Jump to content

Boston ad June 1917


Roger W.

Recommended Posts

Here's a mystery. We all know that Wahl bought Boston in January 1917 but oddly enough there is a Boston Safety Fountain Pen ad in the Chicago tribune on June 1917. Wahl, a Chicago concern, makes it interesting that this would be in a Chicago paper. Did Wahl originally intend to continue producing Boston pens under the name Boston Safety rather than Wahl Tempoint? Certainly they recognized the name recognition that Boston had as can be plainly seen on the early boxes where it explains that they were formally known as Boston Safety. Perhaps Wahl Tempoint was not a clearly defined plan until later that year. The small box ad on the newpaper page does not state where the pens are produced but, takes great strides to show that the pens have been on the market many years and had an excellent reputation. Regular and self filling styles as Boston and then Wahl Tempoint produced both eyedropper and lever fill pens (amongst other filling systems that Boston had tried).

 

Roger W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roger W.

    8

  • Wahlnut

    5

  • Vintagepens

    3

  • Pepin

    2

Here's a mystery. We all know that Wahl bought Boston in January 1917 but oddly enough there is a Boston Safety Fountain Pen ad in the Chicago tribune on June 1917. Wahl, a Chicago concern, makes it interesting that this would be in a Chicago paper. Did Wahl originally intend to continue producing Boston pens under the name Boston Safety rather than Wahl Tempoint? Certainly they recognized the name recognition that Boston had as can be plainly seen on the early boxes where it explains that they were formally known as Boston Safety. Perhaps Wahl Tempoint was not a clearly defined plan until later that year. The small box ad on the newpaper page does not state where the pens are produced but, takes great strides to show that the pens have been on the market many years and had an excellent reputation. Regular and self filling styles as Boston and then Wahl Tempoint produced both eyedropper and lever fill pens (amongst other filling systems that Boston had tried).

 

Roger W.

 

For your next birthday, I'll buy you a ticket to 1917. :thumbup:

A man's real possession is his memory. In nothing else is he rich, in nothing else is he poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a mystery. We all know that Wahl bought Boston in January 1917 but oddly enough there is a Boston Safety Fountain Pen ad in the Chicago tribune on June 1917. Wahl, a Chicago concern, makes it interesting that this would be in a Chicago paper. Did Wahl originally intend to continue producing Boston pens under the name Boston Safety rather than Wahl Tempoint? Certainly they recognized the name recognition that Boston had as can be plainly seen on the early boxes where it explains that they were formally known as Boston Safety. Perhaps Wahl Tempoint was not a clearly defined plan until later that year. The small box ad on the newpaper page does not state where the pens are produced but, takes great strides to show that the pens have been on the market many years and had an excellent reputation. Regular and self filling styles as Boston and then Wahl Tempoint produced both eyedropper and lever fill pens (amongst other filling systems that Boston had tried).

 

Roger W.

 

For your next birthday, I'll buy you a ticket to 1917. :thumbup:

Just make sure you don't wander to Russia of the same year.

 

A man's real possession is his memory. In nothing else is he rich, in nothing else is he poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of scenarios depending on who placed the ad. Depends on if you think Wahl had control of Boston at that time AND owned the name Boston Safety Pen Company and wanted to carry the name forward.

 

SOme state that Moore bought a lot of Boston Safety Pen Company assets too.

 

1) As I recall Wahl did not buy Boston company. Wahl bought Boston's assets. The Company name did not come with the purchase at least the name was never filed under the Wahl corp papers that survivie with the Parker Pen attorneys I have corresponded with.

 

2) The deal did not actually close until mid January 1917 and there was a lot of horse trading and legal maneuvering back an forth between Charles Curran (the creator of Eversharp and Wahls Eastern Sales manager at the time), Wahl's President Roberts and the Brandt family owners of the Boston Safety Pen Company. The deal was on then off and not be done at all and then on again at the last minute. Given the state of the situation IF the ad was placed by Wahl (I doubt that completely) it was probably done up in anticipation of the event and then the deal changed.

 

3) Boston Safety Pen Company had sold pens in Chicago for years before 1917, so an ad placed by them in a big city market was not all that unusual.

 

4) If Boston Safety was trying to convince or coerce Wahl to buy for the right price (there are reports that the Brandt family was in dire financial straits and wanted to sell) placing an ad for their products in Wahl's back yard at that exact time might prove useful.

 

5) Wahl handed over a check for $25,000 to close the Boston pen purchase on Christmas Eve, if I recall Curran's recap properly, which was $25,000 less than what had been tentatively agreed upon. That is waht was supposed to have caused the Brandts to basically tell Wahl where to get off. So that might have given additional impetus to Boston placing a timely ad for their pens in Chicago. So there! says they.

 

Try those on for size and see what fits

Syd

Syd "the Wahlnut" Saperstein

Pensbury Manor

Vintage Wahl Eversharp Writing Instruments

Pensbury Manor

 

The WAHL-EVERSHARP Company

www.wahleversharp.com

New WAHL-EVERSHARP fountain and Roller-Ball pens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of scenarios depending on who placed the ad. Depends on if you think Wahl had control of Boston at that time AND owned the name Boston Safety Pen Company and wanted to carry the name forward.

 

SOme state that Moore bought a lot of Boston Safety Pen Company assets too.

 

1) As I recall Wahl did not buy Boston company. Wahl bought Boston's assets. The Company name did not come with the purchase at least the name was never filed under the Wahl corp papers that survivie with the Parker Pen attorneys I have corresponded with.

 

It does not make sense that Wahl only acquired the assets as Wahl had sufficient assets to turn out pens hence, leaving the heavy machinery with Moore. Purchasing Boston would give Wahl a presence with Wanamaker's in New York and Marshall Fields in Chicago (these stores are stated in Keeran's letter). Wahl was buying Boston's outlets and it was important, even later, that it be known that the Wahl Tempoint pen was an equivalent to the Boston Safety pen (as put on the early boxes). Stating that Parker no longer retains what rights Wahl had over Boston is hardly proof that they just purchased assets as Parker took over 50 years ago - very old history.

 

2) The deal did not actually close until mid January 1917 and there was a lot of horse trading and legal maneuvering back an forth between Charles Curran (the creator of Eversharp and Wahls Eastern Sales manager at the time), Wahl's President Roberts and the Brandt family owners of the Boston Safety Pen Company. The deal was on then off and not be done at all and then on again at the last minute. Given the state of the situation IF the ad was placed by Wahl (I doubt that completely) it was probably done up in anticipation of the event and then the deal changed.

 

Keeran's letter states that they got possession of the business two weeks after tending the $50,000 which would ball park it close to the end of the option January 10, 1917. There was not months of wrangling and Keeran was there though the letter is typed some 11 years later, I think he knew the general gist of it.

 

3) Boston Safety Pen Company had sold pens in Chicago for years before 1917, so an ad placed by them in a big city market was not all that unusual.

 

Ya, except we already have established that it was sold and owned by Wahl in January 1917.

 

4) If Boston Safety was trying to convince or coerce Wahl to buy for the right price (there are reports that the Brandt family was in dire financial straits and wanted to sell) placing an ad for their products in Wahl's back yard at that exact time might prove useful.

 

Still sold according to Keeran.

 

5) Wahl handed over a check for $25,000 to close the Boston pen purchase on Christmas Eve, if I recall Curran's recap properly, which was $25,000 less than what had been tentatively agreed upon. That is waht was supposed to have caused the Brandts to basically tell Wahl where to get off. So that might have given additional impetus to Boston placing a timely ad for their pens in Chicago. So there! says they.

 

Reread the letter, Mr. Roberts thought Keeran agreed to pay to much so offered the $25,000. Then Roberts offered the $50,000 was refused and that is when the lawyers made Brandt live up to the option within about two weeks.

 

Try those on for size and see what fits

 

Well 2 thru 5 don't fit the facts as laid out in Keeran's letter and if you've got anything else to go on I'd love to see it. Explaination one only works to the extent that you mean all intangible assets I.E. outlets and goodwill that Boston had established. As nothing was left of Boston, George Brandt (Charles son) assigns a patent to Moore in March 1917 and by April George Brandt, M. Sypher, and J. Liddell are working for Moore - these are the general manager, superintendent of production and the head mechanic of Boston Fountain Pen Company. You've not brought up a do not compete clause so why didn't they keep the name and keep working? Wahl bought all of Boston and Moore got what Wahl didn't want - that is pretty clear.

 

So, why a Boston ad in the Chicago Tribune months after the sale to Wahl? I don't think Wahl had concluded how they were going to go forward, heck Mr. Roberts does not seem to be on board with the plan until a few weeks before the purchase, not a lot of looking forward going on at Wahl. Keeran sees the synergy of adding a quality pen line but, Wahl seems less than enthused. Boston had a great name and reputation. We see the buyers of Conklin retain the name when they move it to Chicago and produce bad pens, fortunately Wahl kept the quality. I can see Wahl wanting to keep a seamless presence in the marketplace and retaining the Boston name. Perhaps they simply had enough stock of Boston branded pens they wanted to move them before instituting Wahl Tempoint. Personally I think Wahl Tempoint is a terrible name and Wahl agrees with me as they drop it in 1923 six years after they start using it. I think it clear, based on the evidence I am aware of, that Wahl owned Boston for months before this June 1917 ad ran. I'm open to evidence that contradicts this, I'm just not aware of any. The Lotfi/Fultz article is based on the Keeran letter in regards to the sale so there is not other evidence brought to light there. The article clearly states that the sale was consumated in January 1917.

 

Roger W.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, I did not read your original post carefully enough. June you say. I have to agree that that is way beyond the time frame I was answering on. I read it too quickly and did not see the JUNE word. Clearly the ad would have been placed by Wahl.

 

Why though? Regardless of whether the Wahll company bought the entirety of the Boston pen company and its capital stock or not (WHich they did not do but that is now another matter) they would have acquired a lot of Boston Pen s in production, finished parts with Boston emblazooned on th sides already and they needed to sell that stuff off while they transitioned to their own branding. So sell off what they had in an ad in June.

 

There is word of a pens/pencil display case floating about here somewhare that someone bought recently with the names Eversharp pencil AND Boston Safety Pen on it...the same case with both names.

Some have speculated that that is proof that the case was made by Wahl with plans to put the Boston Pens into it. That would fit this situation too. So you may be right that they did not know what to do. BUt It could also have been that they needed to sell of the Boston Safety marked stuff and did the case as transitional too.

 

George Keeran stating "possession of the business" is not a legal condition. It is a convenient term that only means somehow they got what they bargained for. SO it doesn not settle whether the assets including all the.

 

You are right about there being no wrangling between Jan and June. But I already said I missed the June date...but there were 2 months of wrangling internal to Wahl and with Brandt between November and January....OK, I give on that one.

 

I will look into the the date of the Tempoint trademark, as that was not until some time after the acquisition date. I know that the Tempoint Pens did not come out in catalog or flyer form until very late in 1917 or early 1918. So there was a transition time between Boston Safety and Tempoint. It is clear looking at the two pens and the machining and the numbering system that they were old Boston stocks converted to Tempoint almost as-is.

 

Overall there is good reason to believe that Wahl placed the ad. And one of these scenarios supports why. We may never know for sure, but forensically, it seems we will get close.

 

A couple of minor (now) points that do not bear on the ad at all but what the heck.

 

Buying the assets can mean buying everything but the capital stock and leaving the debts and claims behind. That is what Wahl did. They did not continue the Boston Safety Pen Company. Non-compete? maybe. They acquired the equipment, machinery, stocks of finished goods, the rights, intellectual property (we would call it today) or whatever the purchase contract said, but they did not buy the entirety of Boston Safety Pen Company. To do so would have made them also acquire the debts of the company, all the contract obligations etc, That would have made them a successor to every claim for payment, retailer disputes, aand service contracts left by the Brandts. That they did not do. The records I am referring to came from USPTO and Parker attorney were corroborated to me in 2007 when I tried to acquire the trademark for myself (thinking they were dormant). All their corporate names are in there but no Boston Safety Pen Company.

 

Lucrative department store contracts or no, Wahl had its own significant distribution system in place including those department stores with its Eversharp pencil. Adding the Wahl pens or the tail end of finished goods of the Boston Safety Pen Company to the mix would not be hard and Keeran letter or no the department store sales controlled by Boston was not the reason for the purchase nor what the bulk of the $50,000 purchased. But that has little to do with the ad, or does it?

 

 

Good argument

Syd

 

 

Syd "the Wahlnut" Saperstein

Pensbury Manor

Vintage Wahl Eversharp Writing Instruments

Pensbury Manor

 

The WAHL-EVERSHARP Company

www.wahleversharp.com

New WAHL-EVERSHARP fountain and Roller-Ball pens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd;

 

OK, so you see what I saw now - Wahl running a Boston ad. We also both see two possibilities; first Wahl could have run as the Boston Safety Pen (I'd like to see that case with Eversharp/Boston as well!) or second, they acquired enought stock (inventory not company) that they needed to continue to move it (undoubtedly Boston pens sold well as W. A. Sheaffer testifies in the teens that Boston is one of his main competitors).

 

I don't think Eversharp has the presence that Boston has at all with retailers though, as Eversharp was only organized in 1914. That is reason to buy an established pen since they already manufactured a pencil coming up with their own pen would have been easy - lots of small manufacturers of pens existed and it wouldn't be hard to develop their own but, that is not the point. Buying a well established pen would boost their position considerably as a writing instrument line. Read Keeran more closely "...actual production for the year 1916 was only 100 pencils per day." But they were geared up to sell 1,000 per day - quite a large difference and consider when Boston was purchased - option entered into late 1916. Eversharp was hurting plenty bad and buying Boston would get Eversharp the recognition they needed to cover heavy losses with a top heavy sales organization (the way Keeran puts it there must have been a lot of folks on salary). I can see Wahl acquiring Boston as an asset purchase but, what does happen to the Boston name? On their letterhead it says "Boston Fountain Pen Company" is trademarked (maybe in MA? I couldn't find it thru USPTO). It seems to me that the "Boston safety pen" must have been acquired wether that was trademarked or not as being their successor is clearly what Wahl Tempoint is selling (as printed on the boxes - "formally known as Boston safety pen"). So I'm saying the reason for purchase is reputation and distribution. Sure Eversharp was a great pencil but they didn't have what Boston had for reputation and distribution.

 

Just to clarify - it is Boston Fountain Pen Company and the Boston Safety Fountain Pen, there is no such thing as the Boston Safety Pen Company.

 

Roger W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd;

 

I have correspondance with a Boston Wahl collecter, probably the same you mention that has the Eversharp/Boston case. He'll be sending a pic along soon I hope. I haven't heard anything back from the other Boston collector who's likely to have information on this topic.

 

It is interesting how little it seems Wahl did with the purchase until late 1917 - could WWI have been slowing the pace? US entered in April 1917 but, also, we have the pandemic that I've heard may have highly influenced the end of WWI could that too have effected the slow pace at Wahl? Of all the pen companies we have the most financial data on Wahl as it was traded and listed in Moody's Industrial Guide by 1918 with earingss in 1918 suggesting that Wahl was overall a moderate concern but gross revenues increase substantially in 1919 and more than doubles again in 1920. Unfortunately, we can't compare Wahl to Sheaffer and Parker until the mid 20's.

 

Roger W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be interesting...the case with the names Eversharp and Boston Pen/Boston Safety Pen or whatever it says on the other half.

 

Regarding the roller ball clip mentioned above. Boston Fountain Pen Company was only a licensee of that clip. The patent belonged to Klein and Greenberg and the clip was actually produced by a licensee William H. Hambler (WHH) who sold them to or retained the royalty right to them under a sub license agreement (I suppose). When Wahl began to produce Tempoints after the acquisition of Boston, by whatever method, a number of their pens bore the patent dates and the symbol of the patent holders. The earliest Tempoints bore at least 3 and maybe 4 patent dates to demonstrate to the world not only that the original patent holders held rights but also that Wahl had rights by license to discourage any copy cats who might think these items on a Wahl or Tempoint pen just arrived out of the blue and were not otherwise protected. Both patent holders and rightful licensees want had need to protect their rights to using the items. The roller clips from this early time frame are marked WHH with the Patent date.

Syd

 

 

Syd "the Wahlnut" Saperstein

Pensbury Manor

Vintage Wahl Eversharp Writing Instruments

Pensbury Manor

 

The WAHL-EVERSHARP Company

www.wahleversharp.com

New WAHL-EVERSHARP fountain and Roller-Ball pens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd;

 

Looking at 84 models of Bostons (two collections together) I don't come up with any marked Boston, Chicago. I had a maybe with a very light imprint clearly Chicago and a #5 Boston nib (not at all common) but I feel that the last "T" of the italic Tempoint precedes "Fountain" on the imprint - tricky as Boston and Tempoint imprints are laid out in a similar fashion. I'm ruling this one out though.

 

Did you find the Tempoint trademark date? Hard to search trademarks so I'd appreciate it if you have that and any other trademark dates, thanks.

 

No question on the roller ball clips as the source has been established and the lever is, of course, Sheaffer. Boston seems to have adopted "Safety" very early as I have only one nib that predates this. The other date that pops up is the hump filler patents of Oct. 18, 1904 and Sept. 2, 1913. The first is Rhodes Lockwood that has his hand in many New England pen company with his rubber company ties. Oddly enough he dies in a car accident in 1905.

 

Roger W.

Edited by Roger W.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure I don't have any pens or ephemera that would help clarify this question.

It certainly would make sense that Wahl did not know immediately what to do with Boston -- and equally plausible that its plans took some twists and turns along the way.

 

As far as I know, Wahl bought out Boston, lock, stock, and barrel.

That's certainly what the evidence I know of clearly indicates. No evidence, to my knowledge, of any other arrangement, such as a forced liquidation of Boston with Wahl picking and choosing what to take.

 

To pick a nit:

The lever-filler patent used by Wahl under licence from Sheaffer was not for the lever, per se, but rather for the two-piece sprung pressure bar.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David;

 

I thought if anyone had something that might add as far as evidentiary material to Boston/Wahl 1917 it would be you.

 

Quite right on what the patent is for it is just stamped on the lever, the November 24, 1914 patent for the double bar 1,118,240. This solved Sheaffer's original single bar concept (the 1908 patent that started it all for the Sheaffer lever) which relied upon the resiliency of the sac to hold the lever in place which lead to floppy lever.

 

On another note, David Holme and I are putting together a database of Boston's which will hopefully yield information as to some of the whys and how's of what Boston produced. I'd love to add additional pens to the list. We would like the following;

 

Model number (stamped on the end of the HR models), Nib info, material, length, cap dia., barrel dia, filler type, clip or ring data, any engraving, the impint data and any other significant attributes of the pen.

 

Thanks,

 

Roger W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without copies of the purchase contract, or the filings with the State of Mass. to prove the transfer of the corporation, we can only speculate. But, regarding the acquisition of Boston Fountain Company or the assets of Boston Fountain Pen Company, the devotees and scholars of the Moore Pen Company and some other entities in and around Boston, have mentioned that some of the assets of the Boston Fountain Pen Company were acquired by Moore at the time of the sale of whatever to Wahl. Now either Mr. Keeran (or someone else on behalf of Wahl) was brokering the items Wahl acquired and did not want or there was a combination of items being sold by Boston to more than one party. Boston had extended relationships with other Boston pen companies, so networking was very possible. For example it is commonly held that Boston Fountain Pen Company did not have metal overlay capacity and that they farmed their metal overlay on their hard rubber pens to outsiders maybe in Providence RI. In that thread it is also stated that after the Boston Fountain Pen Company sale, that the Moore pens from the same era were completely interchangeable with the Tempoints, leading one to believe that the machinery on which they were made were one and thee same. Wahl was not the kind of company to ingnore any type of infringement on their rights, so that they would tolerate this is incongruous at least. Meaning that they knew full well what Moore was doing and did not care or did not have the right to stop them. So I am not sure that we can say that Wahl bought Boston "lock stock and barrel" ( to requote David's gun reference)...maybe lock and barrel, but no stock (paper that is).

 

 

 

I have been a participant in many Acquisitions, Buy-outs and Mergers, too, and seldom is there anything as simple as stated in Mr. Keeran's famous letter going on surrounding such activity. He refers to the lawyers activity in the negotiation and sale process and I am sure there were many meetings about how and what was to be purchased. There is an old thread on this over on the Pen and Lion where Moore knowledgable people have said that heavy machine screw equipment that was used in the pattern making of the Boston Barrels and caps went directly to Moore. Are they right about that? Were the machines too heavy to ship economically? Who Knows.

See this old thread for more information.

 

Lion and Pen thread

 

 

But Wahl had a good set up of machining equipment and metal fabrication equipment at home with the Wahl Adding Machine company and the metal mechanical pencil capabilities on hand, so maybe they did not need some of the equipment when the purchase occurred.

 

Syd

Syd "the Wahlnut" Saperstein

Pensbury Manor

Vintage Wahl Eversharp Writing Instruments

Pensbury Manor

 

The WAHL-EVERSHARP Company

www.wahleversharp.com

New WAHL-EVERSHARP fountain and Roller-Ball pens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd;

 

That the heavy equipment stayed on the East Coast as Wahl likely didn't need it has been thought for a long time. The schemantics behind it are, of course, more difficult. I would think for Wahls $50,000 they essentially got everything, at least as far as tangibles, and then sold the heavy equipment to Moore. That Boston likely had a relationship with Moore is highly likely before the sale as in short order three Boston guys go to Moore including a few patents that George Brandt came up with.

 

As far as Moore infringing on Wahl IMHO Wahl wasn't prepared in any realistic way to buy Boston and doesn't seem to have even started pen production until late 1917. Moore did not, in any way, make pens identical to Tempoints - they made pens identical to Boston's and Wahl made pens identical to Boston's. That is perhaps why Wahl had no legal action to take against Moore, maybe they were missing some of the intellectual rights. It is unfortunate but, even with the greater financial info we have with Wahl it starts in 1918. Wahl is carrying $2 million in patents that year but, most of this must have been the adding machine division as this is sold in 1920 and patents drop to $71,662. So did they buy any patent rights from Boston? Who was Mabie Todd paying for the use of Eberstein's patents which were assigned to Charles Brandt?

 

Roger W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a quick look at the Brandt and Eberstein patents suggests that they were assigned to the Brandts, not to the Boston Pen Co. This stands in contrast to post-1917 patents, which were assigned to the Moore Pen Co. If the pre-1918 patents were held as the Brandts' personal property, any transfer to Wahl would have had to have been a separate transaction from the sale of Boston Pen. It would seem most likely that the Brandts retained their patents, while Wahl took over Boston's licenses to use those patents -- whose terms might or might not have involved payment of royalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further speculation:

I wonder if Wahl might not have thought the Boston purchase was a bit of a pig in a poke, at least at first. Here we have Keeran going off free-lance and getting an option to buy Boston. The owners do not want to sell, but the option gets exercised nonetheless. Since the option contract was a quickie job, it leaves out a bunch of stuff Wahl would have insisted upon, but under the circumstances, there's no renegotiating its terms -- it's take it or leave it, and after some futile efforts to better the deal, Wahl takes it. What's left out? A non-competition clause, and either transfer of or exclusive rights to the Brandts' patents. By all evidence, Keeran was a fine inventor but a poor businessman. I could easily imagine him thinking he had pulled off a huge coup in getting the option, discovering only later how much of the Boston Pen operation wasn't actually owned by the Boston Pen Company. Again, this is speculation, but I do think it fits the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David;

 

When I wrote about the patent rights I knew they were in Brandts name which was interesting to say the least. I think we are at least getting our hands around a make sense explaination of how the purchase went down. Anyone knew if there are any Brandts left that might know the story (David, anything there?)? Failing that, I agree that Wahl was ill prepared to buy Boston heck, they don't seem to really get there head in the pen game until 1923 when they drop the Tempoint name. For years when they did start making pens in late 1917 (why the delay?) they made Boston's with a Tempoint name - no innovation beyond some of the designs being different - I don't believe Boston had any Greek Key patterned pens for instance.

 

So Keeran thought he pulled of a coup but Wahl fired him later that year. That is a pretty clear message that Wahl thought he had screwed up royally - speculating a bit there. The only thing he had just contributed was the pen purchase which Wahl did very little with in 1917. I'd say Keeran was on the right track to make the purchase and had the vision that Wahl lacked but it did not serve him well as he didn't know what he bought. Did his firing coinside with Wahl figuring out that they were going to have to pay Brandt royalties for what they thought they had bought outright? Did the stink of this deal take months to roll out as Wahl figured out what they didn't own? Maybe that is why Keeran gets the sack.

 

So Wahl proceeds with the acquisition but, has to cut costs. They don't need the heavy machinery so they sell it to Moore. There has to be some form of negotiation with Brandt after the sale over the patent rights, wheather another purchase or paying royalties. Keeran's not a part of that so we don't have any information. So Mr. Roberts follows thru with the purchase maybe, buying a bit into Keerans dream at the sale, and then regretting deeply that he had. Wahl seems to have treated some folks very well and Keeran gives us the story that he was treated very badly. Based on the 1918 Wahl balance sheet $50,000 does not seem to be an amount that would really hurt but, if Wahl had picked up other unwanted expenses beyond the original deal all the blame would fall on Keeran and seems to have.

 

Roger W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 years later...

Sorry to revive a dead thread, but I'm really confused now. 

 

I'm doing research on another steel pen brand, Eugene Adcock. While searching city directories in Somerville, MA, where Adcock was located, I find, starting somewhere between 1920 and 1924 a listing under "Pen Mfrs" for a Boston Pen Co. located in the rear of 63 Gorham St. in Somerville. When I tried looking it up, I found this thread.

 

Did someone else pick up the name after Wahl bought it, completely unrelated to the original, or was it a part of Wahl's manufacturing but just still running under the old name?

 

It is still there in 1927 and lists Charles E. Brant as the treasurer, but by 1929 it is gone. 

 

Just curious. 

 

“When the historians of education do equal and exact justice to all who have contributed toward educational progress, they will devote several pages to those revolutionists who invented steel pens and blackboards.” V.T. Thayer, 1928

Check out my Steel Pen Blog

"No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the mistake is to do it solemnly."

-Montaigne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

As far as I know, the BOSTON FOUNTAIN PEN COMPANY name was not part of the WAHL Company purchase from Brandt. It took WAHL almost a year to turn their purchase into their TEMPOINT pens.  There's a big back-story to why that was but that's another matter related to employment issues of one Charles Keeran. 

Syd "the Wahlnut" Saperstein

Pensbury Manor

Vintage Wahl Eversharp Writing Instruments

Pensbury Manor

 

The WAHL-EVERSHARP Company

www.wahleversharp.com

New WAHL-EVERSHARP fountain and Roller-Ball pens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Most Contributions

    1. amberleadavis
      amberleadavis
      43844
    2. PAKMAN
      PAKMAN
      33494
    3. Ghost Plane
      Ghost Plane
      28220
    4. inkstainedruth
      inkstainedruth
      26624
    5. jar
      jar
      26101
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Comments

    • Shanghai Knife Dude
      I have the Sailor Naginata and some fancy blade nibs coming after 2022 by a number of new workshop from China.  With all my respect, IMHO, they are all (bleep) in doing chinese characters.  Go use a bush, or at least a bush pen. 
    • A Smug Dill
      It is the reason why I'm so keen on the idea of a personal library — of pens, nibs, inks, paper products, etc. — and spent so much money, as well as time and effort, to “build” it for myself (because I can't simply remember everything, especially as I'm getting older fast) and my wife, so that we can “know”; and, instead of just disposing of what displeased us, or even just not good enough to be “given the time of day” against competition from >500 other pens and >500 other inks for our at
    • adamselene
      Agreed.  And I think it’s good to be aware of this early on and think about at the point of buying rather than rationalizing a purchase..
    • A Smug Dill
      Alas, one cannot know “good” without some idea of “bad” against which to contrast; and, as one of my former bosses (back when I was in my twenties) used to say, “on the scale of good to bad…”, it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy. Whereas subjectively acceptable (or tolerable) and unacceptable may well be a dichotomy to someone, and finding whether the threshold or cusp between them lies takes experiencing many degrees of less-than-ideal, especially if the decision is somehow influenced by factors o
    • adamselene
      I got my first real fountain pen on my 60th birthday and many hundreds of pens later I’ve often thought of what I should’ve known in the beginning. I have many pens, the majority of which have some objectionable feature. If they are too delicate, or can’t be posted, or they are too precious to face losing , still they are users, but only in very limited environments..  I have a big disliking for pens that have the cap jump into the air and fly off. I object to Pens that dry out, or leave blobs o
  • Chatbox

    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More
  • Files






×
×
  • Create New...