Welcome To Today's Edition Of "what's My Waterman?"!

[MercianScribe]

Hello, could anyone shed any light on this beauty?

 

I got it for about £15/$20/¥2000 inc shipping, as a bit of an unknown quantity with a Mabie Todd Blackbird pencil, which I sold for the costs of both of them, so basically I lucked out on a freebie.

 

The nib was bent a little beyond 45º and I must admit, after first seeing it, as it would be my first vintage nib-fiddling, I chickened out of touching it again for a month. On my birthday, I got the news that my fantastic (probably the wrong word for someone so down-to-earth and get-up-and-go) Granny had just died at close to 101, and galvanised yet again by her indomitable spirit, I picked it up and slowly and gingerly straightened the nib. It was quite successful, with the damage to one tine now barely noticeable, although the other still has a bit of a kink.

 

It's pretty plain. It has no number on it. It has an imprint on the cap: WATERMAN'S, MADE IN ENGLAND, and Waterman's, MADE IN (IDEAL) ENGLAND, FOUNTAIN PEN on the barrel. The clip is an elongated coffin shape and says WATERMANS, and the cap has one thin silver coloured band. The lever is a spade shape (and by the by, the box is all messed up and sticking out - since I resacked it, I've been filling it by squeezing the sac).

 

It's about 120mm capped and 154mm posted.

 

The nib says, WATERMAN'S IDEAL ENGLAND, and then maybe a 2A just poking out from the section? And again incidentally, as I know it has nothing to do with IDing the pen, it's slightly stubby, M-B, with a thin line of about 0.3-4mm, easy flex to 1.5-ish, pretty effortless to 2, and the most I've measured it at without pushing it (but at a little over my confort zone!) was 2.5mm or so. It doesn't have the hairlines for fine calligraphy, but I don't have the skills for fine calligraphy yet anyway, and basically... I'm in love!

 

But, while it won't affect my use or love of it, I would quite like to know what it is! I first thought, having looked at a couple online, it might be a 32, but maybe it's more like a 3. Anyone?

 

I'm going to try and upload a couple of pics, but I'm not sure how to do it...!

[revjamesmorley]

I'm sorry that I can't help identify your pen but just had to comment on the beautiful way it wrote.

[MercianScribe]

Oops. I don't actually write at that angle... not sure why it's decided that's the best look for y'all.

 

Anyway, here are a couple more, possibly also at a suspicious angle.

[MercianScribe]

I'm sorry that I can't help identify your pen but just had to comment on the beautiful way it wrote.

Thank you, sir! Usual proviso: the good points come from the pen; the bad points, my hand!

 

It is gorgeous, though!

Edited April 21, 2017 by MercianScribe

[MercianScribe]

Really? No joy? I see it around a bit, and as I said in the first post, I have seen it ID'ed as a 32 or a 3... Nobody? Perhaps I should have put up a pic with the tail end of the barrel on it - I just realised all these pics are posted. It has a slight taper, but is not really so different in girth to the rest of the barrel. There is no number of course.

[siamackz]

At one point pens were numbered with purpose. A lever filler would be '5' and an #2 nib would be a '2'. If this pen was following the number system it might be a '52'. It does look very much like my black celluloid 52 - the clip, cap top, single band, and the spade lever. Check out Richard binders article on 52s and look at the last pen he talks about at the bottom of the page.

 

Lovely pen and great job with fixing it!

[MercianScribe]

Thanks for the idea, Siamackz. I hadn't even considered that it might be a 52.

 

Here's something I found on some place called Fountain Pen Network:

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/220113-waterman-32-mahogany/?p=2327011

 

That very strongly suggests it's a 1936 #32, as it's almost identical...

 

However, it does also look even more exactly like the celluloid #52 right at the bottom of Richard Binder's page (http://www.richardspens.com/?page=ref/profiles/52.htm), as that one has the more squared lever tip and a slightly thinner cap band... I wonder.

And the not having a number thing could be down to it being English? Also, another slight mystery is that I'd assumed the blemish next to the imprint was a burn on HR, but it appears the pen might be celluloid (I have no idea how to tell the difference - I just had an inkling it was BHR) from that era, in which case it probably isn't any kind of burn, is it, as celluloid goes woof. Could be some kind of caustic chemical reaction I suppose.

[siamackz]

I feel like your pen looks more like the one on Richards page, for the same reasons you mentioned.

An easy way to tell if the pen is celluloid or rubber is to rub it with 12,000 grit micromesh (if you're going to try and polish it anyway). As you rub it, smell it If it stinky funky, it's rubber! If it smells like camphor it's celluloid!

[praxim]

Rubbing with your finger is enough to detect hard rubber.

[siamackz]

Was doing a little research and stumbled upon your pen, and mine (?), in this 1936 Waterman's catalogue. See pic. I feel like this perfectly resembles your pen (an mine). It makes even more sense because our pens don't have a '52' written on the bottom of the barrel (which I believe was commonly done).

 

[MercianScribe]

Haha Thanks, yes, I posted that in my last post (link to a previous FPN thread)... That's what I thought. It's a 32, right?

[siamackz]

I think so too

[gregamckinney]

The pen in the catalog shot is a model 3, a close relation to the 32.

The model number is listed "3-J" under the photo (J for "jet.")

 

Best Regards, greg

[MercianScribe]

Haha! How did we miss that!? Thanks, Greg.