QUOTE(PeteWK @ Jun 24 2007, 07:34 PM)
QUOTE(Roger W. @ Jun 24 2007, 07:20 PM)
You have to study the catalogues as Daniel and I have done. Daniel concluded and I agreed some time ago that the "A" designated a gray pearl no red veins and the "M" designated one with red veins. It is clear when following the liturature as we were concerned about the pictures and what they illustrated and Daniel determined quite correctly that it is in the code as to which were gray pearl and which were gray pearl red veined. So you are correct, saying it doesn't make it so but the evidence supports the conclusion that I was making.
Quoting Richard's web site is far from evidence as he refines his information as additional data is found. It is an attempt to be definitive limited by the information at hand so it is by no means entirely conclusive. It's very nature of updating for new information puts it leaps and bounds ahead of the book available on the subject.
I could make a long list of objections but they generally emit from my side of the mountain (they say you take a stand based on where you've been sitting). Like many on this board I've slogged through a col-edge edgamakayshun (that's Greek for College Education). In my Research Methods coursework I learned many things about acceptable scholarship. Opinions are great but they must go through rigorous debate and peer review before a hypothisis can be considered anything but. I would call this board a platform for rigorous debate. I've read the catalogs as well and have come to a different conclusion. What's needed is much deeper than we're either capable of or motivated to accomplish. The below scans are from that 1935 catalog.
In this discussion we're limited by Sheaffer's own admission that their catalog isn't complete. We simply can't know the things you and Daniel are taking for fact. We can guess. You're guessing one way and I'm guessing another, seperated by one year. Sheaffer mentions that there are 4 primary colors in the catalog but that others (colors? pens? styles?) are included. I agree with Daniel that at least Grey Pearl with red veins can be seen in the catalog. What else was available? We don't know. The paragraph pretty much (at the very least) does in the assertion that a non-red veined Grey Pearl lever pen COULD NOT have been made in 1935.
That leaves both of us free to assert different views of the same data. Short of a smoking Sheaffer gun or letter signed by W. A. Sheaffer himself we may never know for sure.
My issue here is that what passes for pen scholarship (is there such a thing?) is lacking. I reject anyone's infallibility.
Your position is baffling.
You accept that the 1935 catalog shows red-veined Grey Pearl pens. You accept that the 1935 catalog shows marbled Grey Pearl pens. The color code for red-veined Grey Pearl is indisputably M
; the color code for marbled Grey Pearl is indisputably A
. You accept that the catalog lists the Oversize Grey Pearl pen in Vaccum-Fil ("visible") as code A
8W, which is marbled
Grey Pearl; you accept that the catalog lists the Oversize Grey Pearl pen in lever-filler as code M
8TC, which is red-veined
Grey Pearl. There is no listing in the catalog for an Oversize marbled Grey Pearl lever-filler, which would be code A8TC
Therefore, the 1935 catalog does not list an Oversize marbled Grey Pearl lever filler.
Please explain which statement you consider erroneous, and why.
In the alternative, simply point out the listing in the 1935 catalog of the Oversize marbled Grey Pearl lever-filler you say is there.
Edited by kirchh, 25 June 2007 - 00:51.