BS are going to swell up.

 

--Common courtesy is offered to all though may be recinded.

 

--I thought I showed great restraint.

 

--I could go into a long (boring) clinical description of why some people try to lord over others but I won't. Its never good to ignor the problem hoping it will go away because it doesn't until confronted.

 

--folks out there reading in on this comedy I'll say this. Bullies like Daniel drone on and on and on until good people stand up to them.

 

--In any case, don't under-estimate the damage done over the course of weeks and months by bullies.

 

--Daniel sets himself up as a self-agrandizing expert so he can feed his ego at the expense of others.

 

I guess the question is... why do you complain about Daniel, who has not attacked people, whilst supporting the fellow who made all those quotes above... who sort of is attacking people.

 

As best i can tell, you have confused your annoyance with Daniel's possibly successful argumentation with a notion of attacks on people that simply are not present. If you can present personal attacks from Daniel on par- or even 1/10 as significant- as the personal attacks i quoted above, i will reconsider my stance.

 

If you think I'm stooping to his level, I'm sorry you fail to see the importance in what I'm doing.

 

On the contrary. I believe instead that Daniel has failed (fortunately) to stoop to YOUR level in this. You have done what you accuse him of doing. He has not done what you accuse him of doing. What exactly are you missing in all this? Indeed, what is it of importance that you believe you do here- accuse others of doing that which indeed is being done only by you?

 

Indeed, to degree that you might be right on one point or another of sheaffer history, I am saddened that rather than watching a debate between two folks with fair knowledge of that make, i instead see you personally attacking Daniel and defending that behavior via some strange projection, in which you see Daniel behaving as you in fact are behaving.

 

f people do and say nothing, they're every bit at fault as the abuser for allowing it to continue.

 

Pete, in this thread, YOU not Daniel, have been the abuser. Daniel's only apparent "abuse" is to have not accepted your claims automatically. This hardly constitutes abuse. If Daniel is a bit abrasive in the nature of his challenges... well, that hardly constitutes abuse. Please review the quote above which shows how someone apparently has been abusing Daniel.

 

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way about Daniel.

 

Uhhh.... so? At any one time half or more of the country despises its sitting President. It seems Daniel is in good company. But... what has this to do with the fact that you have been the attacker, the abuser in this matter, yet you seem to want to protect us from the fellow who has NOT been an attacker or abuser. I'm so confused.

 

I'm not going to sit by cowering in a corner and allow him to continue unchecked.

 

First, you are in no position to prevent him from going... unchecked. This has been made abundantly clear.

 

Second, what is it you wish to check him from doing? You wish to check him from presenting data to back his claims and to ask for data to be provided by those who offer counter claims? You wish to check him from bringing facts to a pen discussion? You wish to check him from not taking your word that something just must be so simply because you believe it? You wish to check him from responding in an issues-oriented fashion even whilst you attack and abuse him, and whilst you try to mask this attack and abuse by accusing him of the same?

 

I must say, this has been one of the more entertaining threads of late.

 

Perhaps i shall have to post a pic of the Autograph i picked up at PHilly. :ltcapd:

 

regards

 

david

Edited January 27, 2007 by david i

[kirchh]

Sheaffer ads that showed this Feathertouch nib (which was described as being plated with platinum, not palladium, in all the materials I've seen)...

I would like to follow up here by correcting a likely error I made in this topic. I have come across some internal information indicating that at least at one point in the late 1940s, Sheaffer did use palladium for plating the forepart of two-tone nibs.

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

The patent for the nib with a plated ink slit (US1869950) was filed on August 8, 1931...

A correction: the filing date was August 10, not August 8.

 

--daniel

[Vintagepens]

Sheaffer ads that showed this Feathertouch nib (which was described as being plated with platinum, not palladium, in all the materials I've seen)...

I would like to follow up here by correcting a likely error I made in this topic. I have come across some internal information indicating that at least at one point in the late 1940s, Sheaffer did use palladium for plating the forepart of two-tone nibs.

 

--Daniel

That would make sense -- I have certainly seen some two-tone nibs where the "white" plated area has tarnished in a manner inconsistent with platinum plating.

 

[kirchh]

Sheaffer ads that showed this Feathertouch nib (which was described as being plated with platinum, not palladium, in all the materials I've seen)...

I would like to follow up here by correcting a likely error I made in this topic. I have come across some internal information indicating that at least at one point in the late 1940s, Sheaffer did use palladium for plating the forepart of two-tone nibs.

 

--Daniel

That would make sense -- I have certainly seen some two-tone nibs where the "white" plated area has tarnished in a manner inconsistent with platinum plating.

That's interesting -- I hadn't observed palladium tarnishing at all, but I haven't made a study of it. What is the appearance of this tarnish?

 

Edit: I have found some information that palladium can attract organics from the environment and become coated with a brownish film (not exactly tarnish in the sense of oxidation, I suppose).

 

--Daniel

Edited May 11, 2009 by kirchh

[RICARDOBORBA]

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/334159_229328417189229_1910407020_o.jpg

 

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/540248_155730707882334_160349625_n.jpg

 

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/471603_153244454797626_311852169_o.jpg

 

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/202265_221635771291827_1367209330_o.jpg

 

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/339490_222039634584774_103409681_o.jpg

[Garageboy]

Were Autograph bands always plain? (no machining around the rims?)

[kirchh]

Were Autograph bands always plain? (no machining around the rims?)

The wartime Triumph Autograph pens had a bit of decorative lining near the edges of the band.

 

--Daniel

[gregamckinney]

My photo doesn't show it very well, but this pen is an example of what Daniel refers to:

http://www.gergyor.com/images/sheaffer-balance-signature-wideband.png

 

Regards, greg

[RICARDOBORBA]

[Roger W.]

That is a very nice J89C!

[sexauerw]

Here are my Autographs, an Imperial set, a vac and a Snorkel.

 

http://bulk-share.slickpic.com/album/share/TTkMI3O4TNROyM/6384006.0/org/p/Four_Sheaffer_Autographs%2C_Capped%2C_small.jpg

 

 

 

http://bulk-share.slickpic.com/album/share/TTkMI3O4TNROyM/6384007.0/org/p/Four_Sheaffer_Autographs%2C_Posted%2C_small.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2013 by sexauerw

[georges zaslavsky]

I don't have any for the moment but I hope to add one soon

[RICARDOBORBA]

Just for curiosity... how much a band from a triumph autograph weights.

[jaytaylor]

Wow, a thread i started 13 years ago. I still have many of the Autograph models shown at the start of this thread and still have a thing for them.