What's the significance of the white dot?

[21November]

I've started looking around at vintage Sheaffer pens lately and am puzzled by many references to the white dot.

 

Can anyone please explain the significance of the white dot?

 

Cheers.

[diplomat]

Welcome to the forum in the first place.

 

The White Dot was introduced around 1924 to symbolize the "Lifetime" concept. In the following years that started a "lifetime warranty" craze that caught all the main competitors. After the war the USA law ruled against the use of lifetime warranties. Parker dropped the Blue Diamond (his own symbol for the lifetime warranty) but Sheaffer transformed the white dot in a sign to represent his "high end" lines.

 

So basically a White Dot Sheaffer is a product that is placed into the high end of the Sheaffer range.

 

Ciao,

[Koyote]

Welcome to the forum in the first place.

 

The White Dot was introduced around 1924 to symbolize the "Lifetime" concept. In the following years that started a "lifetime warranty" craze that caught all the main competitors. After the war the USA law ruled against the use of lifetime warranties. Parker dropped the Blue Diamond (his own symbol for the lifetime warranty) but Sheaffer transformed the white dot in a sign to represent his "high end" lines.

 

So basically a White Dot Sheaffer is a product that is placed into the high end of the Sheaffer range.

 

Ciao,

 

Really? Then why do I have many made-in-USA items (including Sheaffer pens) made since WWII that have lifetime warranties? Was there a loophole in the law?

[ruud2904]

Here you will find an interesting article about the white dot.

 

Ruud

[Ray-Vigo]

Welcome to the forum in the first place.

 

The White Dot was introduced around 1924 to symbolize the "Lifetime" concept. In the following years that started a "lifetime warranty" craze that caught all the main competitors. After the war the USA law ruled against the use of lifetime warranties. Parker dropped the Blue Diamond (his own symbol for the lifetime warranty) but Sheaffer transformed the white dot in a sign to represent his "high end" lines.

 

So basically a White Dot Sheaffer is a product that is placed into the high end of the Sheaffer range.

 

Ciao,

 

Really? Then why do I have many made-in-USA items (including Sheaffer pens) made since WWII that have lifetime warranties? Was there a loophole in the law?

 

In general, the modern "lifetime" warranty is somewhat more limited than the old in its promises. US consumer protection law became more protective of consumers in the sense that it was aiming to prevent overly ambitious, misleading claims by producers.

 

So yes, you can make a "lifetime warranty" today, but it's usually in the form of a "limited lifetime warranty".

Edited January 7, 2010 by Ray-Vigo

[framebaer]

Here you will find an interesting article about the white dot.

 

Ruud

 

YES but that is somewhat outdated as it only goes up to Imperials and UNFORTUNATELY Sheaffer saw fit to put White Dots on very low end pens near the end!

[davefoe]

Sheaffer is now putting White Dots on everything. Not sure it's a good idea, but there isn't much of a low-priced line anymore anyway.

[Koyote]

Welcome to the forum in the first place.

 

The White Dot was introduced around 1924 to symbolize the "Lifetime" concept. In the following years that started a "lifetime warranty" craze that caught all the main competitors. After the war the USA law ruled against the use of lifetime warranties. Parker dropped the Blue Diamond (his own symbol for the lifetime warranty) but Sheaffer transformed the white dot in a sign to represent his "high end" lines.

 

So basically a White Dot Sheaffer is a product that is placed into the high end of the Sheaffer range.

 

Ciao,

 

Really? Then why do I have many made-in-USA items (including Sheaffer pens) made since WWII that have lifetime warranties? Was there a loophole in the law?

 

In general, the modern "lifetime" warranty is somewhat more limited than the old in its promises. US consumer protection law became more protective of consumers in the sense that it was aiming to prevent overly ambitious, misleading claims by producers.

 

So yes, you can make a "lifetime warranty" today, but it's usually in the form of a "limited lifetime warranty".

 

Okay, I understand. I will say, though, that Sheaffer (and also Parker) have been extremely generous (with me) in honoring those lifetime warranties.

[Johnny Appleseed]

After the war the USA law ruled against the use of lifetime warranties. Parker dropped the Blue Diamond (his own symbol for the lifetime warranty) but Sheaffer transformed the white dot in a sign to represent his "high end" lines.

Daniel Kirchheimer has two articles in past issues of the Pennant that address the Lifetime Warranty issue. The US law did not rule against lifetime warranties, but provided significant restrictions on how it could be used.

 

To put it in a nutshell - all of the big-4 pen companies offered lifetime guarantees on certain of their pens by the 1940s. However, when they repaired pens under the lifetime guarantees, they all charged a fee of about $.35 for "Postage, handling and insurance." In 1945 the Federal Trade Commission ruled that the companies could not advertise their pens as having a lifetime guarantee unless they provided repair service without charging any postage or handling fee. Parker appealed and the 7th Circuit modified the ruling in late 1946 so that a lifetime guarantee could be advertised, but only if the handling charge was described prominently near the words "lifetime guarantee" and in similar sized type as the rest of the ad copy, rather than in small print. Parker responded by dropping their "Blue Diamond" lifetime guarantee in 1948, and Sheaffer turned the white-dot in to a "Mark of Distinction" sometime after the ruling.

 

I don't have Daniel's article in front of me, but I seem to recall that he showed that the 35 cent charge actually covered most of Sheaffer's costs to repair pens under the lifetime guarantee - so it was truly not just a postage charge but a charge to repair the pen.

 

John

[Ray-Vigo]

I'll also point out that what John said reached into many areas besides only pens. Modern warranty law as seen in new state laws and the UCC arose in response to some of the old problems exemplified by the pen makers' practices. Sheaffer's practice was, for the time, not entirely unique in the sense that the warranty often could be used to mislead.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Ray-Vigo

[ruud2904]

Here you will find an interesting article about the white dot.

 

Ruud

 

YES but that is somewhat outdated as it only goes up to Imperials and UNFORTUNATELY Sheaffer saw fit to put White Dots on very low end pens near the end!

 

Absolutely, but the question was raised by 21november in relation to vintage fountain pens

[kirchh]

I've started looking around at vintage Sheaffer pens lately and am puzzled by many references to the white dot.

 

Can anyone please explain the significance of the white dot?

The White Dot was Sheaffer's symbol indicating a Lifetime Pen, which initially meant a pen with a nib (only) guaranteed for life. The guarantee broadened, shrank, was dropped almost completely, and reappeared in more limited form, though along the way the symbol itself continued first as a sign of Sheaffer's better items, and subsequently became the company's logo.

 

After the war the USA law ruled against the use of lifetime warranties.

The FTC did not rule against the use of lifetime warranties. They ruled against warranties -- of any duration -- that had an associated service charge for repairs. Even in that regard, the courts later reversed the FTC's ruling as a result of Parker's appeal. Neither the FTC nor the courts made any negative judgment regarding lifetime warranties per se.

 

Then why do I have many made-in-USA items (including Sheaffer pens) made since WWII that have lifetime warranties? Was there a loophole in the law?

Sheaffer continued to employ the White Dot as an indicator of its better instruments after it no longer symbolized a lifetime guaranty, though note that they did not drop the guarantee entirely; it was still offered with the solid gold pens and was in full compliance with the law.

 

In general, the modern "lifetime" warranty is somewhat more limited than the old in its promises. US consumer protection law became more protective of consumers in the sense that it was aiming to prevent overly ambitious, misleading claims by producers.

 

So yes, you can make a "lifetime warranty" today, but it's usually in the form of a "limited lifetime warranty".

There is a persistent myth that the penmakers' lifetime guarantees were struck down because they were "overly ambitious" in their coverage and duration, and that no products today can legally carry such long or comprehensive guarantees. This is not so. The only reason for the FTC's action was the imposition of a fee for warranty service. As noted, Sheaffer continued to offer a Lifetime pen in its line (the Snorkel Masterpiece) after the FTC's action and the subsequent court rulings, and today many products carry lifetime guarantees with equally generous terms; break a Sears Craftsman screwdriver -- made yesterday, ten years ago, or before the Sheaffer Balance came out -- and you will walk out of a Sears store with a brand new one for no charge.

 

I've never seen any actual evidence that the case of fountain pens' lifetime guarantees had any tightening effect on US warranty law.

 

After the war the USA law ruled against the use of lifetime warranties. Parker dropped the Blue Diamond (his own symbol for the lifetime warranty) but Sheaffer transformed the white dot in a sign to represent his "high end" lines.

Daniel Kirchheimer has two articles in past issues of the Pennant that address the Lifetime Warranty issue. The US law did not rule against lifetime warranties, but provided significant restrictions on how it could be used.

 

To put it in a nutshell - all of the big-4 pen companies offered lifetime guarantees on certain of their pens by the 1940s. However, when they repaired pens under the lifetime guarantees, they all charged a fee of about $.35 for "Postage, handling and insurance." In 1945 the Federal Trade Commission ruled that the companies could not advertise their pens as having a lifetime guarantee unless they provided repair service without charging any postage or handling fee. Parker appealed and the 7th Circuit modified the ruling in late 1946 so that a lifetime guarantee could be advertised, but only if the handling charge was described prominently near the words "lifetime guarantee" and in similar sized type as the rest of the ad copy, rather than in small print. Parker responded by dropping their "Blue Diamond" lifetime guarantee in 1948, and Sheaffer turned the white-dot in to a "Mark of Distinction" sometime after the ruling.

 

I don't have Daniel's article in front of me, but I seem to recall that he showed that the 35 cent charge actually covered most of Sheaffer's costs to repair pens under the lifetime guarantee - so it was truly not just a postage charge but a charge to repair the pen.

Thank you -- a well-stated and accurate synopsis. I will again note that the duration of the warranty was never at issue in the FTC's rulings nor in the subsequent court cases; the FTC was explicitly objecting to the imposition of a service charge for a warranty repair. If the warranty were one year -- or one month -- the same principles would have applied.

 

By 1941, 65% of the internal cost of a Lifetime warranty repair was being covered by the customer's $0.35, so the dropping of that fee would have effectively tripled Sheaffer's cost of servicing pens under the policy.

 

I'll also point out that what John said reached into many areas besides only pens. Modern warranty law as seen in new state laws and the UCC arose in response to some of the old problems exemplified by the pen makers' practices. Sheaffer's practice was, for the time, not entirely unique in the sense that the warranty often could be used to mislead.

I would be interested in seeing specifics as to which state laws and parts of the UCC were drafted because of problems with penmakers' lifetime guarantees.

 

Here are links to two articles (one in two parts) that may prove helpful:

 

But I Was Just Getting Used to the Top of the Cap...

 

Myths of a Lifetime, Part 1

 

Myths of a Lifetime, Part 2

 

--Daniel

[diplomat]

After the war the USA law ruled against the use of lifetime warranties. Parker dropped the Blue Diamond (his own symbol for the lifetime warranty) but Sheaffer transformed the white dot in a sign to represent his "high end" lines.

Daniel Kirchheimer has two articles in past issues of the Pennant that address the Lifetime Warranty issue. The US law did not rule against lifetime warranties, but provided significant restrictions on how it could be used.

 

To put it in a nutshell - all of the big-4 pen companies offered lifetime guarantees on certain of their pens by the 1940s. However, when they repaired pens under the lifetime guarantees, they all charged a fee of about $.35 for "Postage, handling and insurance." In 1945 the Federal Trade Commission ruled that the companies could not advertise their pens as having a lifetime guarantee unless they provided repair service without charging any postage or handling fee. Parker appealed and the 7th Circuit modified the ruling in late 1946 so that a lifetime guarantee could be advertised, but only if the handling charge was described prominently near the words "lifetime guarantee" and in similar sized type as the rest of the ad copy, rather than in small print. Parker responded by dropping their "Blue Diamond" lifetime guarantee in 1948, and Sheaffer turned the white-dot in to a "Mark of Distinction" sometime after the ruling.

 

I don't have Daniel's article in front of me, but I seem to recall that he showed that the 35 cent charge actually covered most of Sheaffer's costs to repair pens under the lifetime guarantee - so it was truly not just a postage charge but a charge to repair the pen.

 

John

 

 

Thank you John for clarifying, I didn't know that.

That's pretty interesting.

 

Andre

[Johnny Appleseed]

Thank you -- a well-stated and accurate synopsis.

 

You are welcome - and thank you for the kind words (I try not to mangle the research too much).

 

I'll also point out that what John said reached into many areas besides only pens. Modern warranty law as seen in new state laws and the UCC arose in response to some of the old problems exemplified by the pen makers' practices. Sheaffer's practice was, for the time, not entirely unique in the sense that the warranty often could be used to mislead.

I would be interested in seeing specifics as to which state laws and parts of the UCC were drafted because of problems with penmakers' lifetime guarantees.

 

 

Daniel

 

Read Ray's statement again. He is not claiming that state laws and the UCC were drafted because of problems with the penmakers lifetime guarantees; rather that the penmakers lifetime guarantee issues are an example of a broader issue with deceptive warranties, which the law is responding to (note use of ". . .old problems exemplified by. . ."). In other words, the actions against Sheaffer et.al. were part of a broader legal response to deceptive warranties, and neither Sheaffers action nor the FTC response were isolated.

 

(Of course, a reference to the history of the evolution of warranty law might be a nice for those of us wishing to delve a little deeper into the subject.)

 

This brings up one of the interesting challenges to those of us who meddle about in pen history (and I am not specifically referring to Daniel here, but to pen research in general) - none of what happens in the pen industry happens in isolation. While we often focus on the importance of specific documentary evidence for a particular company or case, we sometimes miss the broader social, political and industrial context. That is one of my interests right now - looking beyond the specifics of particular pen companies for the moment to try to understand more of the broader industrial context - eg. the distribution networks and freight practices were in the first part of the 20th century. Why, for example, did William Welty, in Waterloo Iowa, source metal stampings from a novelty company in central Pennsylvania? And in the legal sphere - how was the FTCs actions targeting fictitous pricing and deceptive labelling in regard to gold content with fountain pens part of the FTCs broader goal of addressing fair trade practices?

 

John

Edited January 7, 2010 by Johnny Appleseed

[diplomat]

Here are links to two articles (one in two parts) that may prove helpful:

 

But I Was Just Getting Used to the Top of the Cap...

 

Myths of a Lifetime, Part 1

 

Myths of a Lifetime, Part 2

 

--Daniel

 

Wow Daniel thank you for sharing them. I'll print them and read with care.

 

Cheers,

[21November]

Here are links to two articles (one in two parts) that may prove helpful:

 

But I Was Just Getting Used to the Top of the Cap...

 

Myths of a Lifetime, Part 1

 

Myths of a Lifetime, Part 2

 

--Daniel

 

Wow Daniel thank you for sharing them. I'll print them and read with care.

 

Cheers,

 

Thank you for the welcome and the wealth of information...pretty amazing! It'll take some time to digest of all this.

 

I thought the dot was applied to higher end, earlier pens, and now I can understand why a cheaper later model stylist I have acquired, is wearing one.

 

Thanks to all again. Cheers Paul.

[Ray-Vigo]

Thank you -- a well-stated and accurate synopsis.

 

You are welcome - and thank you for the kind words (I try not to mangle the research too much).

 

I'll also point out that what John said reached into many areas besides only pens. Modern warranty law as seen in new state laws and the UCC arose in response to some of the old problems exemplified by the pen makers' practices. Sheaffer's practice was, for the time, not entirely unique in the sense that the warranty often could be used to mislead.

I would be interested in seeing specifics as to which state laws and parts of the UCC were drafted because of problems with penmakers' lifetime guarantees.

 

 

Daniel

 

Read Ray's statement again. He is not claiming that state laws and the UCC were drafted because of problems with the penmakers lifetime guarantees; rather that the penmakers lifetime guarantee issues are an example of a broader issue with deceptive warranties, which the law is responding to (note use of ". . .old problems exemplified by. . ."). In other words, the actions against Sheaffer et.al. were part of a broader legal response to deceptive warranties, and neither Sheaffers action nor the FTC response were isolated.

 

(Of course, a reference to the history of the evolution of warranty law might be a nice for those of us wishing to delve a little deeper into the subject.)

 

This brings up one of the interesting challenges to those of us who meddle about in pen history (and I am not specifically referring to Daniel here, but to pen research in general) - none of what happens in the pen industry happens in isolation. While we often focus on the importance of specific documentary evidence for a particular company or case, we sometimes miss the broader social, political and industrial context. That is one of my interests right now - looking beyond the specifics of particular pen companies for the moment to try to understand more of the broader industrial context - eg. the distribution networks and freight practices were in the first part of the 20th century. Why, for example, did William Welty, in Waterloo Iowa, source metal stampings from a novelty company in central Pennsylvania? And in the legal sphere - how was the FTCs actions targeting fictitous pricing and deceptive labelling in regard to gold content with fountain pens part of the FTCs broader goal of addressing fair trade practices?

 

John

 

 

Exactly, John-- I'm not saying changes in the law came in specific to Sheaffer or any other pen maker, but rather that what the pen makers like Sheaffer were doing was not uncommon for the period. Warranties of that era were somewhat notoriously unreliable on the whole because of abusive practices. This broader abuse gave rise to new laws and parts of the UCC.

 

As for "overly ambitious"-- I stand by that statement. The warranty was overly ambitious in the sense that it overstated what the consumer was really getting. The consumer was ostensibly covered by a warranty, but in fact was being being charged under the table. The essence of a warranty is protective coverage, that is a shifting of risk and liability. If you're being charged under the table, then there really isn't any shift.

 

As for Craftsman-- that sort of warranty is the exception rather than the rule. And in some practices I honestly think the old "under the table charge" method is still at work, regardless of the law. In some businesses you have a "give and take scheme". This is where you bring in a product for work under warranty, and then the business bears the cost of the repair. But at the same time they find 3 other problems with your good and tell you they need fixing and are not covered under the warranty. They get people to buy those extra repairs out of fear and make back what they spent on the warranty repair and then some.

 

I think John hits the nail on the head when he reminds us all that the pen game is always a small segment of a broader economy.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Ray-Vigo

[kirchh]

Thank you -- a well-stated and accurate synopsis.

 

You are welcome - and thank you for the kind words (I try not to mangle the research too much).

 

I'll also point out that what John said reached into many areas besides only pens. Modern warranty law as seen in new state laws and the UCC arose in response to some of the old problems exemplified by the pen makers' practices. Sheaffer's practice was, for the time, not entirely unique in the sense that the warranty often could be used to mislead.

I would be interested in seeing specifics as to which state laws and parts of the UCC were drafted because of problems with penmakers' lifetime guarantees.

 

 

Daniel

 

Read Ray's statement again. He is not claiming that state laws and the UCC were drafted because of problems with the penmakers lifetime guarantees; rather that the penmakers lifetime guarantee issues are an example of a broader issue with deceptive warranties, which the law is responding to (note use of ". . .old problems exemplified by. . ."). In other words, the actions against Sheaffer et.al. were part of a broader legal response to deceptive warranties, and neither Sheaffers action nor the FTC response were isolated.

 

(Of course, a reference to the history of the evolution of warranty law might be a nice for those of us wishing to delve a little deeper into the subject.)

 

This brings up one of the interesting challenges to those of us who meddle about in pen history (and I am not specifically referring to Daniel here, but to pen research in general) - none of what happens in the pen industry happens in isolation. While we often focus on the importance of specific documentary evidence for a particular company or case, we sometimes miss the broader social, political and industrial context. That is one of my interests right now - looking beyond the specifics of particular pen companies for the moment to try to understand more of the broader industrial context - eg. the distribution networks and freight practices were in the first part of the 20th century. Why, for example, did William Welty, in Waterloo Iowa, source metal stampings from a novelty company in central Pennsylvania? And in the legal sphere - how was the FTCs actions targeting fictitous pricing and deceptive labelling in regard to gold content with fountain pens part of the FTCs broader goal of addressing fair trade practices?

 

John

 

 

Exactly, John-- I'm not saying changes in the law came in specific to Sheaffer or any other pen maker, but rather that what the pen makers like Sheaffer were doing was not uncommon for the period. Warranties of that era were somewhat notoriously unreliable on the whole because of abusive practices. This broader abuse gave rise to new laws and parts of the UCC.

 

As for "overly ambitious"-- I stand by that statement. The warranty was overly ambitious in the sense that it overstated what the consumer was really getting. The consumer was ostensibly covered by a warranty, but in fact was being being charged under the table. The essence of a warranty is protective coverage, that is a shifting of risk and liability. If you're being charged under the table, then there really isn't any shift.

 

As for Craftsman-- that sort of warranty is the exception rather than the rule. And in some practices I honestly think the old "under the table charge" method is still at work, regardless of the law. In some businesses you have a "give and take scheme". This is where you bring in a product for work under warranty, and then the business bears the cost of the repair. But at the same time they find 3 other problems with your good and tell you they need fixing and are not covered under the warranty. They get people to buy those extra repairs out of fear and make back what they spent on the warranty repair and then some.

 

I think John hits the nail on the head when he reminds us all that the pen game is always a small segment of a broader economy.

You say, "what the pen makers like Sheaffer were doing was not uncommon for the period. Warranties of that era were somewhat notoriously unreliable on the whole because of abusive practices." But Sheaffer's policy was not "notoriously unreliable" nor "abusive", and thus their policy could not be representative of practices that had those characteristics and that thus may have spurred the creation of new regulations. The FTC made no claim that the penmakers failed to back up their guarantee with actual service, nor even that the crux of their complaint was that the service charge explanation was in small type: their core complaint was that the existence of the service charge, whether prominently displayed or not, invalidated the concept of a guarantee, and the 7th Circuit soundly rejected that core position. To this day, warranties may have associated service charges. What other companies were doing with regard to unsuppportable or deceptive warranties may indeed have led to new laws and parts of the UCC, but I still have seen no evidence that the penmakers' lifetime warranties fall into that category and thus exemplify it.

 

Knowingly overstating what the purchaser would receive would not be "overly ambitious"; it would be deceptive. "Ambition" has nothing to do with it. Now, if Sheaffer promised lifetime service, but it was simply impossible to actually deliver that service, that would be overly ambitious on the part of Sheaffer, but that claim was not at issue.

 

Note also that the consumer was not being charged "under the table". "Under the table" refers to an exchange between consenting parties but away from the eyes of the authorities, as when a worker is paid in cash so as to avoid withholding taxes.

 

There is no overstating of what the consumer is really getting. The service charge is explained in every single piece of Sheaffer advertising that mentions the Lifetime guarantee, and even the FTC makes no claim to the contrary. In fact, in the end, the penmakers could have continued to offer their warranties without any alteration in their terms, with merely a slight change in font size and wording in their ads.

 

Despite the extensive documentation included in the FTC's ruling and associated background materials, they make not a single claim of an actual customer filing a complaint with them alleging a deceptive practice on the part of any of the penmakers, despite the number of manufacturers involved and the fact that these guarantees had been offered for over a decade, meaning millions of pens were sold with, and had been serviced under, these guarantees. Indeed, these were top-line producers who had no interest whatsoever in alienating their customers with shady practices -- and there is no evidence that they did so.

 

The penmakers were actually quite the opposite of the unscrupulous manufacturers who would knowingly tout unsupportable and deceptive claims about their products' guarantees, knowing that by the time it came to answer for their deceptions, they would have changed company names or locations or product lines. It was this lower tier of companies that were the greatest abusers of consumers because they had the least to offer and they were most desperate to compete in the short term. Sheaffer honored their guarantee faithfully, with no add-on charges, no bait-and-switch, no secret exclusions, no disappearing service departments. Consumers looking for a pen needed protection most from the least of the makers.

 

Your assertion that if there is a service charge for warranty work it's not really a warranty was explicitly rejected by the 7th Circuit court, which called such a position "over-meticulous" and reaffirmed that there was indeed a warranty provided. Today, some products carry warranties of far shorter duration that carry an associated service charge, and they are permissible.

 

The fact that the Sears Craftsman lifetime guarantee is not the rule for the market in general is irrelevant; no claim was made to the contrary. The point is that such long-duration unlimited warranties are not only legally permissible, they are actually in existence. The penmakers' lifetime guarantees were also the exception, not the rule, in the consumer products market overall. The example of the Craftsman unlimited lifetime guarantee was made to refute your claim that "the modern 'lifetime' warranty is somewhat more limited than the old in its promises." In fact, the Craftsman guarantee is even more generous than was Sheaffer's.

 

There is some reason to believe that the FTC's actions regarding the penmakers was due not to pressure from consumers who felt deceived (witness the absence of purchaser complaints in the FTC's ruling), but rather from other penmakers who did not offer such coverage on their own products and who saw an opportunity to strike at the Big Four. Indeed, the FTC's papers make repeated mention of the fact that other penmakers do not try to gain an unfair competitive advantage by offering such guarantees that were not really guarantees as the FTC alleged the Big Four were doing -- and as the 7th Circuit said they were not.

 

At the time of the FTC's actions against the penmakers, there may have been a rising tide of deceptive warranty practices and unsupported extravagant warranties in the consumer products marketplace. There may, as a result, have been changes to state laws and the UCC. But the warranties of the penmakers were never -- not even initially -- claimed to be extravagant or unsupportable, and they were ultimately deemed permissible, and similar policies exist today. Tempting though it might be, a close examination of the facts shows that trying to hold them up as exemplifying the bad practices that lead to new regulations to protect consumers is pounding a square peg into a round hole, though there seems little hope of stopping the pounding.

 

--Daniel

[Bo Bo Olson]

The Parker Arrow and the Shafer White Dot were the only two marks I can remember from the 50's-60's as the Mark of a Great Pen. IMO thinking back at it, the White Dot won the match.

[keithslater]

I purchased a inexpensive Sheaffer Sentinel ball point for $6 at Office Depot. Even that had a white dot.