Why Some Of Us Hold Little Or No Interest In Vintage Pens

[Thymen]

Early sixties, and the introduction of the ballpoint pen, that makes sense to me.

 

I was born in '59, and at the age of five or six started school. At that time, we were first taught to write using a slate and slate pencil. Then, dip pens. But the second year, ballpoint pens. Small, blue hexagon pens, with a distinct plastic smell that I can still recall..

 

I hated those slates and pencils; the pencils we were provided with were of cheap make, with too many tiny stones in the clay that scratched deep grooves in the slate...

Edited March 15, 2020 by Thymen

[Karmachanic]

What? Those newfangled 60s pens are vintage? Gotta start somewhere, so I'll go along. As I try talking myself out of not needing a MB 14 OB.

[inkstainedruth]

My definition of a "vintage" is one that I cribbed from a thread a number of years ago where the definition was discussed at great length. And the definition which someone (don't remember who) came up with that made the most sense to me was "vintage is before the Parker 45 was released in 1960" -- because that was the first really viable pen on the market that was a c/c filler, and therefore a complete game-changer to the industry.

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[corgicoupe]

That quote was mentioned tongue in cheek, Jon, but 1960 seems a fair break point, if there must be just two categories.

[jvr]

I’m not interested in vintage pens, but because I’m not interested I actually don’t have a clue whether that’s smart or not. Like with all things I’m not interested in, I can’t be bothered to find out, either.

 

My lack of interest is based on not liking most designs that I happen to see when browsing eBay, a dislike of having to tinker with old stuff in general and a general lack of interest in vintage stuff, with the exception of old cameras.

 

But to each his own.

[A Smug Dill]

Someone on FPN once commented that "vintage is anything older than I am", but that doesn't solve the problem. As I said above, with some pens there is no question whether they are vintage or modern, but how should we make the distinction about those in the gray zone, like NOS?

I think such a criterion works perfectly fine, when we're talking about personal interest — or lack thereof — in vintage pens. It's sufficiently clear, for the purposes of communication, to "define" it that way; there is nothing inadequate for someone to say (either), "I have no interest in pens produced prior to my birth year," or, "I only look at acquiring pen models that have existed, but not revised or reissued, since before my birth year." So what if two hobbyists, say born in 1960 and 1980 respectively, see a fountain pen from 1970 differently even with the same "definition", when they're not looking for agreement of whether the pen makes the cut, not looking to actively share an interest or love, no more than any other two fountain pen users may not agree what constitutes an acceptably fine nib (when, for example, Parker's EEF as it was supplied to me recently simply doesn't make the cut, Aurora's EF nibs mostly do but not always, my one Diplomat Aero's EF nib does, and of course the F nibs and even some MF nibs from Sailor do)?

 

I also don't see why NOS would be a grey area separate from the age of the pen (or pen model). If a particular pen has not been made since 1945, and there is an unused unit of that has been removed from circulation and kept in someone personal collection or museum archives, either for display purposes only or completely forgotten, why wouldn't it automatically and unquestionably count as vintage? Does it have to prove its fitness for purpose as a writing instrument — and therefore someone has to have filled its ink reservoir by the intended filling method for that model, and written with it — to qualify as a vintage pen? User history has nothing to do with the individual pen's vintage, in my opinion. I'm not presuming to say someone cannot have a special or even exclusive interest in old pens that has a veritably rich user history, but again that's about personal interest and criteria, not something for others to agree on or share at the core.

[JonSzanto]

That quote was mentioned tongue in cheek, Jon, but 1960 seems a fair break point, if there must be just two categories.

 

Of course, the reality is that it is a continuum, with much overlap. The one nice thing about at least putting it somewhere in the 1960s or so is that, from best documentations, is when pen collecting seemed to start up. Prior to that, they were objects of use or family heirlooms. During that era, little pen groups started forming to buy/sell/trade pens of the previous "Golden Eras" of pen making and use, partly as the fountain pen was starting to become overshadowed (in use) by the ball point and later 'felt' pen. And on from there...

 

So "vintage" has a lot to do with dating something but until there was an active interest in past products, it wouldn't have been much talked about. All vague, all open to interpretation.

 

Maybe I'll just say I have a healthy interest in non-new pens!

[Carguy]

Of course, the reality is that it is a continuum, with much overlap. The one nice thing about at least putting it somewhere in the 1960s or so is that, from best documentations, is when pen collecting seemed to start up. Prior to that, they were objects of use or family heirlooms. During that era, little pen groups started forming to buy/sell/trade pens of the previous "Golden Eras" of pen making and use, partly as the fountain pen was starting to become overshadowed (in use) by the ball point and later 'felt' pen. And on from there...

 

So "vintage" has a lot to do with dating something but until there was an active interest in past products, it wouldn't have been much talked about. All vague, all open to interpretation.

 

Maybe I'll just say I have a healthy interest in non-new pens!

I love it!

 

That’s what I have, “a healthy interest in non-new pens”..... perfect!

[Runnin_Ute]

I typically break things into three broad categories:

Vintage: Before 1960

Semi Vintage: 1960-1990. 1990 seems like a reasonable break point being 30 years (versus 60 for vintage) There will be some overlap here. Parker 45, Pelikan M200 old style are just two examples that were made in both the pre and post 1990 period.

Modern: everything else since.

 

I have pens in all three groups. Esterbrook,Pelikan (140/400NN) and Parker (vac/51) in vintage

Parker, Pelikan and one or two others

 

I enjoy them all and don't focus on one exclusively. After all variety is the spice of life.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Runnin_Ute

[Estycollector]

I typically break things into three broad categories:

Vintage: Before 1960

Semi Vintage: 1960-1990. 1990 seems like a reasonable break point being 30 years (versus 60 for vintage) There will be some overlap here. Parker 45, Pelikan M200 old style are just two examples that were made in both the pre and post 1990 period.

Modern: everything else since.

 

I have pens in all three groups. Esterbrook,Pelikan (140/400NN) and Parker (vac/51) in vintage

Parker, Pelikan and one or two others

 

I enjoy them all and don't focus on one exclusively. After all variety is the spice of life.

 

Just asking because I am looking/considering, why no Parker 51 Aeromatic?

[corgicoupe]

I like that breakdown.

 

"I typically break things into three broad categories:
Vintage: Before 1960
Semi Vintage: 1960-1990. 1990 seems like a reasonable break point being 30 years (versus 60 for vintage). ...Modern: everything else since."

[Arkanabar]

@ A Smug Dill -- It occurred to me just now, while reading the most recent posts, is that you have a desire to quantify experiences (such as being able to have a complete list of inks listing various criteria (as to their wetness, saturation level, etc). And I'm now thinking that is the reason you prefer modern to vintage -- that you don't have any "surprises" (especially negative ones). This is not a bad thing of course (nobody likes unpleasant surprises, like the Vacumatic I bid on on eBay a few years ago after the seller told another potential bidder that he didn't see any cracks in the cap... even though it was pretty clear from the photo... ). Just a possible reason why you feel the way you do. A modern pen is going to more likely be more uniform in experience from another pen that came off the production line at the same time; if there's a problem, it's easier to return/exchange it (either from the seller or the manufacturer). A used pen (particularly a vintage one) may need a new sac, have a missing clip, a sprung nib, etc. Or, as in the case of that Vac, a cracked cap and I didn't realize what was involved in that sort of repair (or, for that matter, the time and expense... ). I'm still trying to save up to get the repairs done (which of course would have meant NOT buying some of the pens I've gotten in the meantime... ).

OTOH, I've had vintage pens that just needed a good flushing out and they wrote like a charm. But if someone doesn't want to take that sort of risk, it's completely understandable.

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

 

I also have an aversion to that sort of risk, which has impeded my entry into vintage. But I'm not completely averse. My area is loaded with antique malls, and I can imagine browsing in them and picking up such under $5 FPs as I find, that look interesting, to have them restored. And I'm not going to get rid of my copper Estie SJ (unless I get a J to carry its stubbish manifold medium nib), my dad's "51", or the PFM-II and TipDip Imperial that were given to me by in-laws.

 

Basically, you are simply stating your personal preferences, which leaves nothing much to comment on unless one wants to say that they are in error and/or to try and persuade you that you should do something other than your stated preference would dictate.

 

I simply don't care what others prefer, except for the odd time someone mentions a pen I am unfamiliar with, which can be useful in an educational sense, and I think that you are saying pretty much the same thing, except that you started this thread which invites people to differ with you for the sake of debate. That makes me think that for some reason you enjoy such debate.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but people are free to like or dislike whatever they want - it just isn't a subject for discussion. Nice for you that you have formed a solid preference - I'm sure that you will enjoy the hobby within those guidelines.

 

Yeah, de gustibus non est disputandem. That's something I also try to live by. But one might feel a little excluded from a community if one doesn't share all of its most popular enthusiasms, and thus seek out like-minded people within it.

 

As for the whole "vintage/modern" divide, I'd say that comes around 1972-1976, when the big Western commercial manufacturers gave up on built-in ink sacs (i.e., aero "51", Sheaffer TipDip/ Touchdown, any lever or button fillers), and all went piston or cartridge/converter. I have no trouble with Ruth's contention that the Parker 45 is the first modern (fountain) pen. Of course, this leaves me with nowhere to put the Parker 61, with its capillary filler. I suggest that the period of 1960 to the end of the Western sac filler be called the "transition" era.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Arkanabar

[Ron Z]

Sheaffer was defining anything made before 1982 to be vintage when they closed the service center. That was back in April of 2008. If you slide that along with the changing years, that would now be 1994. I however am inclined to think of the mid-70s as vintage. I've already accepted the fact that the students at the local college already consider me to be vintage.

[KBeezie]

Sheaffer was defining anything made before 1982 to be vintage when they closed the service center. That was back in April of 2008. If you slide that along with the changing years, that would now be 1994. I however am inclined to think of the mid-70s as vintage. I've already accepted the fact that the students at the local college already consider me to be vintage.

 

That's about my thinking as well. Though as you said, many would consider 20+ to be vintage. Might not be true or not, but it seemed like 70s was kind of the last 'golden age' far as fountain pens go, before it kind of leveled out the way it did.

[Estycollector]

Has there been degradation of new pens or those that prefer them? I haven't noticed. Seems like its been more YMMV or laisse fair.

 

When I hike I take a journal. I wouldn't take the 2017 Lamy Al-Star or the '32 Dollar. I take a Pilot Precise V7 just because it clicks and can be affordably replaced.

[pajaro]

I grew up in the 50s and 60s and graduated from UWF in 1970. I am 71. You bet that the 60s, 70s and 80s are vintage. In fact, I think my Sonnet collection is also vintage. All that stuff is old. You might think any of the items discussed, like Parker 45s, Parker 75s, 61s any of that stuff are not vintage, but they are vintage. I actually lived back then, and I can tell you that stuff and all those old, celebrated Sheaffers, etc., are vintage. Vintage is a term that has to go on a sliding scale, and the date boundary is sliding back into the past constantly. Most of the pens I like were once new and fresh, but they have been overtaken by time and have become old like I have. This will also happen to you too, if it isn't happening already.

 

I seriously think of the Parker Sonnet as vintage. The era of its questionable conception has come and gone and the evidence is plain to me that that dog won't hunt, and my thirty or so Sonnets were a mistaken purchase. Well, most came from yard sales and estate sales, and it could have been worse. These are vintage and passé, so stuff from early years of Sonnet is vintage, not the 1960s. Those dogs are generally through hunting.

[Estycollector]

I grew up in the 50s and 60s and graduated from UWF in 1970. I am 71. You bet that the 60s, 70s and 80s are vintage. In fact, I think my Sonnet collection is also vintage. All that stuff is old. You might think any of the items discussed, like Parker 45s, Parker 75s, 61s any of that stuff are not vintage, but they are vintage. I actually lived back then, and I can tell you that stuff and all those old, celebrated Sheaffers, etc., are vintage. Vintage is a term that has to go on a sliding scale, and the date boundary is sliding back into the past constantly. Most of the pens I like were once new and fresh, but they have been overtaken by time and have become old like I have. This will also happen to you too, if it isn't happening already.

 

I seriously think of the Parker Sonnet as vintage. The era of its questionable conception has come and gone and the evidence is plain to me that that dog won't hunt, and my thirty or so Sonnets were a mistaken purchase. Well, most came from yard sales and estate sales, and it could have been worse. These are vintage and passé, so stuff from early years of Sonnet is vintage, not the 1960s. Those dogs are generally through hunting.

 

Good post. Makes a lot of sense to me. You're a bit older. I never knew about such fine writing stuff. We used those huge pencila and lined off white paper with wood chunks.

 

Perhaps being raised in the sticks and isolation played a factor.

[Mr5x5]

 

Yeah, de gustibus non est disputandem. That's something I also try to live by.

This. Many people dislike my peanut butter and bologna sandwiches and I offer them something else.

[Charles Rice]

Why the big fuss. Buy what you want.

[Ron Z]

I grew up in the 50s and 60s and graduated from UWF in 1970. I am 71. You bet that the 60s, 70s and 80s are vintage. In fact, I think my Sonnet collection is also vintage. All that stuff is old. You might think any of the items discussed, like Parker 45s, Parker 75s, 61s any of that stuff are not vintage, but they are vintage. I actually lived back then, and I can tell you that stuff and all those old, celebrated Sheaffers, etc., are vintage. Vintage is a term that has to go on a sliding scale, and the date boundary is sliding back into the past constantly. Most of the pens I like were once new and fresh, but they have been overtaken by time and have become old like I have. This will also happen to you too, if it isn't happening already.

 

I seriously think of the Parker Sonnet as vintage. The era of its questionable conception has come and gone and the evidence is plain to me that that dog won't hunt, and my thirty or so Sonnets were a mistaken purchase. Well, most came from yard sales and estate sales, and it could have been worse. These are vintage and passé, so stuff from early years of Sonnet is vintage, not the 1960s. Those dogs are generally through hunting.

I was going to make an editorial comment about Sonnets, and see that you already did that for me....