The Decline Of The Usa Fountain Pen Companies

[diplomat]

Hello everybody.

Yesterday I was thinking about a couple of evidences:

• 
   
  
• There are no American fountain pens with piston filling mechanism;
  
• In the long run, pre-war European pen makers were more successful in keeping building fountain pens throughout their history;
   
  

 

Ok, I understand that both sentences may be questionables. But I think that if I better specify what I mean, we can find a common ground on it.

 

• 
   
  
• Bexley do make some PF, but it's a recent company. Conklin made the Nozac. But the piston mechanism was different from the one used by European pen makers and it was not successful at all: it was discontinued after a few years and nobody tried to copy it. So if we stick to the old companies, and disregard the unsuccessful Nozac, my sentence is true;
  
• If we consider the historical American pen makers (Parker, Waterman, Sheaffer's, Wahl) I think we can pretty much agree they all of them went either broke or acquired by external stockholders. In addition to that they are no more considered the "best" in the market for fountain pens. True, the market is changed too. Somehow they (the American pen producers) missed the transition between being a big corporation serving the masses (but with a wide array of prices and offers) to being an high end, sofisticated writing instrument producers whose target is a niche people that select to write with a Fountain Pen as a precise choice, being that choice based on writing quality, personal statement, appreciation for the old times, etc...
  

 

What I would consider the heralds of the current fountain pens era are (limiting my choice once again to the historical producers): Montblanc, Pelikan, Aurora, Omas and possibly Pilot and Sailor. Those are the pens that have the higher prices on the market and seems to me are sold by the higher numbers.

Now, with the exception of the Japaneses that focus more in different areas (nibs, finishes) these are brands whose high end models all have a piston filling mechanism. Is this a coincidence?

 

Now, my consideration is a bit tecnical and forced but here it is and I'd like to submit it to your judgement:

Overlooking the piston filler mechanism in both the 50s (when the FP decline started due to the introduction of the ball point) and the 80s (when the FP market started to change again towards this "luxury" niche) contributed to the decline of the USA fountain pen industry.

Stepping from sac filling systems (althoug sophisticated as the snorkel) to the cartridges and especially sticking to cartridges even for high end models and even during the 80s turnignpoint (I am thinking to the Duofold, the Sonnet and the high end Sheaffer's like the Valor) helped to identify Parker and Sheaffer's with low value, disposable fountain pens, something that was losing both against the ball point and the high end German and Italian pen makers.

 

What do you think about this? I'd be interested in other members opinion.

 

Cheers,

[sumgaikid]

The piston-filler notwithstanding,the speed touted by new technology

also contributed to the decline of fountain pen companies here in America.

While such technology,like the computer,helped businesses communicate

faster with the rest of the world,the personalization of writing was

starting to go by the wayside. Slowly,but ever so surely,to the point

that taking the time to teach writing skills in school today is a lost

art. The key factor in learning to write cursively(no matter what method

is used)is that is that the writer creates a style that is personally

their own--one that they're comfortable with. Cursive writing marks us

as individuals,not robots.

 

 

It has to be remembered that the fountain pen was in its heyday(and

still is,BTW)a tool used for the purpose of communication. The primary

tools of business in the early-to-mid 20th century were the typewriter

...............and the fountain pen.

 

 

 

John

[sumgaikid]

In response to your question,I don't necessarily think that avoiding

the piston-filler contributed to the decline of the american fountain

pen industry. We used what worked at the time(button-filler,lever-filler,

vacumatic diaphragm,pneumatic-filler--i.e.,Chilton--). The piston-filler

was a european invention,born of simplicity. I think that's why it's

still in use,even in converters today.

 

 

John

[LouisA]

"Overlooking the piston filler mechanism in both the 50s contributed to the decline of the USA fountain pen industry."

 

IMHO this had nothing to do with it. Look at the Japanese fountain pen industry. How many have piston fill? They seem to be doing quite well. To me this devotion to piston fill is just elite snobbery.

[Vintagepens]

I don't believe the piston-filling system has anything to do with how the present situation developed. There is a correlation, that is, but not causality. Piston-fillers were peculiarly German, historically speaking, with the Italians adopting them to a degree in the immediate postwar era. And it happened to be the Germans, and Montblanc in particular, who took the lead in promoting expensive fountain pens as status symbols in the "Dark Ages" of the 1970s through the early 1990s. Montblanc vastly outspent everyone else in international advertising in this period, and the effort paid off handsomely.

 

From the present vantage point, it may not be clear how things stood back then. Most of the pen companies cited above alongside Montblanc were nowhere near as prominent internationally, and most didn't (and often, still don't) derive all that much of their overall income from the high end. Which poses a dilemma: how can one concentrate on the main, mass-market business, without reducing the cachet of the marque? And if the advertising pushes snob appeal, it risks damaging mass-market sales, by giving the impression that the company's products are unaffordable.

 

That was the dilemma faced by Parker and Sheaffer, and it had nothing to do with the piston-filling mechanism. Companies such as Montblanc had an easier choice; they were much smaller, and had a much smaller stake in the low end, so were free to push their high-end image. The Italian companies were yet smaller and more specialized. As is, the high-end Sheaffer and Parker products have consistently been just as good as anything else on the market; it's all about image, nothing more.

[jar]

To add to what David said, if we look at the current companies that are vying for the high end market we find a variety of filling systems. ST Dupont, Dunhill, Caran d'Arche, Yard-o-Lead, Cartier and the Japanese companies are mostly based on cartridge/converter filling systems while Conway Stewart uses everything from lever fill, button fill and a variety of C/C or captured converter fill systems.

 

In addition, companies like Parker, Waterman and Sheaffer were certainly capable of producing a piston filled pen.

 

The big issue I believe can be found in who purchased the different manufacturers. Montblanc happened to be purchased by a company devoted to producing high end items. Sheaffer, Parker and Waterman were purchased by companies the were oriented towards mass produced lower cost items.

 

The best products though from any of them stand proudly even today when compared head to head.

[eric47]

;

• If we consider the historical American pen makers (Parker, Waterman, Sheaffer's, Wahl) I think we can pretty much agree they all of them went either broke or acquired by external stockholders.

What I would consider the heralds of the current fountain pens era are (limiting my choice once again to the historical producers): Montblanc, Pelikan, Aurora, Omas and possibly Pilot and Sailor.

Following up a bit on jar's point that it matters who buys the company, here's a trivia question: which ones of those non-American companies aren't foreign owned and/or part of a large conglomerate?

 

(Side remark: I actually wouldn't include Omas on that list anymore, the disastrous (in my opinion) redesigns occurred during the LVMH period I'm pretty sure, and the new owners don't seem to be doing much better with their new designs.

Edited October 8, 2009 by eric47

[diplomat]

Great answers so far, thank you for a pleasant discussion.

I try to address some point directly, but the main thing is that I agree with David where he stated (sort of chicken/egg concept) that possibly the piston has been put on the map by the success of Montblanc and Pelikan rather than the other way round.

 

In response to your question,I don't necessarily think that avoiding the piston-filler contributed to the decline of the american fountain pen industry. We used what worked at the time(button-filler,lever-filler, vacumatic diaphragm,pneumatic-filler--i.e.,Chilton--).

 

Your point is valid for the first part of the century, but lacks the explanation on why they were not able to reinvent themself in the 80s/90s.

 

"Overlooking the piston filler mechanism in both the 50s contributed to the decline of the USA fountain pen industry."

 

IMHO this had nothing to do with it. Look at the Japanese fountain pen industry. How many have piston fill? They seem to be doing quite well. To me this devotion to piston fill is just elite snobbery.

 

This devotion to piston fill it is something that the market value, I am afraid. I am not debating if we do like piston fill or not. I am taking the evidence from the market that the high end brands and model are equipped with a piston fill mechanism for the majority of the cases.

The point on Japanese is well taken, in fact I tried to anticipate it on my topic if you look closely. The point is that high end Japanese pens sells well because of other qualities, noteworthy the nibs and the high end finishes like Urishi or Laquer. BUT we should note that the market savvy Japanese producers are - they too - changing their attitude and are introducing PF in their ranges. And this is a whole point in my direction.

 

I don't believe the piston-filling system has anything to do with how the present situation developed. There is a correlation, that is, but not causality. Piston-fillers were peculiarly German, historically speaking, with the Italians adopting them to a degree in the immediate postwar era. And it happened to be the Germans, and Montblanc in particular, who took the lead in promoting expensive fountain pens as status symbols in the "Dark Ages" of the 1970s through the early 1990s. Montblanc vastly outspent everyone else in international advertising in this period, and the effort paid off handsomely.

 

Yes, as already said, that's a good point. MB put the piston filler as the "hit" thing to have rather than become a "hit" because of the piston filler. Others followed (or in case of Pelikans, were already equipped for it) and made a good choice, positioning themself as high end FP producer. Still, Parker and Sheaffer's did chose to not follow.

 

From the present vantage point, it may not be clear how things stood back then. Most of the pen companies cited above alongside Montblanc were nowhere near as prominent internationally, and most didn't (and often, still don't) derive all that much of their overall income from the high end. Which poses a dilemma: how can one concentrate on the main, mass-market business, without reducing the cachet of the marque? And if the advertising pushes snob appeal, it risks damaging mass-market sales, by giving the impression that the company's products are unaffordable.

 

That was the dilemma faced by Parker and Sheaffer, and it had nothing to do with the piston-filling mechanism. Companies such as Montblanc had an easier choice; they were much smaller, and had a much smaller stake in the low end, so were free to push their high-end image. The Italian companies were yet smaller and more specialized. As is, the high-end Sheaffer and Parker products have consistently been just as good as anything else on the market; it's all about image, nothing more.

 

Good, another excellent point: at some extent Parker and Sheaffer's were disadvantaged (against MB, Omas and others) because they were covering a wider market share and did not want to lose either sides (the mass market and the high end market). But still, this is going somewhere in my direction: Parker and Sheaffer did take a decision to try to stick into both markets, possibly misjudging where the market itself was heading for (in the 80s/90s). And possibly this is something that NR wants to change by focusing Waterman on high end (dismissing Phileas) and Parker on mass market.

 

To add to what David said, if we look at the current companies that are vying for the high end market we find a variety of filling systems. ST Dupont, Dunhill, Caran d'Arche, Yard-o-Lead, Cartier and the Japanese companies are mostly based on cartridge/converter filling systems while Conway Stewart uses everything from lever fill, button fill and a variety of C/C or captured converter fill systems.

 

Ok, but I see them in a different niche than MB or Pelikan. When you think to a successful high end fountain pen you don't usually think to Dunhill or Dupont. They really are niche players in my opinion.

 

In addition, companies like Parker, Waterman and Sheaffer were certainly capable of producing a piston filled pen.

 

Of course nobody says this. The point here is not that they cannot doing it, is that they chose not to produce it.

 

The big issue I believe can be found in who purchased the different manufacturers. Montblanc happened to be purchased by a company devoted to producing high end items. Sheaffer, Parker and Waterman were purchased by companies the were oriented towards mass produced lower cost items.

 

The best products though from any of them stand proudly even today when compared head to head.

 

I think here David's more right: MB was purchased by LVHM because it was MB. Parker was purchased by Bic because it was Parker. Not the way round.

 

Following up a bit on jar's point that it matters who buys the company, here's a trivia question: which ones of those non-American companies aren't foreign owned and/or part of a large conglomerate?

 

You are absolutely right. That's why I added the requisite of "being successful in the high end range" to go with the one you mention.

 

(Side remark: I actually wouldn't include Omas on that list anymore, the disastrous (in my opinion) redesigns occurred during the LVMH period I'm pretty sure, and the new owners don't seem to be doing much better with their new designs.

 

Ok, that's debatable. Still I believe Omas is a good example of successful high end fountain pen producer from 80s to nowadays.

 

Ciao all and thanks for a nice discussion.

[Johnny Appleseed]

Let's raise another question - what percentage of Montblanc Pens are piston filler, vs the percentage that are cartridge/converter? For that matter, what percentage of Montblanc pens are fountain pens? And I mean percentage of sales, not models. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they sold more CC 146s than piston-filled 149s, and more ballpoints than either.

 

Another point to consider - Parker is the #2 status pen brand, behind Montblanc, in much of the world (and the 2nd most often pirated).

 

Japanese pens are about more than finish and nib-styles. In the extreme high end there is Maki-e and a few other specialty niche markets in the west, but most of the output of Pilot and Sailor is hardly Maki-e - the 1911 being a prime example. They have a lot of market and brand status in Japan, if not in western markets.

 

John

Edited October 8, 2009 by Johnny Appleseed

[gyasko]

I don't think it was the lack of a piston filler that killed the American pen companies. I think rather that the status of handwriting was lower in the US after WWII. Machine-produced writing (either typewritten or computer-processed) has been the standard. It was and is expected that a manuscript, a business letter, a term paper, or a job application be machine-produced. A pen is needed for the signature but nothing more; the pen has an ancillary role in the production of texts. As machines became smaller and more portable, the role of pens further diminished. Even students type on laptops in libraries and lecture halls.

 

I don't know about Europe, but until computers were able to handle Japanese characters adequately (not so long ago, really) handwriting was taken very seriously in Japan, and sloppy characters are still a mark against a job applicant. It is not surprising that fountain pens have held on longer there.

[heineda]

This response is not related to fountain pens, but to the point of manufacture. We do not make anything in the USA anymore. I have a friend that recently closed his mens clothing store, in part because he was comitted to selling clothing that was made in America. As of now, there is no clothing made in America. None. I think this is the problem with our economy and should be our presidents primary concern - not health care. We import all of our steel from China. If we went to war tomorrow with China we could not build a single weapon to fight with. America needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, including pen manufacturing.

 

Dan

[diplomat]

Let's raise another question - what percentage of Montblanc Pens are piston filler, vs the percentage that are cartridge/converter? For that matter, what percentage of Montblanc pens are fountain pens? And I mean percentage of sales, not models. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they sold more CC 146s than piston-filled 149s, and more ballpoints than either.

 

It's not a matter of sales, but more a matter of status. MB sells lots of 164 BP because the models like 149 set the status high on the brand. So models like the 149 are more important for MB that for the mere sales numbers, they drive up sales in other lines too. And, again, I am talking about the high end market of fountain pens, identifying this market as the most important market for fountain pens since the 80s.

 

Another point to consider - Parker is the #2 status pen brand, behind Montblanc, in much of the world (and the 2nd most often pirated).

 

That sound new to me honestly. In Europe I would put Parker behind the four producers I mentioned. Parker is more identified with Jotter and Reflex than the high end market. I'd put even Waterman higher on status. Possibly in USA is different because of the history of the brand, don't know. It seems to me that the recent history of Parker is one of struggles, cutting costs and lay offs. I'd be interested in other opinions too.

 

Japanese pens are about more than finish and nib-styles. In the extreme high end there is Maki-e and a few other specialty niche markets in the west, but most of the output of Pilot and Sailor is hardly Maki-e - the 1911 being a prime example. They have a lot of market and brand status in Japan, if not in western markets.

 

John

 

Of course you are right John. I agree that I was trying to do some simplification in order to clear my main point.

 

Andre

[diplomat]

I don't think it was the lack of a piston filler that killed the American pen companies. I think rather that the status of handwriting was lower in the US after WWII. Machine-produced writing (either typewritten or computer-processed) has been the standard. It was and is expected that a manuscript, a business letter, a term paper, or a job application be machine-produced. A pen is needed for the signature but nothing more; the pen has an ancillary role in the production of texts. As machines became smaller and more portable, the role of pens further diminished. Even students type on laptops in libraries and lecture halls.

 

I don't know about Europe, but until computers were able to handle Japanese characters adequately (not so long ago, really) handwriting was taken very seriously in Japan, and sloppy characters are still a mark against a job applicant. It is not surprising that fountain pens have held on longer there.

 

I don't see big differences in this (status of handwriting) between USA and Europe. But let's agree there was some difference in the past. And if it was (like maybe in France) that would have influenced more the school mass market rather than high end market.

So it is even more impressive that a producer like Pelikan, which has a pushing market in the school instruments, managed to create a high end range of pens highly sought in the world basically from scratch in the 80s.

[RLTodd]

I think it would be more accurate to put this as all of the American writing instrument manufacturing sites went broke (uneconomical). It was never a fountain pen issue.

[mstone]

I think you're missing the obvious. Parker and Sheaffer died because they were too big to survive given the size of the market they were selling to. Those two companies in the 1950s and 1960s were selling more fountain pens than the rest of the world's manufacturers combined. They had manufacturing in several countries and on multiple continents, they had sales, service, bureaucracy, pensions, etc., all sized for that volume. Then people stopped buying fountain pens. At that point the manufacturing facilities, sales structure, service department, bureaucracy, pensions, etc., all became liabilities. Montblanc was a little tiny company which could reinvent itself because it was small enough to do so.

 

This is a normal cycle for businesses--they grow until they're too big, then a smaller competitor takes their place and the cycle repeats. You're seeing that now with GM and you'll see it in a few years with Toyota. They only strange part in this is when people are surprised by large companies falling apart.

 

Their size is also, ironically, both the reason they're still around (it takes a long time for a dinosaur to die), and probably the reason that none of the smaller US pen companies survived (because there was just no room for them in their home market). Similarly, I wonder how much Parker Newhaven & Waterman France are responsible for the death of the smaller marks in those countries, versus the general decline of manufacturing there.

 

Also, like most questions, there are a lot of other factors at play, too many for there to be any one answer. E.g., mandatory fountain pen use in european schools has to have had some affect on that market, germany's dominance in exports is probably a factor, italy's positioning as a purveyor of fashion is a probably a factor, etc. Filling systems are probably not high on the list of factors.

[penrivers]

I dont see any declining, once a friend of mine who was top executive here in Chrysler de México, told me that the Americans were no more interested in manufacturing, you know, cars, cameras, pens etc, that the priority for them was informatic, softwares and avionics, that it was the core of power. I dont know. Maybe. Greetings from México.

[RLTodd]

I dont see any declining, once a friend of mine who was top executive here in Chrysler de México, told me that the Americans were no more interested in manufacturing, you know, cars, cameras, pens etc, that the priority for them was informatic, softwares and avionics, that it was the core of power. I dont know. Maybe. Greetings from México.

 

Yes. That is about right.

 

The great delusion went something like that. It was the evolution of the great "Knowledge Economy." When it was described as "clean and green" people should have seen the red flag. There is the other little thing about the arrogance of Americans thinking that they were smarter than certain other peoples and would be able to dominate, accrue wealth, and export from a "knowledge based economy."

[gross]

This response is not related to fountain pens, but to the point of manufacture. We do not make anything in the USA anymore. I have a friend that recently closed his mens clothing store, in part because he was comitted to selling clothing that was made in America. As of now, there is no clothing made in America. None. I think this is the problem with our economy and should be our presidents primary concern - not health care. We import all of our steel from China. If we went to war tomorrow with China we could not build a single weapon to fight with. America needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, including pen manufacturing.

 

Dan

 

I think Dan hit the nail on the head. Others have made similar statements. Would the production of an American fountain pen equiped with a piston filler have prevented what has happened to American pen manufacturers? No, because what happened here is exactly as Dan has stated it - it isn't about fountain pens at all.

[Johnny Appleseed]

I think you're missing the obvious. Parker and Sheaffer died because they were too big to survive given the size of the market they were selling to. Those two companies in the 1950s and 1960s were selling more fountain pens than the rest of the world's manufacturers combined. They had manufacturing in several countries and on multiple continents, they had sales, service, bureaucracy, pensions, etc., all sized for that volume. Then people stopped buying fountain pens. At that point the manufacturing facilities, sales structure, service department, bureaucracy, pensions, etc., all became liabilities. Montblanc was a little tiny company which could reinvent itself because it was small enough to do so.

 

The comments about the growth cycle of many different companies is well taken, but I think there is a major misunderstanding about companies like Parker and Sheaffer. When fountain pen use started to decline they did not sit back and shrink and say "I wonder what happened." They pumped out ballpoints by the gazillion, just like Bic. The Parker Jotter came out in 1955 and was a huge success. Sheaffer was a big player in ballpoints, felt-tips etc. They changed to adapt to market conditions.

 

The changes in ownership that occured with the companies was reflective of the changes happening to large corporations and the US businesses in general. As the founding family became less involved in the actual operation of the corporations, they sold their controlling interests and the companies were aquired by large multi-national holding companies. Multinationals changed the product lines to position them within the companies overall strategic goals (eg, Parker as a mid-line pen brand, Waterman as the top-line) Manufacturing turned to overseas sourcing, as it has for much of American industry. Manufacturing in Europe has, under different legal structures, currency, and economic environment, held on longer against the lure of cheap labor in China.

 

The companies that could not adapt to the shift away from fountain pens are no longer alive. Montblanc was unique, and ahead of it's time, in marketing fountain pens as a luxory item and focusing on a specific target audience, while Parker and Sheaffer also had large markets for other writing instruments to keep up.

 

What differentiated Montblanc, and some of the other companies listed above, is that they only sold to a high-end market. When Montblanc became a luxory pen brand, they stopped producing student-grade pens. While a $300 Sheaffer might be just as good as a $300 Montblanc, you can also get a cheap Sheaffer, but you can't get a cheap Montblanc.

 

 

Johnny Appleseed, on 08 October 2009 - 07:14 PM, said:

Another point to consider - Parker is the #2 status pen brand, behind Montblanc, in much of the world (and the 2nd most often pirated).

 

That sound new to me honestly. In Europe I would put Parker behind the four producers I mentioned. Parker is more identified with Jotter and Reflex than the high end market. I'd put even Waterman higher on status. Possibly in USA is different because of the history of the brand, don't know. It seems to me that the recent history of Parker is one of struggles, cutting costs and lay offs. I'd be interested in other opinions too.

 

I was actually thinking of Asian markets rather than the US. Go to any store in Asia, outside of Japan - the #1 status brand is Montblanc, #2 is Parker. That is one reason why there are so many counterfiet Sonnets out there, but much fewer counterfeit Pelikans (and of course, scads of counterfiet MB).

 

The layoffs et al of Parker's recent history have more to do with overseas sourcing than with brand status. That said, Newell-Rubbermaid is positioning Parker as a mid-line brand, with Waterman as their top-line, so they have lost ground as a top-line pen.

 

I think brand status order cited in the original post may be valid for a European market, but I don't think they are true for other markets. In Europe, at least continental Europe, I could see the piston filler having a certian advantage.

 

I would also like to see sales numbers before we conclude that companies like Pelikan have a stronger position than Parker or Waterman. Outside of pen specialty stores, I don't see a lot of Pelikans et. al. in the US.

 

John

[Johnny Appleseed]

Let's raise another question - what percentage of Montblanc Pens are piston filler, vs the percentage that are cartridge/converter? For that matter, what percentage of Montblanc pens are fountain pens? And I mean percentage of sales, not models. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they sold more CC 146s than piston-filled 149s, and more ballpoints than either.

 

It's not a matter of sales, but more a matter of status. MB sells lots of 164 BP because the models like 149 set the status high on the brand. So models like the 149 are more important for MB that for the mere sales numbers, they drive up sales in other lines too. And, again, I am talking about the high end market of fountain pens, identifying this market as the most important market for fountain pens since the 80s.

 

 

Again, I doubt that the success of the MB 149 was due to the fact that it was a piston-filler as much as that it was a big Montblanc. It was the advertising and brand creation that made the status. In continential Europe, the piston filler may have been an advantage, but I doubt it had much following outside of Europe prior to Montblanc - Chicken and egg again.

 

John