Harry Truman Used An Esterbrook?

[kps]

Can anybody see the number on that nib?

A "White House" Esterbrook sold on eBay recently; it had a 2668.

[David V]

 

 

I seem to recall in the MP here some months ago, talk about Sadaam Hussein's pens and generally they were avoided like a hooker with a mouth full of cold sores. I certainly have no use for a pen from anyone infamous.

 

Now. Just a couple weeks ago, I DID bid on a Sheaffer Snorkie pen and pencil set personalized for "Dory Funk" (A pretty well know wrastler from the 60-70's) but was outbid by a sports memorobilia guy (and I didn't bid that much really). I wouldn't have done that except for the fact that Dory Funk actually runs a wrastlin' school here in town and I figured I'd clean the pens up and give them back to him.

 

Bruce in Ocala, FL

Yeah, it takes a certain kind of person to have a desire to collect artifacts of the infamous, like the people who collect Hitler's stuff, or Charles Manson's... That's a type of collection that tends to creep people out. "Here, let's examine my prized collection of brutal murder crime scene photos. Mwuhahahaha! Fetch my hatchet, Igor!" I think we tend to have more of the intellectual types who hang around here, hence infamy wouldn't tend to go so far. Then again, one man's infamy is another man's heroism (at least in some cases). William Bligh is a personal hero to me, but a lot of people for some reason want to believe Fletcher Christian was a hero.

Edited October 22, 2009 by David V

[Will Thorpe]

I didn't say that GSA had engraved pens in their catalog. I said that GSA had Esterbrook desk sets in their catalog, and yes that's the case.

[ZeissIkon]

I've got an old Welta Welti with a bellows lens similar to your Press Cameras, but it's a tiny 35mm and I think it needs service. I've never tried using it (never had the time to mess with it).

 

I've got a pre-War Balda Jubilette, same setup; it's barely bigger than the smallest ever full-frame, full-cartridge 35 mm, the Minox 35. The shutter and bellows in mine are good, the film advance needs cleaning (the frame spacing isn't perfect). With your Welti, if the shutter ticks over on the 1 second setting within 10% of correct speed, it's fine; if the film advance works and stops after advancing eight sprocket holes, it's good enough to test with film.

 

I'm surprised, though, that you don't list anything from your namesake.

You mean like the 1948 Super Ikonta B (film advance modified to give 12 frames instead of 11 on 120 film) that I carry to work every day? Or the Zeiss-Ikon (and Contessa) Ideal 9x12 cm plate cameras? I was trying to avoid thread jacking...

 

In the case of this picture, he should have focused on Truman's eyebrows, but the focal point looks to me like it's his right armpit, like the shooter got his focus when Truman was sitting in the chair prior to leaning forward to sign. Maybe they did an upright shot before the signature, and he forgot to adjust. First time shooting the president and he got nervous? (non photographers are probably getting really freaked out reading my photography jargon! )

 

Another high probability -- he was shooting while the President was working (that happened a lot with Truman, he wasn't much for posing for photographers) and as a result using his rangefinder, probably with the light attachment (merge the two spots of light, you're focused), which greatly eases focusing in a dimly lit interior -- and his RF was slightly misadjusted, possibly due to using a 135 mm lens with the RF set for a 150 mm (that'd give the correct direction and almost the right amount of error). And for a photo to be printed one column wide in a newspaper, the result was plenty good anyway (it would have wound up about 1/3 the width shown on my screen, and with a 72 dpi halftone, it would have been impossible to tell there was a focus error).\

 

Yeah, we're probably freaking the mundanes. I should point out that the last time I had my Graphic View set up, I used my shortest lens (105 mm Agnar) with maximum bellows extension to shoot a monster macro of a reground nib I'd recently finished; the image on the Polaroid print was around four times the size of the object. That kind of shot is far easier with a ground glass and movements than with the best macro setup on a digital or 35 mm camera; a little front tilt put the plane of focus parallel with the nib and made it look like much more depth of field than a mere f/32 can produce at that magnification.

[David V]

I've got an old Welta Welti with a bellows lens similar to your Press Cameras, but it's a tiny 35mm and I think it needs service. I've never tried using it (never had the time to mess with it).

 

I've got a pre-War Balda Jubilette, same setup; it's barely bigger than the smallest ever full-frame, full-cartridge 35 mm, the Minox 35. The shutter and bellows in mine are good, the film advance needs cleaning (the frame spacing isn't perfect). With your Welti, if the shutter ticks over on the 1 second setting within 10% of correct speed, it's fine; if the film advance works and stops after advancing eight sprocket holes, it's good enough to test with film.

 

I'm surprised, though, that you don't list anything from your namesake.

You mean like the 1948 Super Ikonta B (film advance modified to give 12 frames instead of 11 on 120 film) that I carry to work every day? Or the Zeiss-Ikon (and Contessa) Ideal 9x12 cm plate cameras? I was trying to avoid thread jacking...

 

In the case of this picture, he should have focused on Truman's eyebrows, but the focal point looks to me like it's his right armpit, like the shooter got his focus when Truman was sitting in the chair prior to leaning forward to sign. Maybe they did an upright shot before the signature, and he forgot to adjust. First time shooting the president and he got nervous? (non photographers are probably getting really freaked out reading my photography jargon! )

 

Another high probability -- he was shooting while the President was working (that happened a lot with Truman, he wasn't much for posing for photographers) and as a result using his rangefinder, probably with the light attachment (merge the two spots of light, you're focused), which greatly eases focusing in a dimly lit interior -- and his RF was slightly misadjusted, possibly due to using a 135 mm lens with the RF set for a 150 mm (that'd give the correct direction and almost the right amount of error). And for a photo to be printed one column wide in a newspaper, the result was plenty good anyway (it would have wound up about 1/3 the width shown on my screen, and with a 72 dpi halftone, it would have been impossible to tell there was a focus error).\

 

Yeah, we're probably freaking the mundanes. I should point out that the last time I had my Graphic View set up, I used my shortest lens (105 mm Agnar) with maximum bellows extension to shoot a monster macro of a reground nib I'd recently finished; the image on the Polaroid print was around four times the size of the object. That kind of shot is far easier with a ground glass and movements than with the best macro setup on a digital or 35 mm camera; a little front tilt put the plane of focus parallel with the nib and made it look like much more depth of field than a mere f/32 can produce at that magnification.

I went to pull out my Welti and look it over last night, and apparently I haven't dug it out of its box from when we moved, so I can't recall exactly how it is. I believe the bellows were in good shape, but it seemed like the winding was either stiff, or not moving. In any case, there's one that isn't as nice looking on ebay for about $200 and mine has its leather carrying case with threaded lock and I have an oddball flash unit that I don't recall the details of that mounts to the hole in the base of the camera. Now I've got my interest piqued again, I'll have to look for it.

 

But anyway, back to the conversation at hand...

[Brian Anderson]

That is a bill signer pen. They were embossed The White House and were used and given away when the president signed a bill. They probably bought them by the case. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson all used Esterbrook bill signers. Each presidents pen was embossed differently. When Johnson became president, he ordered all of the remaining Kennedy bill signers to be destroyed.

 

Bill signers were model X dip-less pens, not desk pens like the one shown in the picture. There was also a similar dip-less pen imprinted for US Senators, although that is far more uncommon in my experience.

 

 

The GSA catalog had a listing for Desk Esterbrook pens imprinted, The President, The White House?

 

I'd like to see a copy of that if that's the case.

 

doubt it.

 

 

As a New Yorker from Wisconsin, I'm morally bound to query if Wisconsin governors always used Parkers...

 

Tim

 

I have a Parker 51 for a Wisconsin State Senator WIlliam Draheim, and have seen others, so perhaps(?)

 

Best-

Brian