What Snorkel Model Should I Get?

[pen2paper]

 

That makes no sense.

 

The green ones turn yellow. Then the monkeys get 'em before you ever see them.

 

--Daniel

a Momentous day.. At this moment, I would believe that monkeys fly, (no boarding passes) : )

with all due respect.

 

edit: sheesh, try to be humorous when tired, no readers, and count the typos.

Edited April 24, 2015 by pen2paper

[kernando]

Oh wait, the Mandarin oranges are probably ripe.

 

The broads and stubs are out there in the wild.

[kirchh]

 

I may have added to that notion with the way I wrote about the nibs. You are correct, but unless I am mistaken, the flexible Triumphs are a very, very small percentage of the nibs made, and are rare to come across. And usually cost one dearly for the function. I suppose I was referring to what one can realistically expect to find, rather than what was manufactured.

 

They flexible Triumph nibs are indeed a tiny minority, but in my experience, they are no less common than the flexible flat nib varieties. However, I haven't done a survey to get a better fix on that.

 

--Daniel

[JonSzanto]

 

They flexible Triumph nibs are indeed a tiny minority, but in my experience, they are no less common than the flexible flat nib varieties. However, I haven't done a survey to get a better fix on that.

 

Thanks, Daniel. I, too, don't know the relative numbers of flexible nibs in both versions, compared to the more common stiffer nibs. I do know that they *seem* to be quite rare in the conical nibs, and I've probably assumed that it was easier to produce them in the open nib form.

[kirchh]

 

Thanks, Daniel. I, too, don't know the relative numbers of flexible nibs in both versions, compared to the more common stiffer nibs. I do know that they *seem* to be quite rare in the conical nibs, and I've probably assumed that it was easier to produce them in the open nib form.

 

I would think that production numbers for various nib styles were strictly a function of demand, not ease of manufacture.

 

--Daniel

Edited April 25, 2015 by kirchh

[JonSzanto]

I would think that production numbers for various nib styles were strictly a function of demand, not easy of manufacture.

 

I assume you meant "ease of manufacture". Do I understand you correctly that it is your belief that it would be as easy to make a flex nib in the conical 'Triumph' style nib as it would be in the 'open' style Sheaffer nib? I guess in my mind the geometries of the wrap-around conical nib would have made for inherent stiffness, but I'm no rocket scientist.

[kirchh]

 

Do I understand you correctly that it is your belief that it would be as easy to make a flex nib in the conical 'Triumph' style nib as it would be in the 'open' style Sheaffer nib? I guess in my mind the geometries of the wrap-around conical nib would have made for inherent stiffness, but I'm no rocket scientist.

 

My point was that ease of manufacture has no bearing on the number of flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs that were sold. Customers could choose their pen and their nib style; it is reasonable to assume that if a customer chose a Snorkel model with a Triumph nib in a flexible style, that is what they would get.

 

Whether it was easy or difficult for Sheaffer to engineer a flexible Triumph nib is a separate issue from whether customers selected such nibs; whether it was easy or difficult to manufacture a flexible Triumph nib (that is, whether it was significantly more costly, or more time consuming, or had a lower yield/more waste) compared to a flexible flat nib also has no bearing on whether customers chose such nibs. What matters from the standpoint of the relative frequency of occurrence of flexible Triumph-nibbed Snorkels is simply how many were bought, which is the exact same factor that bears on how many flexible flat-nibbed Snorkels are seen.

 

And, regardless of how easy or difficult it might have been to engineer a flexible Triumph nib (not difficult in the least, in my estimation), the fact is that Sheaffer did, of course, engineer such a nib. Further, Sheaffer did not charge a premium for flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs just because they were flexible; a Flexible Fine cost the same as a (non-flexible) Fine. So if such nibs were difficult to manufacture, Sheaffer manufactured them anyway and would supply them as needed to their customers without any up-charge.

 

--Daniel

[JonSzanto]

Well, that was a needlessly complex answer to a question I didn't ask. Customers can't order something that isn't offered, but it doesn't directly follow that all nib styles were offered in the same amounts, and it also doesn't even begin to follow that a customer would order a nib and it would be made for them on a custom basis.

 

I tried to propose a straight-forward question: was there any difference in the manufacturing of flexible nibs between the open style and the conical style? Something might be possible, but it might be less economically feasible to do one of them (I do not propose that, I am merely wondering).

[kirchh]

Well, that was a needlessly complex answer to a question I didn't ask. Customers can't order something that isn't offered, but it doesn't directly follow that all nib styles were offered in the same amounts

 

I don't understand what you mean about nib styles being offered in "amounts." Nib styles were offered; customers chose the style they wanted. Production would, to the accuracy achievable, track demand, so of course not all styles were manufactured in the same amounts, nor did anyone suggest that they were.

 

Are you suggesting that flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs were so difficult to manufacture that Sheaffer could not produce enough of them to satisfy consumers' requests for them?

 

... and it also doesn't even begin to follow that a customer would order a nib and it would be made for them on a custom basis.

 

Why would Sheaffer have to make a flexible Triumph Snorkel nib on a custom basis for each customer who desired one when such nibs were standard items?

 

I tried to propose a straight-forward question: was there any difference in the manufacturing of flexible nibs between the open style and the conical style? Something might be possible, but it might be less economically feasible to do one of them (I do not propose that, I am merely wondering).

 

Not quite. You didn't merely ask whether there was a difference in the manufacturing of the two types of flexible nibs; you suggested that such flexible nibs were harder to produce as Triumph nibs and as a result that Sheaffer could not meet demand for the Triumph style of flexible nibs, resulting in fewer flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs being manufactured than flexible flat nibs for Snorkels.

 

Again, whether or not there was any difference in how difficult it was to manufacture a flexible Triumph or flat nib, the number of such nibs is related to how many such nibs customers selected -- again, unless you are suggesting that flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs were so hard to make that Sheaffer couldn't even supply as many as customers wanted to purchase, and they therefore had to reject some customers' requests for pens bearing such nibs.

 

Whether it was less economically feasible or not to make flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs is irrelevant if Sheaffer nonetheless offered and produced the nibs. Clearly, it was not so prohibitively unprofitable to offer such nibs that Sheaffer didn't do it, and, in fact, Sheaffer didn't even charge a premium for a flexible version of a common style of non-flexible Triumph Snorkel nib.

 

--Daniel

[JonSzanto]

Are you suggesting that flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs were so difficult to manufacture that Sheaffer could not produce enough of them to satisfy consumers' requests for them?

 

There wasn't a single aspect of my post that could be construed as to mean what you just typed out. Daniel, I like you, but there are those occasions where you just make my head hurt, being needlessly opaque in your correspondence. I wish this weren't the case, but I can't do this tonight.

 

Have a nice weekend.

[pajaro]

I always wondered what a Triumph nib was, and then I chanced on two of them from ebay, on Touchdowns. I gave away the flex one, because I have don't mess with flex. It's interesting to know it was uncommon.

[kirchh]

 

There wasn't a single aspect of my post that could be construed as to mean what you just typed out. Daniel, I like you, but there are those occasions where you just make my head hurt, being needlessly opaque in your correspondence. I wish this weren't the case, but I can't do this tonight.

 

Have a nice weekend.

Well, you said flexible Triumph nibs seemed quite rare and you assumed they were harder to make than flexible flat nibs. It follows that you were suggesting that therefore Sheaffer could not meet demand, resulting in fewer flexible Triumph nibs than flexible flat nibs on Snorkels. If you were not suggesting that, what relevance would your supposition about the reason for the scarcity of flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs have?

 

--Daniel

[Manalto]

Don't make me pull this car over, or you girls are going to regret it.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Manalto

[Happy Harry]

Well, you said flexible Triumph nibs seemed quite rare and you assumed they were harder to make than flexible flat nibs. It follows that you were suggesting that therefore Sheaffer could not meet demand, resulting in fewer flexible Triumph nibs than flexible flat nibs on Snorkels. If you were not suggesting that, what relevance would your supposition about the reason for the scarcity of flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs have?

 

--Daniel

 

Typical strawman stuff.Truth is Sheaffer offered Triumph nibs in 16 styles, if you wanted a flexible nib you just ordered it, if you wanted a broad you ordered it, pretty simple stuff. Perhaps you could show us a chart of the the non Triumph nibs Sheaffer offered as standard? That might be more relevant than your baseless rant.

[kirchh]

 

Typical strawman stuff.Truth is Sheaffer offered Triumph nibs in 16 styles, if you wanted a flexible nib you just ordered it, if you wanted a broad you ordered it, pretty simple stuff. Perhaps you could show us a chart of the the non Triumph nibs Sheaffer offered as standard? That might be more relevant than your baseless rant.

 

Hi Hugh -

 

You really should take the time to actually read the posts in the thread before posting your vacuous insults; it might save you considerable embarrassment.

 

Had you actually reviewed what has been written you would have learned that it was Jon Szanto, not I, who posited that flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs were harder to manufacture than corresponding flat nibs, and it was he, not I, who brought up the notion of such nibs being made on a custom basis.

 

Perhaps your change of FPN usernames is making it difficult to keep things straight?

 

--Daniel

[jmccarty3]

I've always wanted to post a topic entitled "There is no "c" in Sheaffer."

[JonSzanto]

Had you actually reviewed what has been written you would have learned that it was Jon Szanto, not I, who posited that flexible Triumph Snorkel nibs were harder to manufacture than corresponding flat nibs, and it was he, not I, who brought up the notion of such nibs being made on a custom basis.

 

What in the bleeding (bleep) did I ever do to you to twist my words so badly? I didn't posit anything, I wondered aloud about it, and even offered the casual phrase "I'm no rocket scientist" because I did not, and do not know, how hard they would have been to make, how costly, anything. I've been trying to gather information, not disseminate it. Nor did I suggest the nibs were made on a "custom basis".

 

I don't know what your problem is, Daniel. I was engaging in this thread to try to gain an understanding of an era that I was not present in, and only thinking out loud. I made no claims in any direction. Your overly pedantic and needlessly confrontational tone to me, a person who has spoken well of you on a number of forums, has been hurtful and uncalled for.

 

You are welcome to parse the (bleep) out of this, Daniel, because I won't return to the thread.

Edited April 25, 2015 by JonSzanto

[kirchh]

 

What in the bleeding (bleep) did I ever do to you to twist my words so badly? I didn't posit anything, I wondered aloud about it, and even offered the casual phrase "I'm no rocket scientist" because I did not, and do not know, how hard they would have been to make, how costly, anything. I've been trying to gather information, not disseminate it.

 

I don't think you know what the word "posit" means. Here, it is used in the sense of suggesting something for purposes of discussion.

 

You stated that you'd "assumed that it was easier to produce [flexible nibs] in the open nib form." Those are your words; if they are incorrect, retract them, but that's what you wrote.

 

Nor did I suggest the nibs were made on a "custom basis"..

 

I didn't say that you had (though I note that it was you who first wrote the phrase you quote here); you didn't read what I wrote with care. I merely said, "it was [you], not I, who brought up the notion of such nibs being made on a custom basis [emph. added]." You brought up that notion when you wrote, "it also doesn't even begin to follow that a customer would order a nib and it would be made for them on a custom basis." Your complaint is baseless.

 

I don't know what your problem is, Daniel. I was engaging in this thread to try to gain an understanding of an era that I was not present in, and only thinking out loud. I made no claims in any direction

 

You said you'd assumed that flexible flat nibs were easier to manufacture than were Triumph flexible nibs. I addressed that assumption, as well as the implication that such assumed difficulty in making flexible Triumph nibs resulted in the scarcity of such nibs. I don't see what the problem is, though you have failed to address the points I made in this regard so as to further the line of discussion.

 

Your overly pedantic and needlessly confrontational tone to me, a person who has spoken well of you on a number of forums, has been hurtful and uncalled for.

 

You are welcome to parse the (bleep) out of this, Daniel, because I won't return to the thread

 

What a strange characterization in a post in which you resort to multiple profanities, and more generally in light of a series of responses that are completely unconstructive.

 

--Daniel

Edited April 26, 2015 by kirchh

[Happy Harry]

After that let's return to the question of flex nibs.

 

Using a 14ct nib as an example the 14ct bit means that the nib contains 58.5% gold by weight, gold being heavy and dense would be less in terms of volume, and as the characteristics of gold remain the same it then becomes clear if you have a flexible nib and an identical rigid nib then it's whats in the other 42.5% of the nib that makes the difference. Making nibs with different characteristics is all about the blend of metals and alloys used hence there is no difference in making the actual nib whether it be flexible or not, triumph or standard.

 

The scarcity of 50's flexible nibs is generally put down to the widespread use of carbon copy paper that required a rigid nib to work effectively. I would assume that this meant a greater percentage of the population became used to using rigid nibs increasing their popularity. For instance the Parker 51, a style that didn't allow flex, was extremely popular. Eversharp continued to make flexible nibs, not surprising given the quality of their flexible nibs.

 

With Sheaffer we know they offered the Snorkel with Triumph nib in 16 standard styles, 4 of which attracted an additional cost, exactly the same nibs and styles as offered in the previous model. The picture is not so clear with open nibs, the best being "offered in a wide selection of writing styles" (1953 catalog), which probably means less than the Triumph offered.

 

As mentioned above the scarcity of flexible nibs was not availability but consumer demand and that trend away from flexible nibs probably the widespread usage of carbon copy paper that made rigid nibs a must that carried over to every day usage.

 

The question of which nib type (open or triumph) has the most number of flexible nibs found can't be answered by me with any degree of certainty but my personal observation is that the fine flexible Triumph is the most common flex nib encountered with the left oblique ( an additional cost nib) least found.

 

The last factor affecting the scarcity of flexible nibs is they have a higher failure rate as metal fatigue makes cracks more likely to occur especially if over flexed regularly.

 

How to pick a flexible Snorkel nib helps as well, the nib on left is flexible. Note the lack of incised line above the breather hole, this is the tell tale sign of a flexible nib.

 

[kirchh]

After that let's return to the question of flex nibs.

 

Using a 14ct nib as an example the 14ct bit means that the nib contains 58.5% gold by weight, gold being heavy and dense would be less in terms of volume, and as the characteristics of gold remain the same it then becomes clear if you have a flexible nib and an identical rigid nib then it's whats in the other 42.5% of the nib that makes the difference. Making nibs with different characteristics is all about the blend of metals and alloys used hence there is no difference in making the actual nib whether it be flexible or not, triumph or standard.

 

Totally incorrect (and apparently simply made up). You do a disservice to readers to post things as fact that you actually made up.

 

As anyone who has actually compared a flexible and a rigid nib of the same type would know, they are shaped very differently.

 

--Daniel