What's The "parker 45" Or "51" Of Vintage Sheaffer?

[Estycollector]

There are a lot of nice Sheaffers to collect. 2 of my favorites are an OS Balance from the 30s and a Legacy I from the 90s. Since Sheaffer made a lot of pens, you can find older Balance pens that have gold nibs for less than modern pens with a gold nib. This is even more true for many of the pens with TouchDown fillers from the 50s and 60s. However, if you are looking for something iconic, a pen with the tubular Triumph nib or one of the inlaid nibs are instantly recognizable as a Sheaffer.

 

Dave

 

Is tubular and conical the same?

[NumberSix]

 

Is tubular and conical the same?

Totally tubularly iconical, dude.

[Estycollector]

Totally tubularly iconical, dude.

 

[NumberSix]

Speaking of NoNonsense pens:

 

What's going on with the nibs in this lot? They look like stubs, maybe?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sheaffer-No-Nonsense-Fountain-Pens-And-Extra-Parts/402247951821?hash=item5da7d8a5cd:g:e~QAAOSwsypeqYt2

[rdh]

Totally tubularly iconical, dude.

Comically conical or is it conically comical?

[NumberSix]

Here's a lovely Snorkel commercial starring Vivian Vance - I found it just for @Estycollector. . .

 

[AL01]

Speaking of NoNonsense pens:

 

What's going on with the nibs in this lot? They look like stubs, maybe?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sheaffer-No-Nonsense-Fountain-Pens-And-Extra-Parts/402247951821?hash=item5da7d8a5cd:g:e~QAAOSwsypeqYt2

 

These No - Nonsense nibs probably came from a calligraphy set. I used to own one, and they were decent writers.

 

But the "Parker 51" of Sheaffers would pretty much be anything with the Triumph or Imperial nib.

 

The Triumph nibs were developed in the early 40s, and the feeds they were paired with were made in response to the collector present in the Parker 51. However, in practice, the Sheaffer Touchdowns, Snorkels, Vac - Fillers, etc. were not really as durable as a Parker 51, but most people won't notice this, unless the pen suffers from cap/barrel shrinkage or clip abuse.

 

I don't know what's the Parker 45 of Sheaffers... There are Sheaffers from that era that definitely competed with the 45, but none were as nice, durable, and as comfortable, (IMHO), as the Parker 45. (Stainless-steel nib Imperials, Targas, and/or Tip Dip pens.)

[Aysedasi]

There is something quite beautiful about a Triumph nib. I have a few, but you have to be really careful with snorkels and restoration. I did one myself and it isn't really quite right. I didn't cost me much all in, but I wouldn't try it again. I'd go touchdown as changing the seal on one of those is generally a piece of cake (or at least I've always found it to be).

[pajaro]

I like the Cadet and the Craftsman as a 45 sort of pen. The ones I have are Touchdown fillers, easily resaccled. Some of he later Imperials can take a piston converter.

Edited May 26, 2020 by pajaro

[inkstainedruth]

be careful with the snorkels... a month and a half ago, i had none.

I thought to myself: those seem pretty cool, and I REALLY REALLY want something with a Triumph nib... and I am NOT touching another vac, not after the last ... incident...

 

Yeah, in my case it was because a few years ago someone posted a link to a video of an old PFM TV ad: "Buy your husband a PFM for Christmas -- you know he wants one!" My initial reaction was that it was sexist BS, but then as part of the ad they showed the fill mechanism and I said "Oh kewl...." Kinda the same way I did when I saw a print ad someone posted about Parker 61s and their capillary fill system.

Then I found a grey Snorkel Valiant in a local-ish antiques mall, that was having a Christmas sale, with 25% off everything. That made the pen a reasonable (for me, back then) price (because I had to factor in the cost of repairs -- fixing a Snorkel is NOT in my skill set...). And once that pen got repaired and working, several more then joined in on the fun....

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[welch]

My hunch:

 

- The Sheaffer counterpart to the P-51 was anything with Sheaffer's Triumph nib. The 51 started writing as soon as the nib touched paper, and Sheaffer said that the Triumph nib did also. Triumph was released a couple years after the 51 Vac.

 

- In sales, David Is-sa-icson says on Vac-man-ia that the thin model Snorkel gave the aerometric a run for its money in the 1950's. So there is that

 

- Parker released the capillary fill P-61 around 1956. There is overlap that makes it hard to see an exact match.

 

- The Imperial would be Sheaffer's answer to the Parker 45. However, there were so many different Imperials that it looks as if Sheaffer Marketing had no plan. Maybe the Sheaffer family had given up on the pen business, as they sold to Textron in, I think, the late '60's. Maybe the sale, and prospect of a sale, too energy from Sheaffer's marketeers. Note that Sheaffer released cartridge Imperials and Touchdown Imperials, some with Triumph nibs and some with the new inlaid nib. A confusing time for Fort Madison.

[pajaro]

I find the array of Imperials confusing. I love every one I have, but I could not identify which model any of them are.

[IThinkIHaveAProblem]

I find the array of Imperials confusing. I love every one I have, but I could not identify which model any of them are.

 

Sheaffer's naming scheme is unlike any business i can think of. The pen, is named after the TRIM level...

You can have a Statesman thats a snorkel, or a Statesman that's a touchdown...

or a Sentinel that is a vac, a lever filler, a snorkel or a touchdown... (gold nib, steel cap with gold band)

or a Crest blah blah blah (gold cap)

 

It's mind blowing to me. It's like if someone asked you what kind of car you drive and you said a "Toyota SR5" not bothering to specify if you meant a Tacoma, 4Runner, Tundra or Sequoia!

 

Parker's naming scheme makes more sense. Its a Parker "51" with X cap. Like saying a Toyota 4Runner SR5. Make, Model, Trim level.

Further confusing things is that they give trim levels a NAME...

Yes, I know, there's the confusion with the Special and the Standard... But generally, it is a less confusing system overall.

 

Not saying i don't like the pens (my growing collection of Snorkels makes it clear that i DO like them!) Just think the naming scheme is weird.

 

TLDR: You are not alone in your confusion WRT Sheaffer's naming, especially of Imperials

[pajaro]

Do the Dolphin nib pens fit into the Imperial scheme, or are they some separate lineup?

[Ray-Vigo]

For the '51: the Triumph nib pens of the 1940s-50s. Both move away from a traditional, open nib to a "streamlined" nib - the Parker with the hooded concept and the Sheaffer with the conical Triumph. The fillers change over time - vacumatic to aerometric on one side, versus vac/lever to Touchdown to Snorkel on the other. The later inlaid nibs and dolphin nibs of Sheaffer also have some similarities to the '51, but they're a little later development in terms of time period.

 

The Parker aerometric is a fairly simple, excellent filling system. Sheaffer initially headed in the right direction in moving to the Touchdown system from the Vac (though a properly restored Vacfill can be a great pen). Then Sheaffer became gimmicky with its filling system in that the Snorkel was a downgrade from the Touchdown in terms of being overly complex for what was gained.

 

But if you're a hardcore '51 person, I'm not sure you're going to find a direct equivalent that matches. The hooded nib and aerometric filling system just really appeal to some people. For example, my wife loves the hooded nib with aerometric filler, but doesn't care for my Sheaffer pens, whether Triumph nib or not. And to be fair, I'd never give up one of my Sheaffer pens pens for a '51.

[Estycollector]

For the '51: the Triumph nib pens of the 1940s-50s. Both move away from a traditional, open nib to a "streamlined" nib - the Parker with the hooded concept and the Sheaffer with the conical Triumph. The fillers change over time - vacumatic to aerometric on one side, versus vac/lever to Touchdown to Snorkel on the other. The later inlaid nibs and dolphin nibs of Sheaffer also have some similarities to the '51, but they're a little later development in terms of time period.

 

The Parker aerometric is a fairly simple, excellent filling system. Sheaffer initially headed in the right direction in moving to the Touchdown system from the Vac (though a properly restored Vacfill can be a great pen). Then Sheaffer became gimmicky with its filling system in that the Snorkel was a downgrade from the Touchdown in terms of being overly complex for what was gained.

 

But if you're a hardcore '51 person, I'm not sure you're going to find a direct equivalent that matches. The hooded nib and aerometric filling system just really appeal to some people. For example, my wife loves the hooded nib with aerometric filler, but doesn't care for my Sheaffer pens, whether Triumph nib or not. And to be fair, I'd never give up one of my Sheaffer pens pens for a '51.

 

I am trying hard to want to want a Sheaffer. For the most part, the shape is unattractive. Perhaps cutting my FP teeth on Esterbrooks gave me a tendency to like jewels. The snorkel was a gimmick or a solution looking for a need. That's probably unfair, but it's how I think.

[Ray-Vigo]

 

I am trying hard to want to want a Sheaffer. For the most part, the shape is unattractive. Perhaps cutting my FP teeth on Esterbrooks gave me a tendency to like jewels. The snorkel was a gimmick or a solution looking for a need. That's probably unfair, but it's how I think.

I prefer traditional, open nibs and lever fillers. The pre-war Sheaffer Balances and Flat Tops are my favorites. Part of it is the traditional look, and part is ergonomic in that the open nib pens tend to have a bell or ridge at the section end, which gives your fingers a place to naturally sit when writing. I do have an Esterbrook J set in blue with a 9XXX series firm nib. That's also a good, attractive pen. One thing that has changed over the years is that I've grown fond of the Vacfill open nib Balances from the 1930s as well. I learned to restore them myself last year and they can be really nice, interesting pens.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Ray-Vigo

[pajaro]

I am trying hard to want to want a Sheaffer. For the most part, the shape is unattractive. Perhaps cutting my FP teeth on Esterbrooks gave me a tendency to like jewels. The snorkel was a gimmick or a solution looking for a need. That's probably unfair, but it's how I think.

 

What do you mean by jewels. Cap and barrel jewels of J models?

[Beechwood]

There are a lot of nice Sheaffers to collect. 2 of my favorites are an OS Balance from the 30s and a Legacy I from the 90s. Since Sheaffer made a lot of pens, you can find older Balance pens that have gold nibs for less than modern pens with a gold nib. This is even more true for many of the pens with TouchDown fillers from the 50s and 60s. However, if you are looking for something iconic, a pen with the tubular Triumph nib or one of the inlaid nibs are instantly recognizable as a Sheaffer.

 

Dave

 

 

Nice avatar RDH

 

I would have thought the most equivalent sheaffer was the 440, similar styling and contemporaneous to the 45

[Estycollector]

I prefer traditional, open nibs and lever fillers. The pre-war Sheaffer Balances and Flat Tops are my favorites. Part of it is the traditional look, and part is ergonomic in that the open nib pens tend to have a bell or ridge at the section end, which gives your fingers a place to naturally sit when writing. I do have an Esterbrook J set in blue with a 9XXX series firm nib. That's also a good, attractive pen. One thing that has changed over the years is that I've grown fond of the Vacfill open nib Balances from the 1930s as well. I learned to restore them myself last year and they can be really nice, interesting pens.

 

I've been looking at the "balance" models. I watched a video where the restorer used a #18 sac.